In our current economic system, there is a clear distinction between business and private property. You have to register a business with the government and you pay different taxes on your business. Also, a business generates revenue and can employ other people.
Registered business=private property
Private house that generates no income because you don’t rent it=personal property.
Maybe in your economic system, here in sweden my house is a registred business because it has 4 hectares of swamp land, my neighbours house is registred business because it has 10 hectares of woods (enskild firma, gårdsfastighet and skogsfastighet respectively). Another person in the village got an AB (aktiebolag, registred stock business) which he uses for his one person welding business.
There is a possibility to make revenue, I "just "need to cut down the vegetation and dike around everything plus preparing the clay soil so I can grow things. In that way Im like a capitalist with unrealized profits bound in my land. The ROI would be measured in decades at best but there is potential.
My neighbours land is too small to get value of a harvester but if he didnt value his time he would profit by harvesting the trees and replant, or remake the land into fields for food.
All Im saying is that there will always be problems by letting someone (either person or entity) decide what is private vs personal property. Id rather that all land in the village become communal, and being used by someone who actually work the land. The centralization inherent in communism is problematic since the local village community risk the land becoming state property with relocation as only option
In our current economic system, there is a clear distinction between business and private property. You have to register a business with the government and you pay different taxes on your business. Also, a business generates revenue and can employ other people.
Registered business=private property Private house that generates no income because you don’t rent it=personal property.
Maybe in your economic system, here in sweden my house is a registred business because it has 4 hectares of swamp land, my neighbours house is registred business because it has 10 hectares of woods (enskild firma, gårdsfastighet and skogsfastighet respectively). Another person in the village got an AB (aktiebolag, registred stock business) which he uses for his one person welding business.
If you make revenue from your house, it is a business.
There is a possibility to make revenue, I "just "need to cut down the vegetation and dike around everything plus preparing the clay soil so I can grow things. In that way Im like a capitalist with unrealized profits bound in my land. The ROI would be measured in decades at best but there is potential.
My neighbours land is too small to get value of a harvester but if he didnt value his time he would profit by harvesting the trees and replant, or remake the land into fields for food.
All Im saying is that there will always be problems by letting someone (either person or entity) decide what is private vs personal property. Id rather that all land in the village become communal, and being used by someone who actually work the land. The centralization inherent in communism is problematic since the local village community risk the land becoming state property with relocation as only option