If you wanted to sell your home to someone else so they could live in it, that seems to me like the transfer of personal property from one person to another, probably in return for some other personal property (another house maybe, you still need somewhere to live).
Whether an actual communist society would organise housing like this isn't clear. No-one would reasonably consider Marx's writings to offer a societal blueprint, just principles from which actual details would be worked out through collective processes.
That it's never actually worked out like that suggests there's been something missing when this has been tried, but this doesn't correspond to proof that the principles themselves are wrong.
Well if you are just making something for someone else, that's artisan labour, which isn't really the 'production' that's being analysed by Marx.
'Working for someone else' as found in 'employment' is also something that marxists seek to abolish. Collective ownership of the means of production also means collective ownership of the product of labour. You only have 'employment' per se when ownership of capital is concentrated in private hands.
(It's not for nothing that many marxists classify the former soviet union and post-Mao china as 'state capitalist' rather than 'socialist').
The difference is not intent but use. This is the same with real estate: if I own a building to live in it, that's personal property, but if I own a building to rent it out or run a business in it then it becomes private property.
> [Marx] thought we should abolish private property. People should not be allowed to own things. At certain moments one can sympathise. But it's like wanting to ban gossip or forbid watching television. It's going to war with human behaviour.
A common misconception is that 'private property' here is to be equated with 'personal property'. Marx and marxists do not believe that personal property should be abolished, or indeed that it makes sense to try and do so.
Generally speaking, the private property that Marx advocated abolishing was private ownership of land and the 'means of production', the latter being a category akin to 'fixed assets'.
Indeed. Note that the reason systemd wins is that Colin voted systemd ahead of further discussion, now defeating it with at least 5 votes from the 8. And then in the subsequent voting stage systemd has at least 4 votes + the chair's casting vote as per the above post.
No, this is in the voting section A. It reads "Any (non-default) option which does not defeat the default option by its required majority ratio is dropped from consideration."
In this case F (further discussion) is the default option, and this stage in the voting process precedes the casting vote.
I too think it's unlikely that both Colin and Andi will block the decision, but we've known it's likely that systemd will win for some time now. It's still not yet official.
It's not quite as simple as that, because if all the remaining committee members vote F (further discussion) ahead of D (systemd) then D gets dropped before the casting vote stage (Debian constitution A.6.3).
So far one of the four remaining committee members has done this, another is expected to, leaving the decisions of the remaining two to determine whether the vote completes or not.
(Of course your IPv6 connectivity to dhcp.io has to work properly, but it certainly works both ways for me).