Like obviously personal property can include hygiene products, firearms, or electronic devices. However I've seen some Marxists say that houses can be considered personal property so long as the land they're built on is owned publicly. Is this a valid perspective or are these champagne socialists clinging to their liberalism?
Houses are actually a good example for this because they are already owned both privately and personally. A landlord (yuck) owns them privately and can sell them, but the tenant owns them personally. Your landlord couldn't come sleep on your couch after a night of drinking, even though they own your house, because they sell you the personal ownership. Similarly, you couldn't sell or rent your house because you don't own it privately.
In a communist society, you could personally own a house, but you couldn't sell or rent it. And you probably couldn't own multiple houses, unless you had a good reason.
If I live in Vermont, but work in Washington, and enjoy spending my summer vacations by the lake, is that a good reason?
You don't mean to tell me Bernie Sanders isn't a communist, do you?
deleted by creator
You'd still have to sell it for someone else to personally own if you're going to move, especially if you're hard defining not being able to own multiple.
I used communist society here to mean advanced stage communism, where there is no money. You could maybe trade your house for another or just announce that it is free to whatever service is used to look for places to live. In less advanced communist societies you might still sell and buy houses.
Fair enough.