>>17156
>In full communism there's no need for money, as there's such an abundance of goods that everybody has full and unlimited access to them.
That's impossible. Post-scarcity is nonsense. You can define a particular level of scarcity and say something like "We can provide four square meals a day for 7 billion people for 1 million years", but that is not post-scarcity, since the government would have limit rations to a level in accordance with available resources.
>In a world where every material need is satisfied
I want to go into space and own asteroids.
>by an seemingly endless army of robot slaves, or can be materialized in an instant by devices
If I don't have the ability to have ownership or relatively exclusive control of some of these devices, some utility is lost, since I A: can't maintain the right to control even while an absentee, and B: can't put MY portion of that robot production to MY highly specific uses that are peculiar to me alone without consulting the collective or state about it.
>the only reason you still cling to private property is because you are so deeply entrenched in the dominant ideology of our times that you are literally incapable of imagining a future without the ghosts of capitalism haunting your head.
Wrong. I've already told you the practical functions I wish to maintain that are tied up in the social institution of private property. The only reason you can't understand why someone would want to maintain those functions is because you think abstract equality in production and distribution is a moral goal in of itself, distinct from simple survival. Besides, private property is not exclusive to capitalism, and has existed in the Marxist analysis itself, in every system prior to capitalism save for the supposed "primitive communism".
I ask: after we've given public services an army of self-replenishing machines, what exactly would be the point of taking away the right of absentee ownership and accumulation? The fulfillment of a universal base survival scheme renders communism an exercise pointless coercion just to satisfy a base emotional urge for abstract equality.
My base emotional urges are rather more oriented towards aspiration and escape from society, as soon as technology enables such means.
>But the reason you can't imagine a future without private property is because you are spooked as heck.
Nope. I want particular outcomes to be possible, and they are only facilitated by private property, therefore I favor private property and not collective property.
I also think that collective property will turn out to be the real spook, because ownership is only tangible and real in as far as it coincides with physical control, whether enforced personally, or more likely by a community intent on upholding the institution for mutual benefit. Across the vastness of space, one central agglomeration of the will of the people everywhere in the galaxy is going to be pretty much unenforceable.
Tell me how tangible a thing common ownership of the means of production by society as a whole really is?
Stirner's idea of a spook includes the idea of nation or society. It's only a step from there to criticize the idea of an abstract fluid entity like society being able to collectively own things in a way that is meaningful in terms of physical ramifications.