The Private Landed Property Delusion

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
Who would decide who worked what land, and who worked what roles in vital industries, and where capital investment should go, and how to price goods, etc, etc etc, etc ?


The PARTY I presume ?
I did say that I thought Direct Democracy to be the best way to organise things.
 


Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
Does man's inate greed and ambition not negate any ideas of making communism workable?
I dont think man is inately greedy. Greed is not an instinct found in the natural world. It seems to have been created and maintained by a sick society. Ambition and Communism are not in any way contradictory. Communism itself is man's greatest ambition.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
And what if during direct democracy,the people don't want the land to be nationalized?
Well, Im sure they will think of a good plan. Though it seems to me that is there was, for example, a piece of land, and ten people were to vote on its use, they probably wouldnt come to the decision that one of them should own it all, and nine of them own nothing.
 

TaxHavenSite

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2010
Messages
388
Well, Im sure they will think of a good plan. Though it seems to me that is there was, for example, a piece of land, and ten people were to vote on its use, they probably wouldnt come to the decision that one of them should own it all, and nine of them own nothing.
10 people isn't a good example,the world is so much bigger nowdays.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
Technology needs to advance more,before we could live in a nice communist society. But right now the world isn't ready.
I really dont agree. Our technology is already quite advanced. The capitalist form of society is really suited to 19th century technology, not 21st. There is also no doubt that capitalism is holding back the development of technology, since companies try to make technology last as long as possible while they are making profit on it, and will introduce minor changes (with big advertising fanfare) rather than really trying to advance. Today, the real advances in technology and science are being made in state institutions. To take an extreme example, private enterprise could never build a particle accelerator like CERN. The US has now been left behind in high energy particle research, because it depends too much on private enterprise.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
30,652
And what if during direct democracy,the people don't want the land to be nationalized?
Or if the people who live in say the agricultural area of Kerry don't want the land they collectively own to be dedicated to agriculture? The answer of course (and the one that the proponents of this constantly miss) is that quite the opposite of Collective Ownership, history has shown that collectivization always leads to one person (Stalin, Mao Zedong) or a tiny junta controlling all the land, and dictating to the masses where they will work, live and die.
 

Chadster

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
333
what way did they do things back in Brehon law times, you couldnt own land back then could ya?
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
10 people isn't a good example,the world is so much bigger nowdays.
It holds for any number. A million will not decide that 100,000 should own everything.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
what way did they do things back in Brehon law times, you couldnt own land back then could ya?
The land was held in common by the Fine, but the Taoiseach had the right to delegate the use of it to individuals.
 

bokuden

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
11,250
Evolution is not really in question. The Catholic church accepts evolution and the big bang. Neither one of them contradicts the idea of God.
Hmmm, it is to many people. My point is that the "believing" that you own a house does affect you ability to accept the findings of science.
Believing in a supreme guiding intelligence that has designed everything in the universe potentially (and often actually) DOES affect your ability.
Evolution is a fact whether Dawkins, Pol pot or Mother Teresa proclaims it.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
Phew. I thought you were a recidivist. Mind you, the USSR wasn't entirely bad - some epic music, splendid pageantry, prodigious crops of wheat in the 30's.

This one's for you, buddy.
Nice one a chara. No, while we should be proud of the great achievements of the USSR, we need to learn from the mistakes and not repeat them. Thats why I propose Direct Democracy and a federation of Soviets - something like the Zapatistas have been very successful with.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
There is a difference between voting for nationalizing land,and voting for 10% of the people owning it.
You think that say, six million people in Ireland would vote to give out six million equal patches of land as private property? Of course, to do this, they would already have had to have nationalised it.
 

bokuden

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
11,250
Technology needs to advance more,before we could live in a nice communist society. But right now the world isn't ready.
Bertrand Russell wrote a great essay back in the thirties stating that technology had advanced to the extent that most people could work profitably for a mere three hours a day! This would also spread out the share of work so that everyone would be employed. As it stands, you have people in employment working 10 hours plus a day and people on the dole doing nothing!
It's bonkers!
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
Hmmm, it is to many people. My point is that the "believing" that you own a house does affect you ability to accept the findings of science.
Believing in a supreme guiding intelligence that has designed everything in the universe potentially (and often actually) DOES affect your ability.
Evolution is a fact whether Dawkins, Pol pot or Mother Teresa proclaims it.
Its a bit off topic a chara, but how would believing in God stop you from accepting any finding of science?
 

bokuden

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
11,250
Its a bit off topic a chara, but how would believing in God stop you from accepting any finding of science?
I don't know. Ask 30 percent plus of Americans! Anyway, back on topic...
 

Nermal

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
1,325
Dawkins condemns belief in God for causing wars and the deaths of millions of people. But, in reality, no war has ever been fought about religion.
Crusades?

In any case, how come you can see that one idea (private property) is a social construct, but can't see that the other (religion) is the same?

This would also spread out the share of work so that everyone would be employed. As it stands, you have people in employment working 10 hours plus a day and people on the dole doing nothing!
It's bonkers!
Lump of labour fallacy.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
Crusades?

In any case, how come you can see that one idea (private property) is a social construct, but can't see that the other (religion) is the same?
Of course religion is a social construct. As for the crusades, they were all about plunder and land.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
Private Property breaks the relationship between Humanity and the Earth

On another thread, which went off topic somewhat, YoungLiberal (I hope he doesnt mind me quoting him) and I had the following conversation:

YoungLiberal:
Private property has existed for thousands of years. It came to exist, sometimes through violence, sometimes not, some came to own their land through exploration, work. The fact that something comes about through violence does not shed any light on the value of the system or the thing itself. You, of all people, ought to agree on that point.

Cael:
Private property cannot exist without a violent state power to grant deeds of ownership and to back up those deeds with armed force. A animal may mark out some territory for himself, but it is not private property. He must defend it by his own strength every single hour of the day and night. And so it was with humans for most of the thousands of years you mention.

Private property is brought into existence by the armed violence of the state, and must be maintained by the armed violence of the state. Needless to say, secondary methods are also used, such as the psychological violence of brainwashing the children of landless workers into believing that the status quo is "Godgiven," or the natural order of things, and the constant violence of media advertising and "property porn" TV shows.


Now, an important point I wanted to make, but would have gone totally off topic in the other thread, is the difference between the relationship an owner (under the regime of private property) has to the land, and the relationship that existed before the institution of private property.

Take for example, a Gaelic clan in the 10th century. They certainly were connected with a particular piece of land, and certainly would have fought to the death to defend it. But, does this imply a relation of private property? Not at all. The Gaelic clan had a direct relationship with the particular piece of land in itself. The Taoiseach was considered to be married to that land. There was even a marriage ceremony for the new Taoiseach with the clan land. The clan might even have taken its name from that land. Clan traditions, songs, poems and festivals will have been directly connected with this land. You might say that the clan itself was defined and codified by this relationship with this land. This land, in making a relationship with the people, made a relationship between the people themselves, i.e. made them into a community.

Private property is utterly different. In private property, there is no direct relationship between the owner and what is owned. The land becomes perfectly tradable. (Of course, some landowners do love their land, but they are actually relating according to the older system, not the system of private property.) One piece of land can be swapped for another, or swapped for a commodity such as money. In capitalist society, the landowner has his position and power in society, not because of which land he owns, but the quantity or exchange value of the land he owns. Which land it is, is really of no importance. Land becomes only an abstract store of wealth - often its value has absolutely nothing to do with its ability to produce, but only on future expectations. The relationship is now between the landowner and the state, which takes on the function of protecting the landowners wealth, and increasing the value of his land, through corrupt legislation, etc.

So we see that the relationship between the landowner and the land is broken, and needless to say, the great majority of the population have no connection with the land whatsoever, and little or no connection between each other. The likes of Margret Thatcher can safely claim that there is no society. There are only atomised individuals under the suspicious gaze of the state. This must be so, as the state is closest to the landowner, and shares the landowners suspicion of a landless majority. Atomised deference is the attitude of the population, when looking up to the landowners state, and, as long as the connection of the population to the land remains broken, the connection of the people to each other is likely to remain broken.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top