The Private Landed Property Delusion

TradCat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
1,989
Someone one wrote that Marx was right about Capitalism but wrong about Communism. Most people can see the downsides of capitalism but we put up with it because its efficiency in matching supply with demand brings us huge benefits.

So the left won't make progress by telling people what they already know about capitalism. If they came up with a believable alternative we would jump at it. But they are divided into those who believe the alternative was never tried and those who think it was and worked quite well.

The opposition to socialism is more practical than philosophical and what we never hear is a practical explanation of what life would be like under socialism and how we would get there.

Thus we have people who are being screwed mercilessly by the financial system as their mortgage payments rise and the value of their house declines voting for the bankers parties.

If socialists had anything to say to such people they would love to hear it. You don't need to explain how bad capitalism is. You need to explain the alternative.
 


Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
It can also be said that capitalism destroys the wealth of nations, by putting the whole of society in infinite and unrepayable debt.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
:lol:

I must say Cael, that over the passage of time, I have grown into a certain admiration for you, a kind of fondness even.

I enjoy your posts a great deal, and your optimistic view of the dignity of the fundamental human condition often stops me in my tracks.
Well, go raibh maith agat for that a chara, its very generous of you to say that.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
Someone one wrote that Marx was right about Capitalism but wrong about Communism. Most people can see the downsides of capitalism but we put up with it because its efficiency in matching supply with demand brings us huge benefits.

So the left won't make progress by telling people what they already know about capitalism. If they came up with a believable alternative we would jump at it. But they are divided into those who believe the alternative was never tried and those who think it was and worked quite well.

The opposition to socialism is more practical than philosophical and what we never hear is a practical explanation of what life would be like under socialism and how we would get there.

Thus we have people who are being screwed mercilessly by the financial system as their mortgage payments rise and the value of their house declines voting for the bankers parties.

If socialists had anything to say to such people they would love to hear it. You don't need to explain how bad capitalism is. You need to explain the alternative.
Yes, I agree with you there, a chara, but, to tell the truth, Marx didnt like writing about anything that hadnt already happened, and that he could scientifically analyse. So, he didnt make utopian suggestions for the future. He mostly analysed capitalism, as that was the de facto reality of his day (and our too, alas.) The only writing he did on Communism as a way to organise society was based on his analysis of the Paris Commune of 1871. He also wrote on primitive communism of ancient societies and of the Village Communes that existed in Russia. In short, if he didnt have actual evidence for something, he didnt say it.

Unfortunately, the reality we must accept is that it really is impossible to predict the future. Nobody living in feudalism could have predicted capitalism, and we cant predict what will replace capitalism. The most we can do to try and work towards a more logical and humaine system, where the vast majority of the human race are not excluded and starved. Capitalism needs a massive underclass or it cant function. As humanity becomes more sophisticated and conscious, that state of affairs will become less and less acceptable.

However, right now, we can start organising ourselves into local Soviets, of twenty to fifty people, and start carrying out economic and cultural activity based on a system of Direct Democracy. We must learn to legislate for ourselves. Thats the first step.
 

Franzoni

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
16,327
:lol:

I must say Cael, that over the passage of time, I have grown into a certain admiration for you, a kind of fondness even.

I enjoy your posts a great deal, and your optimistic view of the dignity of the fundamental human condition often stops me in my tracks.
+1...one of the few left in this kip whose posts are worth reading......
 

Cael

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

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
Samuel Butler in his The Book of Machines, makes a very interesting point in regard to our topic. He points out that many species cannot reproduce from within their own genetic code. He gives the example of clover and the bumble bee. Clover cannot reproduce without the action of the bumble bee. Does this mean that the bee is part of the reproductive system of the clover? In effect, it does. The bee is part of the clover. And nor could the bee exist without the clover, or other such plants.

The same is true of the human race and the earth. The land and natural resources are an actual part of us, in that we have no possibility of existence without it. The land is no less a limb of our bodies than our arms are. We might even survive without arms, but we could not survive without land.

This being the case, private landed property is the amputation of the limbs of the vast majority of the human race. Is it any wonder, then, that a billion people are hungry today, and that 5,000 children die every single day because they have no clean water to drink? As soon as they were born, capitalism amputated their limbs.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
The Argument against Private Landed Property

On another thread I was asked to give some of the arguments for collective ownership of the land of our Nation. It was too far off topic in that thread, so I decided to open a new thread here.

Marx writes in his Memorandum for Robert Applegarth, December 3 1869:

"While not intending to discuss here all the argument put forward by the advocates of private property in land — jurists, philosophers, and political economists — we shall only state firstly that they disguise the original fact of conquest under the cloak of "natural right". If conquest constitutes a natural right on the part of the few, the many have only to gather sufficient strength in order to acquire the natural right of reconquering what has been taken from them."


In these few words, Marx completely demolishes any question of their being any "natural right" to landed property. Clearly if the few have the "natural right" to expropriate land by force, so do the many.

Marx continues:

"In the progress of history, the conquerors attempt to give a sort of social sanction to their original title derived from brute force, through the instrumentality of laws imposed by themselves. At last comes the philosopher who declares those laws to imply the universal consent of society. If indeed private property in land is based upon such a universal consent, it evidently becomes extinct from the moment the majority of a society dissent from warranting it."

And yet, we have idiots trying to claim that democratic governments dont have any authority to nationalise the land. As if "consent" once given, could never be removed. Of course, in reality, the " consent" was never given.

Marx continues:

"However, leaving aside the so-called "rights" of property, we affirm that the economical development of society, the increase and concentration of people, the necessity to agriculture of collective and organized labor as well as of machinery and similar contrivances, render the nationalization of land a "social necessity", against which no amount of talk about the rights of property will avail."

And we see that clearly in Ireland today. Farmers cant make a living from farming, but get 75% of their income in handouts from the landless worker. The property developers and bankers, who based their wealth on private landed property are now bankrupt, and depending on massive hand outs from the landless worker. This insanity has to stop.

Marx sums up the benefits to society of collective land ownership as follows:

"The future will decide that the land cannot be owned but nationally. To give up the soil to the hands of associated rural laborers would be to surrender all society to one exclusive class of producers. The nationalization of land will work a complete change in the relations between labor and capital and finally do away altogether with capitalist production, whether industrial or rural. Only then the class distinctions and privileges will disappear together with the economical basis from which they originate and society will be transformed into an association of 'producers'. To live upon other people's labor will become a thing of the past. There will no longer exist a government nor a state distinct from society itself."
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
Where does that leave peoples sense of independance and privacy ?
If you must have private landed property to have a sense of privacy and independence, then the vast majority of the world population must have no sence of privacy and independence. Even by your criteria, the current status quo is a failure.
 

Southern man

Active member
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
209
I must , I must . There are far to many muppets telling me how to live my life !
I dont meann you neccesarily , btw .
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
I must , I must . There are far to many muppets telling me how to live my life !
I dont meann you neccesarily , btw .
But it was you who implied that you must have private landed property to have a sense of privacy and independence.
 

Southern man

Active member
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
209
Yes . I implied it because I believe it .
I used to think differently but I saw something on the news that profoundly changed my view .
 

bokuden

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
11,250
If we handed land over to the state, they'd flog it off to the highest bidder, like they did with the Corrib gas field and Fine Gael promise to do with semi-state companies. The Tories are flogging Sherwood Forest for Gawd's Sake!
 

YoungLiberal

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
2,048
If you must have private landed property to have a sense of privacy and independence, then the vast majority of the world population must have no sence of privacy and independence. Even by your criteria, the current status quo is a failure.
Failure for the world, perhaps (on that criteria), but a success for the developed world where the majority of people belong to family units who own private property.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
Failure for the world, perhaps (on that criteria), but a success for the developed world where the majority of people belong to family units who own private property.
Everyone owns some sort of private property, but Im talking here about landed property, i.e. productive land. Most people in the West dont own landed property.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
If we handed land over to the state, they'd flog it off to the highest bidder, like they did with the Corrib gas field and Fine Gael promise to do with semi-state companies. The Tories are flogging Sherwood Forest for Gawd's Sake!
Thats only because the capitalist state is owned by the landowners. If you dont have landowers any more, then thats not a problem.
 

Southern man

Active member
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
209
Thats only because the capitalist state is owned by the landowners. If you dont have landowers any more, then thats not a problem.

Indeed . This is ...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAGNJMQD1rA]YouTube - Millbank Fire Extinguisher drops onto riot police from the roof[/ame]
 

YoungLiberal

Well-known member
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
2,048
Everyone owns some sort of private property, but Im talking here about landed property, i.e. productive land. Most people in the West dont own landed property.
Well, I'm not sure about the guy above, but I'd love to see the argument that establishes the need for landed property, as opposed to private property, to be either independent (in the sense of autonomy) or secure privacy.

I've no desire to own, what you term, 'productive property' and I doubt I ever will, regardless of how wealthy I become.
 

Cael

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 19, 2006
Messages
13,304
Well, I'm not sure about the guy above, but I'd love to see the argument that establishes the need for landed property, as opposed to private property, to be either independent (in the sense of autonomy) or secure privacy.

I've no desire to own, what you term, 'productive property' and I doubt I ever will, regardless of how wealthy I become.
As I mentioned above, private landed property, as a reality, is fading all the time. What we have now is a landed class thats kept as a kind of museum exhibition, by the input of massive hand outs. I doubt if this can last very much longer, one way or another.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom