Tweet
socialism, property, and the state
Okay, now David Floyd and I have a debate going on in two seperate threads, so I thought I'd stop thread jacking them and move it here. I'm also bringing in my debate with Jon Miller about the nature of the capitalist state, since these are, in fact, related points.
Property is not an inherent right of man. No such thing (inherent rights) exists. We only have such rights as we can claim and successfully defend. The right of property as a universal right, that is, a right which all men can claim, is a relatively modern claim. Even then, it didn't apply to men of the "wrong" color or women.
Human beings, for almost their entire existence, lived in a propertiless state. Property only came into existence when humans began agriculture. What is the point of owning property, if you have to carry it everywhere? Just drop the stupid rock and make a new tool when you need it. This is what the achaelogical record shows. This is, in fact, how other tool using primates still act today (chimps, bonbos, etc).
Once agriculture was invented, once people didn't have to keep moving to secure food, then, and only then, could property come into existence and become feasable. Even then, property was only in existence for a priveledged few, priests and priest-kings, nobility.
It is only with the rise of capitalism that property becomes a "universal" concept, that all men are entitled to property. But like previous forms of society, in capitalism, property is only for the few. You and I might be able to own tiny amounts of property: a house, a car, personal items, but true property, commercial or agricultural land, factories, mines, etc. remain far beyond the reach of mortal men. These are the types of property that control the lives of billions, the types of property a person needs in order not to be a slave to others. Furthermore, the propertilessness of the vast majority is necessary for the property of the tiny few.
Abolsihing property would do nothing to the average American, let along the average human. We are already without property. We would only be forcing a pitiful few to join the rest of humanity in their propertilessness. Since the vast majority have no property, why should we respect the property of the insignificant few?
It is because of this, that people of property form governments. From the first days of taking property in the form of humans, through serfdom and finally to capitalism, states have existed for one purpose, and one purpose only, to protect the property of the few.
The state in America is more than just the elected government. It is the bureaucracy, the military, the police. Should committed socialists be elected to power (and overcome Madison's checks against factions), they would not be able to create a socialist society. The bureaucracy would sabotage attempts to impliment it. The military would overthrow it. The police would harrass the movement before it came to power.
The working class cannot simply lay hold of the capitalist state. It must be abolished and a new state constituted to protect the new, more advanced property of the working class. The property of all, instead of the property of the few.
Indeed, we communists are not opposed to property. We just want everyone to have it.
Property is not an inherent right of man. No such thing (inherent rights) exists. We only have such rights as we can claim and successfully defend. The right of property as a universal right, that is, a right which all men can claim, is a relatively modern claim. Even then, it didn't apply to men of the "wrong" color or women.
Human beings, for almost their entire existence, lived in a propertiless state. Property only came into existence when humans began agriculture. What is the point of owning property, if you have to carry it everywhere? Just drop the stupid rock and make a new tool when you need it. This is what the achaelogical record shows. This is, in fact, how other tool using primates still act today (chimps, bonbos, etc).
Once agriculture was invented, once people didn't have to keep moving to secure food, then, and only then, could property come into existence and become feasable. Even then, property was only in existence for a priveledged few, priests and priest-kings, nobility.
It is only with the rise of capitalism that property becomes a "universal" concept, that all men are entitled to property. But like previous forms of society, in capitalism, property is only for the few. You and I might be able to own tiny amounts of property: a house, a car, personal items, but true property, commercial or agricultural land, factories, mines, etc. remain far beyond the reach of mortal men. These are the types of property that control the lives of billions, the types of property a person needs in order not to be a slave to others. Furthermore, the propertilessness of the vast majority is necessary for the property of the tiny few.
Abolsihing property would do nothing to the average American, let along the average human. We are already without property. We would only be forcing a pitiful few to join the rest of humanity in their propertilessness. Since the vast majority have no property, why should we respect the property of the insignificant few?
It is because of this, that people of property form governments. From the first days of taking property in the form of humans, through serfdom and finally to capitalism, states have existed for one purpose, and one purpose only, to protect the property of the few.
The state in America is more than just the elected government. It is the bureaucracy, the military, the police. Should committed socialists be elected to power (and overcome Madison's checks against factions), they would not be able to create a socialist society. The bureaucracy would sabotage attempts to impliment it. The military would overthrow it. The police would harrass the movement before it came to power.
The working class cannot simply lay hold of the capitalist state. It must be abolished and a new state constituted to protect the new, more advanced property of the working class. The property of all, instead of the property of the few.
Indeed, we communists are not opposed to property. We just want everyone to have it.
.
Comment