> From: "William S. Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [PEN-L:11498] Re: Home Mortgage Deduction
> On Tue, July 29, 1997 at 10:00:33 (-0700) Max B. Sawicky writes:
> >Do we want the working class to accumulate wealth held
> >individually (e.g., homes, stock, bonds, etc.), or must all
> >wealth beyond personal items be held socially? I would
> >say the latter is the correct socialist view but not the correct
> >view.
>
> What is your criteria for correctness?
>
> I assume you include productive property in the class of items beyond
> the personal. If so, and if you think that it is "incorrect" that
No clearly some capital should be in the public domain.
Besides the obvious stuff like infrastructure, R&D, and
maybe patents, I would consider electric power, water,
natural gas, communications, and some other things,
but not manufacturing or a good deal what is now
privately-owned. I would agree that this means I'm
not much of a socialist.
> this be held socially, how do you square that view with the historical
> fact that productive property was originally stolen from workers
> through enclosures and other means backed by state violence, and is
> now maintained in the hands of the few by threat or outright violence?
I ignore that view. I don't know what we're supposed to
do about land expropriation that occurred x-hundred
years ago. The remainder of your description is a
fevered characterization of the routine enforcement of
laws concerning private property. As I indicated above,
I don't think socializing some property is as important as
other goals, nor that it is well-founded in many cases.
> Do you distinguish between family owned and operated enterprises and
> those which employ labor outside the family, including huge (multi-)
> national firms?
I wouldn't cut it according to size, though I would think that
taking over almost any little firm (in terms of income as well as
size) would not be a priority even for a socialist regime.
I would cut it mainly according to what industries had more
'public' attributes, in line with the neo-classical theory of
public goods (applied in this case to intermediate goods).
I would also have a much looser, more expansive definition
in this dimension.
> Also, what about the fact that workers must surrender basic human
> rights, including the right to self-determination, upon entrance to
> privately-held firms because (productive) propertyless workers have no
> choice but to rent themselves to those who own productive capital?
I'd say they need not surrender rights under a progressive
regime. I'm not sure what you mean by self-determination.
I would also strive for a system where workers had alternatives
to renting themselves to others, but this requires an attention to
an open system of enterprise, not traditionally one of socialism's
stronger points.
Cheers,
MBS
"People say I'm arrogant, but I know better."
-- John Sununu
===================================================
Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW
202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200
202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036
http://epn.org/sawicky
Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views
of anyone associated with the Economic Policy
Institute other than this writer.
===================================================
