David S. wrote:
>Maybe I am just being dense. You defined "private property" (which you seek
>to abolish) in your previous post as "Private property has the technical
>connotation of ownership of the social productive means that are necessary
>to production in a society with an enormous division of labor or
>soicalization and specialization of the production process."
I apologize to the participants for not having paid enough attention to
this thread, but I think the point is that even though capitalist "private
property" is private in terms of formal ownership rights, it is not private
_in practice_, in terms of its impact on people. Appropriation of profits,
interest, and rent is individualized, but the basis of the production of
these types of property income (surplus-value) is socialized, relying on
the domination of society by the capitalist minority, because they control
the means of production (and we don't).
In the case of owning a car or something like that, formal property rights
are more in line with societal impact, though obviously they are not
totally in line (since cars produce pollution, congestion, etc.)
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
