[was: Re: [PEN-L:16559] Re: Re: neomercantilism, trade]
David Shemano wrote: > Why would abolishing private property free people
from material want? I can understand the theoretical argument that
abolishing private property would free people from poverty, but is not
material want relative and unrelated to absolute levels of wealth? <
As a socialist, I'm not against "private property" as much as "capitalist
property."
"Private property" is mostly a myth, since so little of individual property
is actually private in its impact (i.e., has neither technical nor
pecuniary externalities). Sure, my having a refrigerator doesn't have any
big impact on my neighbor, but there is some impact: as the California
state government knows, there are a lot of energy-inefficient fridges out
there that help drive up prices for all of us. The social impact of
individual cars is even larger.
"Private property" should be called "individual property." An individual
has the government-granted rights to it, but it has more-than-private
impact. But this doesn't mean that property of this sort (petty individual
property) should be abolished, unless people democratically decide to do so
(as in William Morris' utopian novel, NEWS FROM NOWHERE). People can figure
out ways to collectively regulate the impact of individual property on
other individuals. This would probably involve living with a lot of minor
inconveniences (such as sharing a street with other people). In any event,
the externalities have to be faced collectively and democratically, rather
than giving the untrammeled right to individuals to trample over others
with their externalities (smoking cigarettes and trespassing on my lungs, etc.)
Capitalist property is an extension of this, but quantitative differences
add up to a qualitative one. Since real capitalist property (as opposed to
financial property) is larger, it has larger social impact. My backyard
barbecue imposes fewer external costs on the world than does the average
steel plant (where there are no or weak government environmental
regulations). More importantly, however, the ownership of capitalist
property (both real and financial) has crucial pecuniary externalities: if
one owns capitalist property, that gives one a claim on a chunk of the
surplus-value that workers produce (which shows up as dividends, interest,
rent). (Capital as a whole has power over the working class, implying that
workers are exploited. Owning capitalist property gives one "a piece of the
rock.")
The end of capitalist property does not automatically end poverty: it's
necessary but not sufficient. Some old German guy pointed to cases where
capitalism is abolished but poverty is only generalized. Pol Pot, among
others, put that into practice (though I bet he did okay in terms of his
own life-style). In order to end poverty, we have to replace capitalist
property with something else, a democratically-organized economy. The last
two chapters of Charlie Andrews' recent book FROM CAPITALISM TO EQUALITY
gives an interesting sketch of what this might mean.
>Do not many wealthy people act as if they want even more material wealth?<
Yup. Having legal claim to more material wealth gives one even more power
-- and social status too. It's addictive. Frankly, I think it's silly,
since a good friendship or even a good book is much more satisfying than
piling up wealth upon wealth. I'm not in the position to impose my tastes
on these greed-heads, while capitalist competition drives businesses to
accumulate in fear of dying and individual capitalists to prove themselves
to be worthy by having more toys than everyone else. In order to get away
from that kind of irrationality, the rules of the game have to be changed.
>And is that not a constant across history, culture, and economic system?<
the meaning of "material wealth" has changed across history, culture, and
economic systems.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
