Charles writes: >Here's my take on private property. I would define it likes Engels in _The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State_ . It is not defined by it being alienable, or saleable as you put it. That is the definition of bourgeois, or capitalist private property- that it is alienable, alienable in the market. In feudalism, some forms of private property were "inalienable" ... The lord's and church's lands were inalienable , as you say, but that does not mean they were not private property in the general sense that Engels uses it in the Origin. Private property means having some enforceable powers and control over the property, regardless of whether you can alienate it from yourself for cash. Of course, market sales were a much smaller part of the feudal mode of production in general, than the bourgeois mode. The control and power the feudal lords and bishops had was, of course, the right to a portion of the products from the land. ...<
I see no point of arguing about definitions. My point was that the property rights of the feudal period were qualitatively different from those under capitalism. That's all I really care about in this context. It should be pointed out that almost no significant "private property" is _truly_ private, even under capitalism. Almost all private property ownership had an impact on others (with the exception being consumer goods). For example, an individual's ownership of a significant amount of the means of production makes him or her eligible to grab a piece of the aggregate surplus-value, which comes from social labor. Besides such "pecuniary externalities," the use of so-called private property often has technical externalities (pollution, etc.) Instead of private property, strictly speaking we should use the phrase "private ownership." This fits with Engels' notion that there's a contradiction between socialized production (with societal impacts, externalities) and individualized appropriation (from private ownership rights). JD
