Re: RE: Law as aggressive protector of private property
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
RE: Law as aggressive protector of private property
Charles Brown wrote: -- There is enormous division of labor and specialization in the historical socialist states. It is pretty much the same level of divsion of labor as the capitalist state it takes over from. Miners only mine. They don't make steel , by and large. Doctors only don' t usually do much more than the speciality of medicine. Physics profs teach physics mainly. Autoworkers make one part of the car . Socialism is not the return to small , relatively autonomous/self-sufficient units of production as in precapitalist societies. By the way, this is why there is still exchange (not the market) in socialism. --- 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." According to your definition, then, historical socialist states have not only extreme division of labor and specialization, but in fact "private property," because your definition of "private property" includes the ownership necessary to an enormous division of labor and specialization. You then say socialism is not a return to self-sufficiency as is typical of precapitalist societies -- but then that would mean you would not be abolishing "private property" (if you define private property as the ownership necessary to enormous division of labor and specialization.) Thanks, David Shemano
Re: Re: Law as aggressive protector of private property
Andrew, Some blather from old Karl Marx on this one. When a lot of people do not own capital, and it is necessary to work with capital in order to survive, then those who own capital will be able to exploit those who do not and who must work for them. Barkley Rosser - Original Message - From: "Andrew Hagen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 12:40 PM Subject: [PEN-L:9826] Re: Law as aggressive protector of private property > On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:07:50 -0500, Charles Brown wrote: > >Private property is the legal crystalization of class exploitative relations of production. So, it is the numero uno > effective principle of bourgeois law and jurisprudence , today's exploitative form of productive relations. > > > >The succinct statement of the aim of the proletarian revolution is: Abolition of private property. > > I disagree with this goal. The right to property is merely the right to exclude, nothing more. Property rights are, > IMHO, necessary for any right to privacy. I don't see anything wrong with people owning stuff. I see a problem, > however, when labor is exploited. The link between private property and exploitation of labor is tenuous. On > what basis would you say the two are linked? > > Andrew Hagen > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Law as aggressive protector of private property
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/30/01 01:52PM >>> Charles Brown wrote: - People owning stuff is personal property. The aim is not to abolish personal property. Individual consumer goods would be personally owned. 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. The fuller statement of the goal is abolition of private property in the basic means of production, for which abolition of private property is shorthand. So, individuals would own cars, but not auto manufacturing enterprises. Private property in the basic or social means of production is a necessary condition for exploitation. - I do not understand this. There is no division of labor or specialization in a socialist state? ( CB: There is enormous division of labor and specialization in the historical socialist states. It is pretty much the same level of divsion of labor as the capitalist state it takes over from. Miners only mine. They don't make steel , by and large. Doctors only don' t usually do much more than the speciality of medicine. Physics profs teach physics mainly. Autoworkers make one part of the car . Socialism is not the return to small , relatively autonomous/self-sufficient units of production as in precapitalist societies. By the way, this is why there is still exchange (not the market) in socialism.
Re: Law as aggressive protector of private property
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:48:02 -0500, Charles Brown wrote: >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. The fuller >statement of the goal is abolition of private property in the basic means of >production, for >which abolition of private property is shorthand. I'm familiar with the shorthand, but, respectfully, I don't find it meaningful. When you say "private property" has a technical meaning concerning the means of production, we know what you mean, but most people outside of pen-l don't. As for owning one's own car, that's important. But what if you run a small business and need a car to operate the business? Is that a means of production, too? Can I own my own equipment if I work in a home office? The old model is based on factories, but the typical workplace is much more diverse. The old model has to be junked because it's unworkable. Our main goal should be to curtail and abolish the exploitation of labor. This can perhaps be accomplished with a series of reforms. We should attempt to prevent capital from dominanting labor. I don't see how abolishing private property is necessarily tied to this goal. Andrew Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] >So, individuals would own cars, but not auto manufacturing enterprises. > >Private property in the basic or social means of production is a necessary condition >for exploitation. > >
RE: Law as aggressive protector of private property
Charles Brown wrote: - People owning stuff is personal property. The aim is not to abolish personal property. Individual consumer goods would be personally owned. 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. The fuller statement of the goal is abolition of private property in the basic means of production, for which abolition of private property is shorthand. So, individuals would own cars, but not auto manufacturing enterprises. Private property in the basic or social means of production is a necessary condition for exploitation. - I do not understand this. There is no division of labor or specialization in a socialist state? David Shemano
Law as aggressive protector of private property
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/30/01 12:40PM >>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:07:50 -0500, Charles Brown wrote: >Private property is the legal crystalization of class exploitative relations of >production. So, it is the numero uno effective principle of bourgeois law and jurisprudence , today's exploitative form of productive relations. > >The succinct statement of the aim of the proletarian revolution is: Abolition of >private property. I disagree with this goal. The right to property is merely the right to exclude, nothing more. Property rights are, IMHO, necessary for any right to privacy. I don't see anything wrong with people owning stuff. I see a problem, however, when labor is exploited. The link between private property and exploitation of labor is tenuous. On what basis would you say the two are linked? CB: People owning stuff is personal property. The aim is not to abolish personal property. Individual consumer goods would be personally owned. 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. The fuller statement of the goal is abolition of private property in the basic means of production, for which abolition of private property is shorthand. So, individuals would own cars, but not auto manufacturing enterprises. Private property in the basic or social means of production is a necessary condition for exploitation.
Re: Law as aggressive protector of private property
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 12:07:50 -0500, Charles Brown wrote: >Private property is the legal crystalization of class exploitative relations of >production. So, it is the numero uno effective principle of bourgeois law and jurisprudence , today's exploitative form of productive relations. > >The succinct statement of the aim of the proletarian revolution is: Abolition of >private property. I disagree with this goal. The right to property is merely the right to exclude, nothing more. Property rights are, IMHO, necessary for any right to privacy. I don't see anything wrong with people owning stuff. I see a problem, however, when labor is exploited. The link between private property and exploitation of labor is tenuous. On what basis would you say the two are linked? Andrew Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Law as aggressive protector of private property
On the ancient and long history of private property of different types especially in European history, see Engels' _The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State_. Private property is the legal crystalization of class exploitative relations of production. So, it is the numero uno effective principle of bourgeois law and jurisprudence , today's exploitative form of productive relations. The succinct statement of the aim of the proletarian revolution is: Abolition of private property. CB >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/30/01 11:38AM >>> Intellectual property is old, too: Patents are in the constitution, and were known (I am sure) for centuries before that. Property is a "fiction," but it has a social objectivity that makes it quite real. --jks > >Let me get this straight. Monsanto's private property is intellectual >property, essentially a legal fiction on par with M.'s corporate >personhood. The farmer's land is mere _real_ property, essentially also a >legal fiction but having a common law history going back many, many >centuries. So the court is saying that the copy of the copy takes >precedence over the original copy? Jean Baudrillard take note. Court >upholds the simulacrum of the simulacrum. Lends a new meaning to mock >trial. See this map of the world? I drew this map and it is mine. The >world is a copy of my map, so I own the world! Nyah, ah, ah! Ain't these >post-modern times great? > >Kinda makes you want to hang around for the denouement. > >Tom Walker >(604) 947-2213 > _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Law as aggressive protector of private property.
>The court held that >regardless of whether he planted them deliberately or if he merely found >them growing on his farm, it was his responsibility to destroy the seeds and >seedlings or pay royalties. I'm not familiar with Canadian patent law, but in general those bodies of law that, grouped together, we call "intellectual property" have a germane characteristic. When one violates a patent or copyright or other intellectual property right, (American and other) courts will find the violater to be strictly liable. "Strict liability" is liability without regard to fault. Thus, if I brilliantly conceive an invention (widgets), manufacture it, sell it, and only later discover that someone else previously invented and patented widgets, I'm violating the patent even though I did nothing wrong. A court could order me to stop production of widgets and (probably) to destroy my inventory. Even if the violater has good intentions, it doesn't matter. Strict liability is harsh. This part of intellectual property law is challengeable, I believe, on the grounds that a person's conduct should be considered when judging his liability. This would be a theoretical or academic challenge, and would take many years to establish as the kind of law a court would recognize. A popular movement against intellectual property is already underway, led by GNU and other groups. The "fair use" exception to copyright allows parodies, etc, of copyrighted work. Fair use has broadened over the last few decades. Maybe patents will eventually have a "fair use" exception, too. Andrew Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Law as aggressive protector of private property
At 08:25 AM 3/30/01 -0800, you wrote: >Let me get this straight. Monsanto's private property is intellectual >property, essentially a legal fiction on par with M.'s corporate >personhood. The farmer's land is mere _real_ property, essentially also a >legal fiction but having a common law history going back many, many >centuries. So the court is saying that the copy of the copy takes >precedence over the original copy? Jean Baudrillard take note. Court >upholds the simulacrum of the simulacrum. paging Phillip K. Dick! Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Law as aggressive protector of private property
Intellectual property is old, too: Patents are in the constitution, and were known (I am sure) for centuries before that. Property is a "fiction," but it has a social objectivity that makes it quite real. --jks > >Let me get this straight. Monsanto's private property is intellectual >property, essentially a legal fiction on par with M.'s corporate >personhood. The farmer's land is mere _real_ property, essentially also a >legal fiction but having a common law history going back many, many >centuries. So the court is saying that the copy of the copy takes >precedence over the original copy? Jean Baudrillard take note. Court >upholds the simulacrum of the simulacrum. Lends a new meaning to mock >trial. See this map of the world? I drew this map and it is mine. The >world is a copy of my map, so I own the world! Nyah, ah, ah! Ain't these >post-modern times great? > >Kinda makes you want to hang around for the denouement. > >Tom Walker >(604) 947-2213 > _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Law as aggressive protector of private property
Let me get this straight. Monsanto's private property is intellectual property, essentially a legal fiction on par with M.'s corporate personhood. The farmer's land is mere _real_ property, essentially also a legal fiction but having a common law history going back many, many centuries. So the court is saying that the copy of the copy takes precedence over the original copy? Jean Baudrillard take note. Court upholds the simulacrum of the simulacrum. Lends a new meaning to mock trial. See this map of the world? I drew this map and it is mine. The world is a copy of my map, so I own the world! Nyah, ah, ah! Ain't these post-modern times great? Kinda makes you want to hang around for the denouement. Tom Walker (604) 947-2213
Re: Law as aggressive protector of private property.
Charles, it is worse than that. He has been breeding and collecting his own seeds for decades, developing his own distinctive strains. He sued Monsanto for contaminating his crops with the pollen. Charles Brown wrote: > Law as aggressive protector of private property. > > Thanks to Les S. for this: > > From slashhdot.org: "A Canadian court has ruled that a farmer growing > genetically modified canola without a license violated Monsanto's patent and > owes damages. Percy Schmeiser claims that the seeds blew onto his farm from > passing seed trucks and from neighboring farms. The court held that > regardless of whether he planted them deliberately or if he merely found > them growing on his farm, it was his responsibility to destroy the seeds and > seedlings or pay royalties. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is > carrying the article and the Federal Court of Canada has the full text of > the ruling in PDF form." > > full story here: > > http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/03/29/monsanto_schmeiser > 010329 -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Law as aggressive protector of private property.
Law as aggressive protector of private property. Thanks to Les S. for this: From slashhdot.org: "A Canadian court has ruled that a farmer growing genetically modified canola without a license violated Monsanto's patent and owes damages. Percy Schmeiser claims that the seeds blew onto his farm from passing seed trucks and from neighboring farms. The court held that regardless of whether he planted them deliberately or if he merely found them growing on his farm, it was his responsibility to destroy the seeds and seedlings or pay royalties. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is carrying the article and the Federal Court of Canada has the full text of the ruling in PDF form." full story here: http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/03/29/monsanto_schmeiser 010329
