Abolition of private property and free market, enslaved people
Marx refer about tax as below in Communist manifest MIYACHI TATSUO Psychiatric Department Komaki municipal hosipital 1-20.JOHBUHSHI KOMAKI CITY AICHI PREF. 486-0044 TEL:0568-76-4131 FAX 0568-76-4145 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable. 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.
private property
[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
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
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]
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: 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: 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: 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]
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
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
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
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.
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: 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]
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
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
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]
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: private property?
I wrote: as I've argued before, Mao didn't have complete control. He had to respond to the power and influence of CCP cadres, while the fact that his power was originally based on a peasant revolution limited his power. Dennis Rodman -- no, Redmond -- wrote: Not what the historical record says. Mao destroyed or clipped the wings of any cadre who became too threatening, from Lin Biao to Zhou Enlai. He was extraordinarily good at the political version of guerilla warfare -- striking where you least expected, killing chickens to scare monkeys, playing off factions, etc. My point is that since he used the peasants for this, what he could achieve was profoundly influenced by their interests. This can be good -- as with the Iron Rice bowl -- or bad -- as with the laws about non-peasants not holding certain offices. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
RE: RE: Re: Private Property
thank you for your interesting comments, david. i hope you will keep tuned to these edifying discussions at PEN-L and please comment on my amateur questions and statements because i like to check them out with the Left, Center and Right perspectives. part of the learning process, as they say. PS. i can't find cyber-forums with a Conservatism or Right (meaning to the Left of Nazism and Monarchism) perspective at the same level of erudition as presented in PEN-L.* do they exist? if so, please point them out. norm * that is not a paid advertisement. -Original Message- From: David Shemano [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 4:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:5814] RE: Re: Private Property Thank you for your many comments to my posts. It is not my intention to get into an extended debate with any of you about socialism v. capitalism. I think such a debate is about ends and not means and this forum is not appropriate for such a debate. Let me make a suggestion. I am not an economist or any other type of academician, although I consider myself well read in a general sense. I am a practicing corporate bankruptcy attorney. (My motto is capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell). I deal with corporations every day, including putting them out of their misery. I am quite aware of the "external" effects of private decisions in a very practical sense. Feel free to take advantage of my perspective if you think it would be helpful to advance your own understanding. Take care, David Shemano
RE: RE: RE: Re: Private Property
Norm -- I wish there were more erudite conservative discussion groups. Conservatism on the web appears to be more passive -- original research done at the think tanks, often filtered through popularizers and columnists, is voluminous and available at the sites or delivered to your email. If you would like suggestions, let me know. The best I can propose is the Leo Strauss list (which you can join through Egroups). It is probably not a good example of typical conservative thought and focuses on a relatively narrow range of topics, but it is at a high level and involves academics and others who would identify themselves as conservative. David Shemano -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mikalac Norman S NSSC Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 4:58 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [PEN-L:5852] RE: RE: Re: Private Property thank you for your interesting comments, david. i hope you will keep tuned to these edifying discussions at PEN-L and please comment on my amateur questions and statements because i like to check them out with the Left, Center and Right perspectives. part of the learning process, as they say. PS. i can't find cyber-forums with a Conservatism or Right (meaning to the Left of Nazism and Monarchism) perspective at the same level of erudition as presented in PEN-L.* do they exist? if so, please point them out. norm * that is not a paid advertisement. -Original Message- From: David Shemano [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 4:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:5814] RE: Re: Private Property Thank you for your many comments to my posts. It is not my intention to get into an extended debate with any of you about socialism v. capitalism. I think such a debate is about ends and not means and this forum is not appropriate for such a debate. Let me make a suggestion. I am not an economist or any other type of academician, although I consider myself well read in a general sense. I am a practicing corporate bankruptcy attorney. (My motto is capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell). I deal with corporations every day, including putting them out of their misery. I am quite aware of the "external" effects of private decisions in a very practical sense. Feel free to take advantage of my perspective if you think it would be helpful to advance your own understanding. Take care, David Shemano
Private Property
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/08/00 03:23PM Feel free to take advantage of my perspective if you think it would be helpful to advance your own understanding. Take care, David Shemano (( CB: Thanks for being such a nice conservative, David.
Re: RE: RE: Re: Private Property
At 07:58 AM 12/8/00 -0500, you wrote: i can't find cyber-forums with a Conservatism or Right (meaning to the Left of Nazism and Monarchism) perspective at the same level of erudition as presented in PEN-L.* do they exist? what, the Rush Limbaugh ditto-heads don't strive for intellectual excellence? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: RE: private property?
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, David Shemano wrote: space begins. "Private property" is my shorthand for saying the rules will provide that with respect to any specific resource, commodity, etc., a single individual gets to decide issues of possession, use and transfer. And if one person owns literally *everything*, the way that, say, Mao Zedong once owned mainland China through that Absolutist-style holding company otherwise known as the CCP? Property isn't always theft, but it's not identical with freedom, either. -- Dennis
Re: RE: RE: private property?
At 05:20 PM 12/6/00 -0800, you wrote: Let me generally answer the questions as follows. The issue, from my perspective, is not whether property is "private" in the sense you seem to be asking, or whether rather metaphysical notions of freedom and consent can exist under capitalism. Not that those are not important issues, but I do not think they are fundamental. The issue is more utilitarian. One way to deal with the issue of freedom in a way that avoids metaphysics is to simply cut the Gordian knot: assume that our preferences our not determined by outside forces (as neoclassical economics does) and then define "freedom" as the availability of choices, so that "more freedom" involves having more choices. My point about technical and pecuniary externalities is very simple in these terms: even if we put aside the efficiency dimensions of the question, the fact is that externalities allow the violation of my freedom. (It's traditional to discuss issues of freedom in very individualistic terms, so I'm doing so.) If a company pollutes the air, it's violating my freedom, denying me the availability of fresh air. It's using its "private" property to invade my private space (trespassing on my lungs). It's not really "private." Similarly, on the issue of pecuniary externalities, if a company (like Sony Pictures here in Culver City, CA) decides to shut down its factory in my town, it damages the economy, including the revenues of small businesses that cater to the employees. It imposes a "multiplier effect" on the whole town, reducing the availability of jobs. On a nationwide level, when businesses decide to cut back on fixed investment, they impose a painful recession on the entire country, if not the world. The capitalists control the productive property, while the workers lack access to ways of surviving without working for the capitalists, so that the workers must pay surplus-value to the capitalists so that they (the workers) can survive. All of these reduce peoples' choices, limiting their freedom. Again, the owners of property have a major societal impact, belying the notion that their property is "private." In other words, we need to break with the liberal problematic, in which it's only the government that violates individual freedom. "Private" property isn't really private in its impact. It's only private in terms of giving some individuals control over some resources while allowing them to privately appropriate any profits that can be garnered using those resources. No matter what political-economic system you can imagine, rules are going to have to be established. Somebody has to decide whether to devote resources to guns or butter. Somebody has to decide where my space ends and your space begins. "Private property" is my shorthand for saying the rules will provide that with respect to any specific resource, commodity, etc., a single individual gets to decide issues of possession, use and transfer. "Private property" can evolve to take many forms, often unpredictable and complex. To take the example of Exxon, 50,000 people each own individual shares of Exxon. [now called ExxonMobil.] At some relevant level, a single person has exclusive right to possess, use and transfer the share without the approval of any other person. Notwithstanding the diffusion of ownership, the corporation is remarkably efficient in performing its societal role. It is quite common to hear this. In this kind of statement, it is usual to define "efficiency" as involving the lowest possible cost for the owners of the property. This is not truly efficient in the sense that economics uses that term -- because lowering one's own costs can easily mean the imposition of costs on others (as with the Exxon Valdez incident, to name one). As E.K. Hunt points out, the institution of "private property" encourages self-interested individuals to aggressively seek out ways to dump costs on others (external costs) and to absorb external benefits. I believe, as an empirical matter, that "private property" is the most efficient means to achieve the ends that I believe are important. If you believe that there is something inherently noble in democratic decision making regardless of the results of the decision making, then you have chosen an end which I do not share. I favor democratic sovereignty as the basic political principle. If the people united were to democratically decide that institutions of individualized property should play a role, that would make those institutions worthy of more respect. But instead, those with the most property decide to institutionalize and expand the realm of individual property... The institution of "private property" reflects the power of those who own tremendous amounts of it, usually allied with those who own small amounts of it. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: RE: RE: private property?
At 08:18 AM 12/7/00 -0800, you wrote: And if one person owns literally *everything*, the way that, say, Mao Zedong once owned mainland China through that Absolutist-style holding company otherwise known as the CCP? as I've argued before, Mao didn't have complete control. He had to respond to the power and influence of CCP cadres, while the fact that his power was originally based on a peasant revolution limited his power. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: Re: Private Property
Thank you for your many comments to my posts. It is not my intention to get into an extended debate with any of you about socialism v. capitalism. I think such a debate is about ends and not means and this forum is not appropriate for such a debate. Let me make a suggestion. I am not an economist or any other type of academician, although I consider myself well read in a general sense. I am a practicing corporate bankruptcy attorney. (My motto is capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell). I deal with corporations every day, including putting them out of their misery. I am quite aware of the "external" effects of private decisions in a very practical sense. Feel free to take advantage of my perspective if you think it would be helpful to advance your own understanding. Take care, David Shemano
Re: Re: Re: RE: RE: private property?
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Jim Devine wrote: as I've argued before, Mao didn't have complete control. He had to respond to the power and influence of CCP cadres, while the fact that his power was originally based on a peasant revolution limited his power. Not what the historical record says. Mao destroyed or clipped the wings of any cadre who became too threatening, from Lin Biao to Zhou Enlai. He was extraordinarily good at the political version of guerilla warfare -- striking where you least expected, killing chickens to scare monkeys, playing off factions, etc. The really interesting question, of course, is why the agrarian-autarkic state proved to be such a good mesh with the East Asian developmental state; this suggests that a tremendous amount of modernization happened in China during the later, truly demented period of Mao's rule, beneath the surface. -- Dennis
Re: RE: Re: Private Property
I am a practicing corporate bankruptcy attorney. (My motto is capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell). Some of us here belong to the wor;d's third oldest profession and there are legal discussions intermittwently; pitch in if you have idea. Btw, I am a believer in bankruptcy under socialism, and I have caught a lot of hell for it from them as wants paradise without its underside. I don't know if you have noticed these exchanges. --jks _ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
private property?
[was: Re: [PEN-L:5724] RE: Re: RE: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting) ] At 12:46 PM 12/6/00 -0800, you wrote: Second, I believe, as an empirical matter, that a political-economic system that encourages and defends private property is more conducive to the achievement of individual human happiness than a system to the contrary, especially because the causes of human happiness are subjective and diverse. Third, I believe, as an empirical matter, that a political-economic system that encourages and defends private property is more conducive to the achievement of the "good life" or the "best life", as I would define it, than a system to the contrary. Do we really have "private" property under capitalism? it seems to me that there are a tremendous number of technical and pecuniary externalities, so that even if _ownership_ (and the appropriation of income from ownership) is private, the _impact_ is not. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: private property?
At 12:46 PM 12/6/00 -0800, you wrote: Second, I believe, as an empirical matter, that a political-economic system that encourages and defends private property is more conducive to the achievement of individual human happiness than a system to the contrary, especially because the causes of human happiness are subjective and diverse. Third, I believe, as an empirical matter, that a political-economic system that encourages and defends private property is more conducive to the achievement of the "good life" or the "best life", as I would define it, than a system to the contrary. Do we really have "private" property under capitalism? it seems to me that there are a tremendous number of technical and pecuniary externalities, so that even if _ownership_ (and the appropriation of income from ownership) is private, the _impact_ is not. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine *** A very crucial debate could ensue if we pursue the above themes. For Mr. Shemano, I would also ask Jim Devine's question as well as further inquire into what is private about, say, 50,000 people owning Exxon corporation? Just because the state doesn't own something it does not follow that ownership is private. Indeed in today's world, the ownership of virtually every capital yielding asset is always already socially owned and the ecological consequences of said ownership are, too, social in the extreme. A further problem for a conservative perspective on ownership concerns employment contracts in such "private property" institutions. Why must individuals [pardon the US-centric aside for the moment] alienate fundamental civil liberties as a condition of employment. Why do conservatives ignore the ideas of Frances Hutchison [Adam Smith's teacher and an enormous influence on Thomas Jefferson] specifically his arguments for inalienable "rights" to democratic self government? It would seem that if conservatives and others were to remain even remotely committed to any of the ideas of self-ownership that emerged in the "Enlightenment", then the employment contract as it exists today is really just a version of the master/slave relationship and lord/serf relationship that preceded them historically. How do conservatives explain to themselves the notion that rights can't be alienated to the state but can be alienated away for the sake of access to the means of production and [re]production of one's life chances, thus ensuring a substantive amount of unnecessary inequality in the realm of "rights", let alone the wealth that make the exercise of one's liberty possible? Further, where did the state get the "right" to delegate to some individuals the "right" to coerce others to vacate their "rights" for the sake of a job? Even a conservative such as Jeremy Bentham owned up to this paradox and concluded that ALL rights flowed from the state. Why can't conservatives today admit that to themselves so we can end the charade that the domain of commerce is a market of freedom and is, for the overwhelming majority, a realm of authoritarian coercion? Ian
RE: RE: private property?
Let me generally answer the questions as follows. The issue, from my perspective, is not whether property is "private" in the sense you seem to be asking, or whether rather metaphysical notions of freedom and consent can exist under capitalism. Not that those are not important issues, but I do not think they are fundamental. The issue is more utilitarian. No matter what political-economic system you can imagine, rules are going to have to be established. Somebody has to decide whether to devote resources to guns or butter. Somebody has to decide where my space ends and your space begins. "Private property" is my shorthand for saying the rules will provide that with respect to any specific resource, commodity, etc., a single individual gets to decide issues of possession, use and transfer. "Private property" can evolve to take many forms, often unpredictable and complex. To take the example of Exxon, 50,000 people each own individual shares of Exxon. At some relevant level, a single person has exclusive right to possess, use and transfer the share without the approval of any other person. Notwithstanding the diffusion of ownership, the corporation is remarkably efficient in performing its societal role. I believe, as an empirical matter, that "private property" is the most efficient means to achieve the ends that I believe are important. If you believe that there is something inherently noble in democratic decision making regardless of the results of the decision making, then you have chosen an end which I do not share. David Shemano -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lisa Ian Murray Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 2:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:5734] RE: private property? At 12:46 PM 12/6/00 -0800, you wrote: Second, I believe, as an empirical matter, that a political-economic system that encourages and defends private property is more conducive to the achievement of individual human happiness than a system to the contrary, especially because the causes of human happiness are subjective and diverse. Third, I believe, as an empirical matter, that a political-economic system that encourages and defends private property is more conducive to the achievement of the "good life" or the "best life", as I would define it, than a system to the contrary. Do we really have "private" property under capitalism? it seems to me that there are a tremendous number of technical and pecuniary externalities, so that even if _ownership_ (and the appropriation of income from ownership) is private, the _impact_ is not. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine *** A very crucial debate could ensue if we pursue the above themes. For Mr. Shemano, I would also ask Jim Devine's question as well as further inquire into what is private about, say, 50,000 people owning Exxon corporation? Just because the state doesn't own something it does not follow that ownership is private. Indeed in today's world, the ownership of virtually every capital yielding asset is always already socially owned and the ecological consequences of said ownership are, too, social in the extreme. A further problem for a conservative perspective on ownership concerns employment contracts in such "private property" institutions. Why must individuals [pardon the US-centric aside for the moment] alienate fundamental civil liberties as a condition of employment. Why do conservatives ignore the ideas of Frances Hutchison [Adam Smith's teacher and an enormous influence on Thomas Jefferson] specifically his arguments for inalienable "rights" to democratic self government? It would seem that if conservatives and others were to remain even remotely committed to any of the ideas of self-ownership that emerged in the "Enlightenment", then the employment contract as it exists today is really just a version of the master/slave relationship and lord/serf relationship that preceded them historically. How do conservatives explain to themselves the notion that rights can't be alienated to the state but can be alienated away for the sake of access to the means of production and [re]production of one's life chances, thus ensuring a substantive amount of unnecessary inequality in the realm of "rights", let alone the wealth that make the exercise of one's liberty possible? Further, where did the state get the "right" to delegate to some individuals the "right" to coerce others to vacate their "rights" for the sake of a job? Even a conservative such as Jeremy Bentham owned up to this paradox and concluded that ALL rights flowed from the state. Why can't conservatives today admit that to themselves so we can end the charade that the domain of commerce is a market of freedom and is, for the overwhelming majority, a realm of authoritarian coercion? Ian
RE: RE: RE: private property?
Let me generally answer the questions as follows. The issue, from my perspective, is not whether property is "private" in the sense you seem to be asking, or whether rather metaphysical notions of freedom and consent can exist under capitalism. Not that those are not important issues, but I do not think they are fundamental. The issue is more utilitarian. Who stated anything metaphysical? What could be more fundamental to a society that professes to be based on liberty and property than to ensure that massive asymmetries of power do not usurp the "right" of democratic self government? Utility is meaningless in this context. No matter what political-economic system you can imagine, rules are going to have to be established. Somebody has to decide whether to devote resources to guns or butter. Somebody has to decide where my space ends and your space begins. Ah, the addiction to individualism runs deepto the point of a majority of one determining the "rules" for everyone else. How would that person be held accountable in your system? "Private property" is my shorthand for saying the rules will provide that with respect to any specific resource, commodity, etc., a single individual gets to decide issues of possession, use and transfer. **** Sounds like autocracy to me. "Private property" can evolve to take many forms, often unpredictable and complex. To take the example of Exxon, 50,000 people each own individual shares of Exxon. At some relevant level, a single person has exclusive right to possess, use and transfer the share without the approval of any other person. Notwithstanding the diffusion of ownership, the corporation is remarkably efficient in performing its societal role. *** Well, to stick the example at hand, shouldn't those 50K people be hauled into court to pay the 5billion$$ they owe the US citizenry for the actions of their employee? Or is liability for [other] suckers? I believe, as an empirical matter, that "private property" is the most efficient means to achieve the ends that I believe are important. *** Define efficient. Please. If you believe that there is something inherently noble in democratic decision making regardless of the results of the decision making, then you have chosen an end which I do not share. David Shemano Politics ain't noble, it's about tragedy avoidance and holding strangers accountable when they visit harms -economic physical- on others. To the extent that democratic procedures attempt to do this while mitigating the all too real paradoxes of actually existing liberty and property , then I'd say...got anything better? Anti-Hobbes, Ian
RE: RE: private property?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/06/00 08:20PM No matter what political-economic system you can imagine, rules are going to have to be established. Somebody has to decide whether to devote resources to guns or butter. Somebody has to decide where my space ends and your space begins. "Private property" is my shorthand for saying the rules will provide that with respect to any specific resource, commodity, etc., a single individual gets to decide issues of possession, use and transfer. "Private property" can evolve to take many forms, often unpredictable and complex. To take the example of Exxon, 50,000 people each own individual shares of Exxon. At some relevant level, a single person has exclusive right to possess, use and transfer the share without the approval of any other person. Notwithstanding the diffusion of ownership, the corporation is remarkably efficient in performing its societal role. (( CB: Isn't there a much smaller number of people than 50,000 who have effective control over the Exxon ? (( I believe, as an empirical matter, that "private property" is the most efficient means to achieve the ends that I believe are important. If you believe that there is something inherently noble in democratic decision making regardless of the results of the decision making, then you have chosen an end which I do not share. (( CB: I thought you thought 50,000 owners worked fine at Exxon.
Re: RE: RE: private property?
If you believe that there is something inherently noble in democratic decision making regardless of the results of the decision making, then you have chosen an end which I do not share. We have a fundamental disagreement, then, david. I think that democratic decisionmaking, including wrong democratic decisionmaking, _is_ fundamentally noble; indeed; it is an essential constituent of the good life. I think this is true not just because I think democracy promotes individual happiness overall better than the alternatives, although it does because the alternative is minority rulke in the self interest of the minority; and not just because democracy is ther fairest way to make decision that affect us all, including how social resources are to be allocated, but also because the exercise of human powers in collective self government develops those powers, making us better and freer people. I would see the democratic principle enhanced in politics and extended to the economy. I regard it as incompatible with private ownership of productive assets, because that allows the private owners to unilaterally make decisions that affect us all, regardless of its effect on the welfare of others, without their having a far say in the matter; and it corrupts politics because those that have the gold, rule. I advocate markets, as is notorious on this list, but that is quite different from private property. --jks _ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Private property
David Shemano wrote: The issue, from my perspective, is not whether property is "private" in the sense you seem to be asking, or whether rather metaphysical notions of freedom and consent can exist under capitalism. and "Private property" is my shorthand for saying the rules will provide that with respect to any specific resource, commodity, etc., a single individual gets to decide issues of possession, use and transfer. The problem here, David, is that private property is NOT a relationship between an individual and a thing it is a social relationship between many individuals within a definite form of society REGARDING the status of the thing as a possession. To view the relationship as being between a *single* individual and any specific resource, commodity, etc. is precisely a *metaphysical* understanding of private property -- or in other words a *fetishization* of the social relations that recognize ownership of objects. Just between me, the mountain and the sea I can proclaim myself possessor of all I behold. It's strictly a social/historical question though whether or not my ownership claim gives me any right of disposal over the mountain or the sea. Tom Walker Sandwichman and Deconsultant Bowen Island, BC
Re: Private Property
Property rights are not only a relationship, but also are a bundle of rights. There is no such thing as simple private property. Privatizing property, as Proudhom declared in 1849, is "theft" --"la propriete, c'est le vol." Eric Roll notes, Proudhon "accepted the view that labour was the sole source of wealth and constituted the only title to property, he regarded it as vital that every one should be able to enjoy and own the furits of his labour. What he objected to was the abuse of property ... the power to exact an unearned tribute which modern capitalist enterprise and its laws gave to capitalism.. Rent, interest, profit, should be abolished, but property should be preserved. How were the excrescences of private property to be removed?" [Eric Roll, A History of Economic Thought, 242] The eminent American Jurist David Bazelon wrote, "Property is never for long anything more or, really anything different from what some politically appointed court says it is." [ in Mermalstein, ed., Economics, 59] So to say that property is private and that private property is good because it is efficient (which by the way does not accord with the empirical record where public utilities have almost always proved more efficient than private utilities) is a meaningless statement. (If I could relate that to another stream on Pen-l, is co-operative ownership private, social, collective property? What about the equiptment owned by the Amnesty International?) I have discussed many of these issues in "Functional Rights: Private, Public and Collective Property", Studies in Political Economy, 38, Summer 1992. The current discussion on Pen-l is rather superficial and ignores the enormous literature on the subject which I am not about to review here. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
[PEN-L:4093] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: secret societies and the originsofcapitalist private property
Since the URL address doen not seem to work any more, here is the full massage. Subject: George Soros - Part 1 http://www.infobahnos.com/~jtoth/web185.html FREE INTERNET FORUM Subject: The Secret Financial Network Behind "Wizard" George Soros - Part 1 of 2 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (stefan lemieszewski) Date of posting: 12 Nov 1996 09:36:05 GMT The following text has been sent to the following newsgroups on the Internet: soc.culture.ukrainian,soc.culture.russian,soc.culture.polish, soc.culture.magyar,soc.culture.croatia, soc.culture.slovenia, soc.culture.yugoslavia, soc.culture.swiss,alt.conspiracy,soc.culture.usa This is another post in the series along the theme that: " Corrupt elites prosper at the people's expense with the aid of the IMF, World Bank and 'shock therapy' policies of Western advisors under the guise of free-trade or democratic or market-reforms." I. In his article, "Communique of American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee," in the Dec.10/1995 issue of The Ukrainian Weekly, Eugene M. Iwanciw wrote: "The American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee met in New York on November 17-18 and reiterated its strong conviction that a resilient Ukraine is in the interest of European stability and thus also American security. It welcomed the evident improvement in the American-Ukrainian relationship, especially the recognition by the U.S. government of Ukraine's geopolitical significance. It also endorsed strongly the reform efforts being pursued by the Ukrainian government in order to transform Ukraine into a stable democracy based on a free market economy." The American participants of the American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee (AUAC) sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) included: Zbigniew Brzezinski (CSIS counselor), Richard Burt (chairman, International Equity Partners), Frank Carlucci (chairman, Carlyle Group), Gen. John Galvin (dean, Fletcher School of International Law and Diplomacy), Michael Jordan (chairman and CEO, Westinghouse Electric Corp), Henry Kissinger (chairman, Kissinger Associates) and George Soros (chairman, Soros Foundations). Previous American advisers of AUAC included Malcolm Steve Forbes, Jr. (editor-in-chief, Forbes magazine), whose magazine gained some notoriety recently for publishing the "Tinderbox" article by Paul Klebnikov, and Dwayne Orville Andreas (chairman and CEO, Archer Daniels Midland Co.), whose company pleaded guilty last month for anti-trust and price-fixing violations and agreed to pay a $100 million fine---the largest fine of its kind ever. Also in a previous post it was indicated that at least six of the current seven American members of AUAC are also members of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), including George Soros. Previous posts included excerpts on Soros from the 23-page article titled, "The world according to Soros" written by Connie Bruck in the Jan. 23, 1995 issue of The New Yorker. It has also been reported that Soros has contributed $15 million to groups advocating an array of alternatives to the Clinton administration's "War on Drugs," including a personal donation of $350,000 to fund a "medical marijuana" ballot initiative in California and a personal donation of $100,000 for a similar ballot initiative in Arizona. The following Nov. 1, 1996 article by the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) provides additional background information on George Soros, one of the American members of AUAC. Stefan Lemieszewski * The Secret Financial Network Behind "Wizard" George Soros by William Engdahl EIR Investigation Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), November 1, 1996 * The dossier that follows is based upon a report released on Oct. 1 by EIR's bureau in Wiesbaden, Germany, titled "A Profile of Mega-Speculator George Soros." Research was contributed by Mark Burdman, Elisabeth Hellenbroich, Paolo Raimondi, and Scott Thompson. * Time magazine has characterized financier George Soros as a "modern-day Robin Hood," who
[PEN-L:4094] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: secret societies and the originsofcapitalist private property
http://www.infobahnos.com/~jtoth/web188.html FREE FORUM Subject: The Secret Financial Network Behind "Wizard" George Soros - Part 2 of 2 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (stefan lemieszewski) Date of posting: 12 Nov 1996 09:36:05 GMT * The following text has been sent to the following newsgroups on the Internet: soc.culture.ukrainian,soc.culture.russian,soc.culture.polish, soc.culture.magyar,soc.culture.croatia, soc.culture.slovenia, soc.culture.yugoslavia, soc.culture.swiss,alt.conspiracy,soc.culture.usa II. But, what has never been identified in a single major Western press investigation, was that the Rothschild-group was at the heart of the vast illegal web of BCCI. The key figure was Dr. Alfred Hartmann, the managing director of the BCCI Swiss subsidiary, Banque de Commerce et de Placement SA; at the same time, he ran the Zurich Rothschild Bank AG, and sat in London as a member of the board of N.M. Rothschild and Sons, Hartmann was also a business partner of Helmut Raiser, friend of de Picciotto, and linked to Nordex. Hartmann was also chairman of the Swiss affiliate of the Italian BNL bank, which was implicated in the Bush administration illegal transfers to Iraq prior to the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The Atlanta branch of BNL, with the knowledge of George Bush when he was vice-president, conduited funds to Helmut Raiser's Zug, Switzerland company, Consen, for development of the CondorII missile program by Iraq, Egypt, and Argentina, during the Iran-Iraq War. Hartmann was vice-chairman of another secretive private Geneva bank, the Bank of NY-Inter-Maritime Bank, a bank whose chairman, Bruce Rappaport, was one of the illegal financial conduits for Col. Oliver North's Contra drugs-for-weapons network during the late 1980. North also used the BCCI as one of his preferred banks to hide his illegal funds. Rich's, Reichmann's, and Soros's Israeli links According to reports of former U.S. State Department intelligence officers familiar with the Soros-case, Soros's Quantum Fund amassed a war chest of well over $10 billion, with the help of a powerful group of "silent" investors who let Soros deploy the capital to demolish European monetary stability in September 1992. Among Soros's silent investors, these sources say, are the fugitive metals and oil trader Marc Rich, based in Zug, Switzerland; and Shaul Eisenberg, a decades-long member of Israeli Mossad intelligence, who functions as a major arms merchant throughout Asia and the Near East. Eisenberg was recently banned from doing business in Uzbekistan, where he had been accused by the government of massive fraud and corruption. A third Soros partner is Israel's "Dirty Rafi" Eytan, who served in London previously as Mossad liaison to British intelligence. Rich was one of the most active western traders in oil, aluminum, and other commodities in the Soviet Union and Russia between 1989 and 1993. This, not coincidentally, is just the period when Grigori Luchansky's Nordex Group became a multibillion-dollar company selling Russian oil, aluminum, and other commodities. Canadian real estate entrepreneur Paul Reichmann, formerly of Olympia and York notoriety, born in Hungary, Jew like Soros, is a business partner in Soros's Quantum Realty, a $525-million real estate investment fund. The Reichmann tie links Soros as well with Henry Kissinger and former Tory Foreign Minister Lord Carrington (who is also a member of Kissinger Associates, Inc. of New York). Reichmann sits with both Kissinger and Carrington on the board of the influential British-Canadian publishing group, Hollinger, Inc. Hollinger owns a large number of newspapers in Canada and the United States, the London Daily Telegraph, and the largest English-language daily in Israel, the Jerusalem Post. Hollinger has been attacking President Clinton and the Middle East peace process ever since Clinton's election in November 1992. Soros and geopolitics Soros is little more than one of several significant vehicles for economic and financial warfare by the Club of the Isles faction. Because his affiliations to these interests have not previously been
[PEN-L:4114] Re: Re: Re: Re: secret societies and the origins ofcapitalist private property
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: How many 'covert actions' are open secrets? Yoshie Doesn't the word "covert" imply that these actions are or are supposed to be secret? Why not call them overt operations? SP
[PEN-L:4116] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: secret societies and the originsofcapitalist private property
Sam Pawlett wrote: Doesn't the word "covert" imply that these actions are or are supposed to be secret? Why not call them overt operations? Sam, are you serious in this question or are you just wisecracking? If you are serious, then you need to study politics more thoroughly. I'll give just one of a hundred answers to your question (all of which we ought to carry tacitly in our bones almost if we want to engage in leftist politics). If they were called Overt Operations then the Bloomington Pantagraph, the Chicago Tribune, and perhaps even the WSJ would have to admit that they exist. The political effect of the openness of open secrets is more or less zilch. Carrol
[PEN-L:4102] secret societies and the origins ofcapitalist private property
Throughout the U.S. war on Nicargua, the Reagan adminstration and monopoly media called it a "covert war". Charles Brown Yoshie Furuhashi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/03/99 03:00PM How many 'covert actions' are open secrets? Yoshie
[PEN-L:4098] Re: Re: Re: secret societies and the origins ofcapitalist private property
How many 'covert actions' are open secrets? Yoshie
[PEN-L:4088] Re: Re: Re: Re: secret societies and the originsofcapitalist private property
Sorros is not unique. He fits right into the tradition of super rich foundations that fund liberal and even radical causes to make them safe for capitalism, starting with the Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie, Mellon Foundations, etc., etc. Soros is slightly more honest, because at least he is not doing it for tax avoidance purposes. But, then he is not really part of the establishment - a currency hedge fund. Sorors hates the capitalist establishment and much as Henry Kravis does, but his goal is to save capitalism by replacing the current establishment. It is a coup, not a revolution. Henry See: The Secret Financial Network Behind "Wizard" George Soros - Part 1 of 2 http://www.infobahnos.com/~jtoth/web185.html The Secret Financial Network Behind "Wizard" George Soros - Part 2 of 2 http://www.infobahnos.com/~jtoth/web188.html Doug Henwood wrote: Charles Brown wrote: Isn't Popper-Soros' concept of an "Open Society" ironic when the bourgeoisie rely so much on Secrecy ? What do Popper and Soros say about Open Secrets ? Good point, Charles. If I may quote my review of Soros' book from LBO #88, which was emailed to electronic subscribers last Friday and is in the mail to print subscribers now: quote There are many such moments where Soros reveals his class loyalties; his concept of openness has many limits. Were the IMF required to open up its proceedings, consistent with the current fashion for "transparency," this would stifle internal debate within the Fund. Therefore, "the search for truth sometimes requires privacy," though he really means secret consultations among elites. Some things, like international economic policy, are too important to involve the public. Towards the end of his manifesto, he writes: "Yes I believe that change is possible. It must start from the top, as in most cases of revolutionary regime change." That's the motive behind his network of foundations, which operate in over 30 countries and disburse nearly half a billion dollars a year. He writes as if it's the most natural thing in the world that a billionaire should set political and cultural agendas through his philanthropy. /quote Doug
[PEN-L:4079] Re: Re: Re: secret societies and theoriginsofcapitalist private property
Yea, in the 20's the KKK used to have big parades down the avenues of D.C., _Birth of a Nation_ was the big hit movie, and there was open terrorist rule of Black people on behalf of the financial oligarchy, an American Fascism. Charles Brown "Henry C.K. Liu" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/03/99 10:45AM Another open secret: WWI veterans protesting about benefits in front of the White House in the early 30's erected a camp city which was cleared by force with Federal troops commanded by Einsenhower and MacAthur, an American Tiananmen. Henry C.K. Liu Charles Brown wrote: Isn't Popper-Soros' concept of an "Open Society" ironic when the bourgeoisie rely so much on Secrecy ? What do Popper and Soros say about Open Secrets ? Charles Brown "Henry C.K. Liu" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/03/99 10:11AM Other open secrets: FDR knew about Japanese "sneak" attack on Pearl Harbor. America did not help Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany Truman used the two nuclear bombs on Japan mostly to warn the Soviets. Cardinal Spellman was very inflential in Kennedy's early decision to back a Catholic Vietnam regime in its persecution of local Buddhists whose monks kept burning themselves publicly in protest. Kennedy's White House sex with a known Soviet agent. Watergate was connected to CIA opposition to Nixon's bypassing it in his opening to China. Rubin turned down a US$100 billlion Asian recuse package offered by Japan in October, 1997 because of his insistence of American control on all rescue moves. I am sure others on the list can offer more. Henry C.K. Liu Charles Brown wrote: Tom Kruse [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/02/99 09:05PM P.S. Yoshie notes: Charles Brown wrote: But if we know all about them, how are they secret ? It's called an open secret. If nobody knew about them, there would be no point in joining them. Taussig did a great piece on the role of open secrets in society -- that is, the effects of all acting as if we don't know something we do, knowing that others know and know we know. Like congressmen fucking around, say. I'll try to find the citation. Chas: I guess the Presidential bubble has been burst on that acting like we don't know when we do. That is the rightwing's problem with the Clinton-Lewinsky affair now its just open, not an open secret. The bourgeoisie have always been dependent upon secrecy , PRIVACY. The revelation of secrets threatens "privacy" and thus private property. I realize that's structuralism. Then there's Oliver North's "plausible deniability". Tom, is that Taussig , Mick ? I just realized it probably is as you are in Bolivia - _The Devil and Commodity Fetishism_ Your whole feedback on the secret societies and the rise and of the bourgeoisie was edifying, esp. the reference of book by Jacobs. Charles Brown Tom Kruse Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia Tel/Fax: (591-4) 248242, 500849 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:4073] Re: Re: secret societies and the originsofcapitalist private property
Isn't Popper-Soros' concept of an "Open Society" ironic when the bourgeoisie rely so much on Secrecy ? What do Popper and Soros say about Open Secrets ? Charles Brown "Henry C.K. Liu" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/03/99 10:11AM Other open secrets: FDR knew about Japanese "sneak" attack on Pearl Harbor. America did not help Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany Truman used the two nuclear bombs on Japan mostly to warn the Soviets. Cardinal Spellman was very inflential in Kennedy's early decision to back a Catholic Vietnam regime in its persecution of local Buddhists whose monks kept burning themselves publicly in protest. Kennedy's White House sex with a known Soviet agent. Watergate was connected to CIA opposition to Nixon's bypassing it in his opening to China. Rubin turned down a US$100 billlion Asian recuse package offered by Japan in October, 1997 because of his insistence of American control on all rescue moves. I am sure others on the list can offer more. Henry C.K. Liu Charles Brown wrote: Tom Kruse [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/02/99 09:05PM P.S. Yoshie notes: Charles Brown wrote: But if we know all about them, how are they secret ? It's called an open secret. If nobody knew about them, there would be no point in joining them. Taussig did a great piece on the role of open secrets in society -- that is, the effects of all acting as if we don't know something we do, knowing that others know and know we know. Like congressmen fucking around, say. I'll try to find the citation. Chas: I guess the Presidential bubble has been burst on that acting like we don't know when we do. That is the rightwing's problem with the Clinton-Lewinsky affair now its just open, not an open secret. The bourgeoisie have always been dependent upon secrecy , PRIVACY. The revelation of secrets threatens "privacy" and thus private property. I realize that's structuralism. Then there's Oliver North's "plausible deniability". Tom, is that Taussig , Mick ? I just realized it probably is as you are in Bolivia - _The Devil and Commodity Fetishism_ Your whole feedback on the secret societies and the rise and of the bourgeoisie was edifying, esp. the reference of book by Jacobs. Charles Brown Tom Kruse Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia Tel/Fax: (591-4) 248242, 500849 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:4076] Re: Re: Re: secret societies and the originsofcapitalist private property
Charles Brown wrote: Isn't Popper-Soros' concept of an "Open Society" ironic when the bourgeoisie rely so much on Secrecy ? What do Popper and Soros say about Open Secrets ? Good point, Charles. If I may quote my review of Soros' book from LBO #88, which was emailed to electronic subscribers last Friday and is in the mail to print subscribers now: quote There are many such moments where Soros reveals his class loyalties; his concept of openness has many limits. Were the IMF required to open up its proceedings, consistent with the current fashion for "transparency," this would stifle internal debate within the Fund. Therefore, "the search for truth sometimes requires privacy," though he really means secret consultations among elites. Some things, like international economic policy, are too important to involve the public. Towards the end of his manifesto, he writes: "Yes I believe that change is possible. It must start from the top, as in most cases of revolutionary regime change." That's the motive behind his network of foundations, which operate in over 30 countries and disburse nearly half a billion dollars a year. He writes as if it's the most natural thing in the world that a billionaire should set political and cultural agendas through his philanthropy. /quote Doug
[PEN-L:2895] Private property rights
From: Terrence Mc Donough [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Rousseau on property TM: [snipped bit on Roman slavery.] Private property rights have never guaranteed freedom of any sort. LR: Of course it does, it's just "freedom" of a particular sort for a particular class of people. "Freedom" should always be properly qualified. In common usage I think it rarely means "freedom" from literal slavery, rather "freedom" to economically enslave others, and so on. Also, I suspect that "private property rights" are part of the formalization of a deal between the rich and the government [the ruling class with itself] about the division of the spoils of exploitation. TM: I've long thought that the 'theft' of surplus by the capitalist class is not really the moral (or practical) problem with capitalism. The problem is the collective disempowerment on economic, political, and cultural levels which this appropriation leads to. LR: Puzzling. Such theft could not occur if the workers were not already "disempowered" by the current creation and enforcement of the capitalist version of private property "rights", through both legal and extra-legal means. So which way does the causality run? Capitalist theft also seems to be the immediate, direct cause of workers being much poorer than owners, with all the problems that poverty entails, including a much shorter life expectancy, even when violence is not included. That's one of the reasons that 'theft' seems like a "problem" to me.
