In reply to Charles:
I am still trying to think this through. There are two concepts here.
First, we have the concept of poverty, or the absence of the basic
necessities of life. However, as I think you agree, even this concept is
relative. Is a stone-age man impoverished? Is a bourgeois man living in
1848 impoverished, if he does not have a TV, telephone, indoor plumbing, air
conditioning, antibiotics, etc., all of which are enjoyed by the masses in
modern, industrial societes? I mean, once you get past a couple thousand
calories of food a day and clean water, and sufficient clothing and shelter
to protect against the cold, what are the basic necessities of life?
Therefore, to the extent you argue that the elimination of "private
property" would eliminate "poverty," you appear to be arguing not that
"poverty" (in an absolute sense) would be eliminated (or even exists in
modern industrialized societies), but that relative economic inequality
would be eliminated, which appears to be a totally different point.
Second, I define "material want" as wanting material things. Let's assume
that private property is eliminated (i.e. all are guaranteed the basic
necessities and there are no rich and no poor). I am imagining this
scenario as a static point in time, a point of societal equilibrium. You
seem to be saying that so long as "private property" is eliminated, the
equilibrium will be maintained, because the desire for (more) material
things requires the existence of private property. But that is the
assumption that I think needs to be questioned. Obviously, material
acquisitiveness is not natural to all men -- how else could you explain
Lefties? However, I think the desire to "improve one's condition" is part
of most persons' makeup -- especially if they are aware of alternatives to
their present condition.
And what about the desire for power, glory and other such immaterial wants?
Is that dependent on the existence of private property? If not, they are
powerful forces that have the ability to disrupt your equilibrium.
Again, I am not convinced that you can maintain the equilibrium you could
theoretically create by eliminating private property.
David Shemano
--------------------------------
David S. writes:
I am trying to think this through. Let me summarize my understanding of the
discussion. Your original argument was that the elimination of "private
property" would eliminate "material want."
(((((((
CB: Yes, basically I am using "poverty" and "material want" as synonyms
here. I don't mean people wouldn't want anything material. As Gar Lipow put
it, we can provide everybody with the "necessities of life".
This gets a bit tricky because human society creates new "needs" over time.
An automobile is a need in some cities in the U.S. today.. But the idea is
that what every the specific historical needs of the time, they are
guranteed for all people. This is what I mean by abolition of poverty.
(((((((
There are several assumptions
here. First, eliminating "private property" would result that all were
"guaranteed the material basics of living." The next assumption is that if
we "guarantee the material basics of living," we will eliminate "material
want."
((((((((
CB: I'm not sure of the difference between these two. They are one
"assumption". By eliminating private property in the basic means of
production , that is by abolishing exploitative productive relations, by
expropriating the expropriators, society has the necessary precondition for
eliminating poverty. As Jim D. mentioned, it is a necessary condition. There
will have to be some finalizing actions, but basically there is no stopping
the elimination of poverty once exploitation ( private property in the basic
means of production) is abolished.
Recall , I also said we can abolish war ! That's a big one too. Worth
struggling for.
(((((((
I assert, to the contrary, that "material want" is relative, and
that guaranteeing the material basics provides no assurance that
acquisitiveness will be eliminated.
((((((((
CB: Yes, material want or the necessities of life or the poverty line is
relative historically. But whatever it is at the historical moment , it
would be eliminated.
Acquisativeness is basically part of the institution of private property. It
is learned , not part of human nature. People are acquisative today not
because of their genes, but because they learn it. If we eliminate the
institution of private property, we would of course stop teaching people to
be acquisative. It can be eliminated just as much as , say , the desire for
knight errancy (sp) or to be a slaveowner was eliminated. It can be tossed
on the scrap heap of history along with many other bygone human
institutions.
((((((((
You argue that we have evidence of
hunter-gatherer societies in which acquisitiveness is not a feature. You
further argue that we can wed the consciousness of a hunter-gatherer society
to our modernized society.
Do I have this right?
((((((((
CB: Somewhat , yes. It wouldn't be wedding hunter and gatherer
consciousness to our modernized society, it would be persuading all that
everybody would be better off without poverty, war, alienation, and that we
would have to eliminate the categores rich and poor for that. The hunter and
gatherer part is just to demonstrate that acquisativeness is not inherent in
human nature. Humans are not born acquisative , and we know this because
most of the societies for most of the time of human history have not had
acquisativeness or the unlimited acquisativeness and desire to be rich that
class exploitative societies have. "Rich and poor" is a relatively new
phenomenon in human society , so it is not human nature to want to be rich.
It is learned.
The category "rich" requires that somebody be "poor" . Without poor people,
the rich cannot be rich . If there is no one whom I have much more wealth
than, then I am not "rich".
((((((((
Charles had written:
<<<To answer in brief, there is significant anthropological evidence that in
hunting and gathering and gardening based societies there is not the
distinction between rich and poor we know, for example in indigenous
American societies. These societies did not have private property in the
sense I mean here. Unlimited acquisativeness is not "human nature" as
perhaps implied in one of your questions.
On the other hand, capitalism especially has increased technological
development enormously, such that there is , well, a lot of stuff produced
shall we say.
Marx and Engels' idea was that a kind of combination of the old communalism
with the new level of technology would mean the "lots of stuff" distributed
without classes, without rich and poor, would mean no poverty or material
want in the sense that we mean poverty today. Everyone would be guranteed
all the material basics of living.
This does not mean that new problems would not emerge, such as global
warming or exhaustion of fossil fuels or issues we cannot anticipate now.
These problems would require new efforts, discoveries and solutions, but the
old problems of class societies would not be among the new ones.>>>
