Society without property?

Hi jar,i thought your comments in post 8 were rather inspiring. Of course they are also deeply rooted in the classic marxist view that state capitalisim is really useful in setting up the technology necessary to permit a more egalitarian society (resulting in the "withering away" of the capitalist structures once they are no longer useful, once the technology and industry is already there).As you say, it is the changing of perceptions that is the problem. On the one hand, the shift in perceptions is quite easy to make. Instead of allowing businesses and states to organise our economic life, let's just organise it ourselves. I think this idea in principle appeals to lots of people of very different political perspectives.On the other hand, there is the problem of how the "withering away" of capitalist organisation might be achieved. It's a problem because so many people benefit from this form of organisation that they put a tremendous amount of effort into keeping them in place. I mean, for example, the setting up by capitalist organisations of "fake jobs" that have become so important to economic life in the advanced capitalist countries - walmart greeters, macdonalds supervisors, advertising executives, etc. Jobs that basically don't need to exist.So, for me, the problem is the practical one of how we might cause capitalist institutions to wither away in a fruitful rather than destructive way. We don't want to destroy the technology and industry that capitalism provided, we just want to take control of it to make better use of it. I think that's the tricky bit, because losing all of those fake jobs would be a massive (temporary, but massive) blow to our economies and it makes the transition to a more egalitarian society much more difficult, because there is a very high hurdle to cross at the very beginning of the process.mick

While the US does have a surplus capacity, it is not enough to feed the entire planet, certainly not "several times over". Unless of course we started farming all our golf courses and lawns and every square inch of greanspace and put at least half our work force back into farming. Regardless, unless we start seriously thinking of population control and possibly even reduction, we are going to see serious food shortages in our lifetimes I'm afraid.

The important thing is that global food production is high enough to feed everybody on the planet. It's not high enough to feed everybody as much as Americans eat, or as cheaply, but it's high enough to feed everybody in principle.Nowadays, famines are man-made. For example in 2002, Zambia exported food even while Zambian citizens were starving to death (BBC NEWS | Business | Aid workers grope for famine causes). It was capitalism that caused food to be exported from Zambia during the famine, and capitalism is a man-made thing.In principle a change in our economic organisation would prevent starvation worldwide, without any changes to our agricultural systems.mick

In looking at the writings of Trotsky (and he was a prolific writter) I'd suggest you start with these four. Remember, try to look through the eyes of the time. That's not easy, but it can be done. OneTwoThreeand Four. Like a child, there will be those who just want it. That's human nature. But part of both growing up and the paradigm shift will be learning limitations. I've owned Ferraris and would never do so again. I've had filet migon but would prefer a really ripe tomato sandwich.There is no doubt there would be those who want excess. Some may even get it, many will try it for awhile, but for the vast majority, that is simply not an issue. Folk grow up.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Frankly, I'd love to be a WallMart Greeter but down here you need to speak Spanish so I don't qualify. I'm just not competent enough to be a good WallMart Greeter.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thanks for the links Jar! I'll read them and get back with you tomorrow on this. Some may be violently opposed to limitations, at least for them and their own (that is my experience anyways)! This is really the crux of the whole thing, will enough people be willing to do with less so that all can enought to eat and have adequate shelter and medical care?

I agree that there is currently enough food to feed everyone in the world. Troy had stated that the US alone could feed the entire planet several times over, which is not true. I would not blame capitalism as the chief cause of hunger though. A lot of starving people are living under despots and totarian governments who may sell off a countries assets for their own personal gain. I think a change would have to be made in the political sphere to really make any change.

well okay... but everybody agrees on the advertising executive...

it is capitalists who buy the assets, and capitalist countries who bankroll the despots.

Not a new question either. LOLAm I my brothers keeper? Well, from a theological perspective, yes! And it is the kind of thing that could be marketed through a theological channel.But there is yet one other underlying issue. Does anyone have to do with less?One of the biggest problems is simply acknowledging that there might be a solution. All too often we simply retreat into a world of denial.The first question that needs to be addressed is the idea that it might just be possible to achieve such an idyllic concept. As long as we believe it an impossibility, it will be impossible. It's only once we acknowledge that it might be possible for the vast majority of people now living to have all of their basic needs satisfied that we can begin dealing with the immense questions of how that might be accomplished.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

There have in the past been plenty of despost bankrolled by communist countries. Capitalists are not the only people or countries on the planet who buy things, to blame them alone is over simplifying the problem. You seem intent an blaming all the worlds ills on only one cause, and that is those evil capitalists. The world and it's problems are not that simple.

quote:

---

I wasn't automatically saying that the western lifestyle is superior in any way....

---

I'll take your word for this. I jumped to that conclusion because ethnocentrism is very, very common, even when people don't realize it.--

quote:

---

...communism ( get what you need (maybe) no matter what your contribution is to society)...

---

Actually, all societies try to determine who is a malingerer, and tries to deal with them accordingly.--

quote:

---

Capitalism is not perfect by any means and it can get quite ugly, but the alternative doesn't seem very attractive either.

---

Some of us are communists precisely because we feel the "ugliness" is an inherent feature of capitalism. In fact, I would say that it is a myth that capitalism is simply a way of economic organization. It is not only the institutions and organizations that protect the powers and privileges of the elite at the expense of the exploited, but it is also an ideology that convinces that exploited that the system is the "natural" and "just" system.--

quote:

---

I agree with you that less people would be better for everyone except for those that would be leaving!

---

Well, I'm not in favor of making anyone leave early. I'd be content to wait for everyone to leave of their own accord. I simply propose limiting the numbers of new guests.

okay, i accept your point. it's easy to paint capitalist monsters. But because the vast majority of the world lives under a capitalist system it's the most important political representation of an economic system that doesn't work, and I think it's fair to single it out. Remember that capitalism is global. Capitalism "works" for americans and europeans. But it doesn't seem to work that well for people elsewhere. Those people elsewhere are also living under capitalism just as much as americans are. It's just that those people don't count because they're not white and they don't buy ipods.In any case, I stand by my view that many of the miseries of mankind are caused by the fact that our economic systems are organised for the benefit of a small number of elite people. whether that elite is the politbureau or the board of the IMF, and whether they call themselves communists or capitalists, doesn't make much difference. When we have an economic system that operates for the benefits of people at the bottom, there won't be any more starvation. I don't know what that economic system would look like, but the idea of property would have to be transformed. It would require that property rights are thoroughly alienable. For example, if you're starving, you would have the legal right to take food straight out of the warehouse and eat it without fear of punishment. This is a pretty straightforward idea that seems eminently reasonable to me, but hasn't been tried out yet.mickadded in edit:I think the point I am trying to make is that no economic system is going to be perfect. But the idea of property makes our current economic system (the system that I live in Europe and Canada, and the system that you live in, in the USA) extremely unfair. For example, I used to live in a bedsit for which I paid what seemed an extortionate rent. I lived in a bedsit because I didn't have enough money saved to buy my own place, and I didn't have a car so couldn't commute from the suburbs. I paid my rent for a year, then lost my job. Although I was willing to work, I couldn't find another job for two months. This meant that I didn't pay my rent for two months, and i was evicted.So while the economic system I laboured under "worked" for me, in that I received an income for my labour, the benefits were received by my landlord. The rent I paid to my landlord probably covered the mortgage on the house I lived in. So I was basically buying the house for him. When the economic system works, the propertied people get the benefits.But when the economic system failed for me (i lost my job and was unable to find despite a willingness to work) it was me who had to pay the price. I lost my home. When the economic system fails, it is the propertyless people who pay the price.Repeat: When capitalism works, the rich get the benefits. And when capitalism fails, it is the poor that pay the price. This unfairness, this imbalance in costs and benefits, is based on the idea of legal property and nothing else. Why else was my landlord able to benefit from the economic system without paying for any of its failures?This message has been edited by mick, 04-12-2005 02:36 PMThis message has been edited by mick, 04-12-2005 02:38 PM

quote:

---

I don't think we can give everything to everyone, there are limits.

---

That is one of the problem I have with "liberalism". Not only do liberals seem unaware that exploitation and injustice are inherent characteristics of our current society (so cannot be eliminated, nor even alleviated for long with mere "reforms"), but some of them think that in a just world everyone can enjoy what they are accustomed to as an American middle class life style.I do believe that currently (but not for long, I'm afraid) it is possible to reorganize society so that everyone has at least the basics. And what else does anyone need?This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 04-12-2005 02:26 PM

I watched this thread grow today and waffled on whether it was a good idea to dive in(2 new posts just went up while I was typing this). The question of whether everyone would be willing to settle for less in order to equitize the distibution of goods and services around the globe is impossible to answer.I'm a lot more interested in what mick was saying about destroying the unnecessary institutions of capitalism and letting the people organize their economic lives. This sounds like a solid load of socialist nonsense--lots of high-minded intentions with no grounding in reality. What in the world do you mean by "lets organize it ourselves?" How does that happen? Isn't it entirely possible that we already have? You really think there is a better way to devise technology and allocate resources?Like democracy, regulated capitalism is the worst system of allocating economic resources, except for all the others. I don't know whether to laugh or cry when someone seriously suggets "destroying capitalism". There are only two systems of organization: free market enterprise, and feudalism. True communism does not exist except in the pages of Marxist philosophy, and in practice it leads, without fail, to ruin. Self-declared communists are fooling themselves. You are communists because a shallow exploration of 'ugly' capitalism leads you to believe there are alternatives. There aren't. There are only variations around the amount of regulation business will endure in a given jurisdiction. And claiming that capitalism has only served a few elite is just plain stupid.Please don't misunderstand, elimiating poverty and hunger should be important to the developed world. The reasons need not be altrustic-it really is in the best interests of the West to raise global standards of living. The way to do it is by giving the rest of the world a chance to participate meaningfully, not by giving handouts to those deemed most needy.

---

'Most temperate in the pleasures of the body, his passion was for glory only, and in that he was insatiable.'