Society without property?

I think it's worth pointing out that neither communism nor capitalism have yet been tried out in a modern mass society.Capitalism (in its strict, textbook, Adam Smith incarnation) is in fact anathema to big business, who prefer massive government subsidies, pernicious advertising, etc. which have no role in capitalism per se.Capitalism requires the existence of informed consumers with access to perfect information and workers with perfectly fair bargaining power. Such consumers have never and will never exist. If they existed the US economy would be screwed, because it exists solely on the basis of the ignorance of consumers and the weak bargaining power of workers.

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

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

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

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

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

To be fair, i said in an earlier post that capitalism had never been tried either, and I am open-minded on whether hardline capitalism combined with institutionalised charity might be a good economic system. It might work. It's never been tried.when I look at capitalism as it exists today, I don't see much enterprise. I see price fixing quite a lot, and I see deception regarding a product's characteristics through advertising. These are both thoroughly anti-capitalistic. Adam Smith is slowly rotating in his grave.In fact what we have now is more akin to feudalism than pure capitalism, in that consumers, regions and nation states are just "markets" that have to be "dominated" by powerful companies. Capitalism is based in the idea of rational individuals making their own decisions in their own self interest. The current economic system hates individuals and wants to homogenize them. It wants to hoodwink them so that they can not make rational decisions about their economic life, and it wants to lie to them and build a culture based on corporate propoganda. Like communism, capitalism doesn't exist on our planet, it never has, and it never will.

I can't give you a detailed description of how economies should be implemented. I am a biologist and not an economist.But i can describe what I think is the basis of any decent economic system.1. The economic system is made by human beings. It isn't a part of nature and it isn't a God-given thing. We can choose from a variety of economic systems and each one is practicable to the extent that it meets the desires of human beings who live under it. If we don't like the system, we can change it.2. The economic system is based on principles of human dignity. This means that that the human being is the centre of the economy. Individual human beings should dominate the economy, not vice versa. If the economy says that human beings should starve to death, but the human beings would rather go on living, then it is the economy that should change and not the desires of the human beings.3. The economy should be equitable. There should be neither extreme riches nor extreme poverty. This does not mean that some people can't be rich. But it means that some people can't be poor. The amount of differentiation between rich and poor should be supported by the resources available in nature and by the consent of members of the economy, according to a baseline of income that guarantees human dignity. If Bill Gates is a billionaire while one individual is starving to death, then we should take money from Bill Gates until starvation doesn't exist. If Bill Gates is a billionaire while a music student can't afford a new violin, then we will take money from Bill Gates until all music students can afford decent violins. We will have to decide what is the minimum level of income that accords with our view of human dignity, but I think any individual who requests food and a violin is making a reasonable request that is consistent with my view of human dignity.That's about it for me. If this economy can be accomplished by capitalism, the so be it. If it can be accomplished by the Communisty Party, then I'll sign up.I have a great deal of respect for theorists who put the human being at the centre of their view of the ideal economy.People on the extreme left might believe that human beings are basically nice, and that without the pernicious influences of culture and capitalist economy, we could have a workable economy based on alliances of groups with different interests but working together to ensure that as many interests are satisfied such that the dignity of a single human being is not damaged. I am thinking of somebody radical like Kropotkin, for example.People at the centre of politics might believe that human beings are basically reasonable, and that a consensus can be achieved based on rationality and education that would pragmatically satisfy the interests of as many people as possible, but leave some interests unsatisfied. These are people who subscribe to the view of "the greatest good to the greatest number" as the best kind of economy, given human imperfection. I am thinking of somebody radical like Rawls, for example.People on the extreme right might believe that the self-fulfilment available to individuals under capitalism is a social good, and that if capitalism is tempered by meritocracy and charitable acts then we can have a decent and vibrant society. I am thinking of somebody radical like Hayek, for example.I have a lot of time for Rawls, Kropotkin and Hayek, despite the fact that their viewpoints are from utterly different parts of the political spectrum. I have time for them because they put the fulfillment of the human individual at the centre of their view of the economy. They believe that human beings rule the economy and not vice versa. They believe that human beings can exert their power on economic affairs and change the economic world according to their desires.I have no time whatsover for the "liberal consensus" (amongst whom i include virtually all political parties in the first world) who despise human individuals. People who believe that capitalism as practised in the US at the beginning of the 21st century is the be all and end all of human achievement. People who believe that the economy is real and external to the human beings who create it. People who have no concept of human dignity. People who have forgotten that human beings even exist.mickedited by mick, to make John Rawls a centrist rather than a hard line left winger.This message has been edited by mick, 04-12-2005 03:34 PMThis message has been edited by mick, 04-12-2005 03:46 PM

Why are you confused as to who the evil capitalists might be?They are human beings who eat shit and piss just like you and me. They have names and addresses. There is a list of 691 of them at the Forbes Rich List (2004).edited by mick to correct URL leading to rich listThis message has been edited by mick, 04-12-2005 04:46 PM