Concept of ownership of land; my viewpoint

[himalayanspirit]

I have been thinking of this most fundamental aspect about the concept of ownership of land by individuals, which is the foundation of capitalism.

Capitalism allows land to be owned by individuals, and this is also a measure of the wealth of that individual. One that "owns" more land is richer compared to another who "owns" lesser land.

But this concept of ownership is actually absurd and is directly related to the greed of men. The very piece of land where someone is sitting currently and reading this post in his computer, is eternal (almost) and ever-existent, but the reader is mere mortal. In other words, this very land had cherished thousands of animals, plants, men etc, since thousands of years. Many animals must have passed by, rested, and stood on, this piece of land. Many men have occupied this piece of land since thousands of years, from the prehistoric, hunting period to the more modern times. From this one thing is very clear; the land had been always existent, whereas its "occupiers" have come and gone since "time immemorial". So, how come a man call it his land? The land shelters the man; man doesn't "produce" land for his usage.

Moreover, if someone occupies this piece of land today, then it is because of prior political, social and environmental changes. One group of people must have invaded another to take control of that land. It couldn't have been passed down to its current "owner" from his ancestors directly since more than a few decades or centuries. The only method of occupying land is through invasion or simply by claiming unused land for one's use (shelter, agriculture etc).

Therefore, the concept of owning and trading of land is very absurd.

One doesn't own a piece of land; one only uses it.

I would like the members to comment about this viewpoint of mine.

PS - I am beginner to the left ideology, so please excuse my ignorance.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Welcome to the forums!



Capitalism allows land to be owned by individuals, and this is also a measure of the wealth of that individual. One that "owns" more land is richer compared to another who "owns" lesser land. Yes, but its not exactly that simple. Wealth is also measured by other things like the amount of surplus value a capitalist receives by exploiting the labor of the workers he/she employs. For example, if capitalist A owns 50 acres of forest then the only way to accumulate any value from the forest is if the owner were to employ workers labor over the land (extracting resources, farming the land etc). Now capitalist B owns a factory (which takes up much less space than 50 acres) but he accumulates vast amounts of profits because a factory revolves around workers producing commodities for the capitalist which he/she then sells for a profit. So one who owns more land is not necessarily richer than one who owns less. It really depends on how you use it.



Therefore, the concept of owning and trading of land is very absurd. Yes it is, the problem is that land is reduced to a simple commodity in capitalism. Therefore it can be bought and sold by any asshole who has the money, and said asshole can proceed to exploit others on this piece of land.


One doesn't own a piece of land; one only uses it.Precisely.




PS - I am beginner to the left ideology, so please excuse my ignorance.Stick around and you'll learn a lot.

[himalayanspirit]

Thank you for your comment mykittyhasaboner.


Yes it is, the problem is that land is reduced to a simple commodity in capitalism. Therefore it can be bought and sold by any asshole who has the money, and said asshole can proceed to exploit others on this piece of land.


Exactly. Land is reduced to a commodity, even when it is not a commodity but a natural resource available for everyone to use. Its like the air(atmosphere) and water (rivers, ponds etc). These are available to us naturally and one cannot capture these resources and use them as a tool for exploitation and for his own greed.

If some random bankers owns thousands of acres of land today, then its because his grandfather had waged a war to capture this land from its "original" inhabitants (who themselves must have invaded it from some one else; the recursion goes on). Capitalism legitimized this "ownership", but there is no rationale behind this legitimization because this was merely a captured piece of land.

Suppose if China plans to invade US and snatch away the land from them and claim its "ownership", and their capitalistic government legitimizes the distribution of land (unequally of course), then would this also be legitimate for the Americans? No.

Therefore, capitalistic concept of ownership of land has no basis at all. No one can justify why some individual owns some piece of land today.

Land can only be used, it cannot be owned.

As for the issue of labor and its exploitation by this "owner", that is inevitable when the basis itself is wrongly founded.

I would appreciate more views about this.

[Vahanian]

If some random bankers owns thousands of acres of land today, then its because his grandfather had waged a war to capture this land from its "original" inhabitants (who themselves must have invaded it from some one else; the recursion goes on). Capitalism legitimized this "ownership", but there is no rationale behind this legitimization because this was merely a captured piece of land.


Land ownership isn't alway based on inheritance(in less of course you meant this figuratively), and probably the only reason for the said owned land by the banker is because he probably want to sell the land to try to make a profit. And capitalism is rarely ever rational so you have a hard time explaining most of it

(welcome to the forum:))

[himalayanspirit]

(welcome to the forum)

Thank you. Yes, I am new to this forum as well as the left ideology. But even though my knowledge about communism is of the beginner's level, this basic argument about land ownership that I posted, itself makes me against the ideology of capitalism. I consider it completely unjust and irrational to occupy land and "own" it, from the common sense point of view itself.

[Steve_j]

Loved your post mate.


The land shelters the man; man doesn't "produce" land for his usage.


Spot on:thumbup1:

[himalayanspirit]

Loved your post mate.

Thanks Steve. Its nice for the first time to meet people with similar views in such numbers.


The same applies not only to land, but houses and other dwellings also.

Yes, I agree. But it applies "more" to land, because in the case of land it can be directly and fundamentally justified. In the case of houses, dwellings etc, one may argue that "since the labor was provided by some men, the house should actually belong to them". I believe that the productivity/labor of a man/woman should have value. Given the fact that some men have provided labor and hard work to raise a structure, while using a piece of land (on which it is erected), and that their labor has value, the structure (house, dwelling etc) should actually belong to them. What does Marx have to say on this?
One may further argue that the house need not necessarily be constructed by the ones who are going to live in it, because not all are skilled in construction. In that case, I think there should be some mechanism by which the "ownership" of the house can be transferred from its constructors to the ones who are going to live in it. But wouldn't it contradict communist principles then? Can anybody solve this problem?

In any case, the house never actually belongs to "owner" of the land, or the rich man who provides money for its construction.