Owning private property

[Red Leader]

I recently got back from my politics teacher an essay I wrote on Mao Zedong and the PRC and basically how it isn't communist right now. In the last few paragraphs I wrote about how Deng Xiaoping restored the Chinese market as the main means of the development of individual economy and how he opened its doors to western style capitalism and rightist views.

"Deng Xioping also introduced non-permanent ownership of land, where after fifteen years the owner of the land would have to give it up to the state."

Beside this statement my teacher wrote: "this isn't very rightist at all"

What do you think? To me, most people think that a far left view of property is that it should be owned by the government. I think this is false. The government wouldn't own the property because there would be no property. I think the idea of non permanent ownership is closer to the right wing idea of leaving property for the peasents to sell for private profit, however not actually "owning" because the businesses and the market actually control it, making the farmers see none of the goods he produces, only profit.

[Forward Union]

What do you think? To me, most people think that a far left view of property is that it should be owned by the government. I think this is false.

This is true in Anarchism and Communism, but not in many forms of Socialism. You kind of right, it's not at all communist for property to be owned by anyone not even the state.


The government wouldn't own the property because there would be no property.

not to mention there wouldn't be a government, at which point it's not really 'left' anymore (because left and right are references to Government).

But your teacher is, on a technicality, right. It's a socialist principal; that property should be controlled by the state, and the state should be controlled by the people

[timbaly]

Though your teacher pointed out a very uncapitalistic element of China's economy and government, is it not obvious that you established many more reasons as to why the country more rightist than people believe? The fact that the property can not be inherited throughout the generations and can not be owned indefeinetely is more of a leftist idea, but the fact that it can be owned even for a short time just shows how China has moved more to the right.

[Red Leader]

Exactly right.

From 1949 to 76 mao established collectivized agriculture systems and communes that equitably distributated food to the peasents. There was no ownership of land until china became more corrupt, and the farmers began to distrust the government, as evident by the unimproved farming or investments in long term growth. Not at all like during the communes, where agriculture grew at a rate of three percent a year.

However, I still dont see how the idea of temporary ownership of land is uncapitalistic when a farmer only owns his or her land in the sense that he grows his crops on it. The busnisses and market (which, lets be honest, in a capitalist society is the government) buys the product from the land and dictates whether or not the farmer keeps the land (because if there is no market value for the crops, the farmer is forced to sell the land). All the while the farmer sees none of this, only living on his so called "property". This is how it is in North america, no better then in china.

[jambajuice]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 22 2005, 08:17 PM
The government wouldn't own the property because there would be no property.
How would that happen?

No property? I don't understand?

Even on Mars which is lifeless, airless, building less, and private goods-less, there is still real-estate.

[Red Leader]

Property is a concept thought up by man. Of course there is land everywhere, but it is only real estate when there is a market for it, when people want to own it. This of course only exists as a principle in capitalist society. if you "own" land, is it really yours? A piece of paper or a signiture means nothing. The first nations were driven out of thier land when the europeans came over to north america. I live on a piece of land that used to belong to these people, now my parents "own" it. Ask any aboriginal and they will tell you otherwise.

Property is not real. It is theft.

[Floyce White]

I take on many aspects of property in my current series of essays at
http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html

[jambajuice]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 23 2005, 03:10 AM
Property is a concept thought up by man. Of course there is land everywhere, but it is only real estate when there is a market for it, when people want to own it. This of course only exists as a principle in capitalist society. if you "own" land, is it really yours? A piece of paper or a signiture means nothing. The first nations were driven out of thier land when the europeans came over to north america. I live on a piece of land that used to belong to these people, now my parents "own" it. Ask any aboriginal and they will tell you otherwise.

Property is not real. It is theft.
I pick up a twig.

I carve into a pleasing shape.

It's mine?

The other stuff? In 'my' house. In 'my' kitchen. In 'my' closet?

That is a very strong concept vs. 'mine does not exist'.

Stuff that is not 'mine', is stuff I don't care about and has no value to me. I'm quite happy to consider this stuff 'ours'. I don't see this concept going away and replaced by 'no existance of mine' very soon.

[KC]

We are not talking about personal property, jambajuice, we are talking about private property. They are different.

[jambajuice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 01:08 PM
We are not talking about personal property, jambajuice, we are talking about private property. They are different.
Personal property = private property.

Please show me 1 example of your concept of personal property vs private property.

Any piece of real-estate or manufactured good can be bought and become my personal and private property if there is a seller willing to meeting my sales price. I can put a fence around my real-estate and it becomes my personal and private property. In some places around the world I can even still buy people and make them my personal and private property.

Thus I don't see your distinction between personal and private property.

[KC]

Karl Marx - Economic And Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844: Private Property and Communism (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm#44CC6)

Read that and get back to me.

[Luís Henrique]

Personal property = private property.

By no means.


Please show me 1 example of your concept of personal property vs private property.

Your toothbrush: your personal property.
Your factory: your private property.


if there is a seller willing to meeting my sales price.

IF.

Sellers aren't a fact of nature; buying and selling are social relations (as it is made clear by the fact that if such seller is the thief, there is no valid property transmission).


I can put a fence around my real-estate and it becomes my personal and private property.

Nonsense. Until you register such property into the appropriate government office, this is just landgrabbing.

And if you do not put any fence around it, but you have registered your property, it is no less yours for the fact that you haven't fenced it...

Property is not a relationship between owner and owned thing; it is a relationship between owner and others, non-owners.

Luís Henrique