Private Property

[insurgent]

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of private property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.


I've looked around for how the development of industry has destoyed private property but didnt find any satisfying answers. What exactly were Marx and Engles talking about in the context of their day and is it still relevant today?

[DiggerII]

i think that they meant that because the proleterians are so exploited, they haven't enough money to take care of their needs, consequently they must adopt a lifestyle with little that satisfies necessity. They'll lose their house, land etc. (again it's just my impression)

[Eleutherios]

He is talking about the property of, say, a shoemaker who makes shoes out of the leather of his own cows. Industry has destroyed that kind of property; virtually every manufactured good is the product of the labor of many many different people, and thus the finished product does not belong to any one individual.

[insurgent]

The working class is so underpaid, I assumed that he meant that they are not able to own these things in the first place. They will get paid the bare minimum for survival so that they are never able to leave the factory to do something else because they havn't the money. I remember Huff talking a lot about that. It's how the factory owners keep their workers working for them. I should of brought that up in that thread about alternatives to sweatshops.





That part of the wealth which is produced by workers and taken from them in the form of profits would be theirs, under socialism, to buy more private property

I think I'm going to use that quote in my essay.




Also, go read the coming of the guards chapter in a Peoples History, probably the greatest thing I have ever read.

[Janus]

Concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands and the tendency towards corporatism.

[insurgent]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 06:58 pm
Concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands and the tendency towards corporatism.

How can I explain that in an essay for people that don't know anything about the subject? I'm trying not to use any "isms" :P

[Janus]

Ditch the term corporatism then. Just state that it is a global trend in which corporations are accruing greater wealth and pushing out competitors in their markets in the process.

[insurgent]

Yea I basically defined corporatism


the only isms ive used are communism and capitalism. I put the definition of corporatism in my definition of capitalism.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 03:07 am
How can I explain that in an essay for people that don't know anything about the subject? I'm trying not to use any "isms" :P
Did you see the movie "The Shop Around the Corner"?

Luís Henrique

[WP_Joel]

What he meant by private property is probably best described as capital. The property that produces the wealth. The destruction of private property does not mean people won't be able to own TVs for example.

[insurgent]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 12, 2007 05:21 am
Did you see the movie "The Shop Around the Corner"?

Luís Henrique

I have not