what is the marxian analysis of labour vs property?

[Dr Mindbender]

Furthermore how do we distinguish between beourgiose and proletarian property or should they be treated the same?

By which i mean should all the property of beourgiose who became that way be redistributed, or only property they acquired since that point since it did not come about by their own labour? How can we overcome the impracticalities involved in this?

What should our critique be on John Locke's work of the same theme?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_theory_of_property

[Dr Mindbender]

No takers?

[al8]

Furthermore how do we distinguish between beourgiose and proletarian property or should they be treated the same?

By which i mean should all the property of beourgiose who became that way be redistributed, or only property they acquired since that point since it did not come about by their own labour? How can we overcome the impracticalities involved in this?

What should our critique be on John Locke's work of the same theme?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_theory_of_property

I can't give you a straight anwer but my conception is that property rights and the means by which it is inherited is to a very large degree arbitrary and amenable to what concurrent social structure requires.

When we think of a revolution we must be ready to descard all tedious bookkeeping, and structure our ways and rules to circumstance. In ways that are best suited to curb any kind of accumulation of capital and have some sort of social and organizational buffers on it's use and prominance. That fx. means that inheritence of means of production or (large) amounts of money - if we haven't yet obolished money completely - should be forbidden. We would of cource only be protecting personal and common/public property, but not private property. I don't think we need to differeciate between prolitarian property and bourgeois property.

I don't remember if it was Marx that said somthing along the fashion of; Revolution is the act when the new dominates the old. That is, a time when dead labour (capital) no longer enslaves living labour. So all relations are made anew.

I think it is important for us revolutionaries to note that with the social constructs of morality and right that follows the set propertie relations that we are in no way bound to them. We have other guiding priciples. But I'm not saying it's politically useless or uninformative to point to things like the english Enclosure Acts to point to the hypocritical beginnings of capitalism.

My opinion is that exact bookkeeping will simply be impractical and uneccisary, even impossible.

In the wiki article, there is a quote by Murray Rothbard that says new found land as for example America;


If there is more land than can be used by a limited labor supply, then the unused land must simply remain unowned until a first user arrives on the scene. Any attempt to claim a new resource that someone does not use would have to be considered invasive of the property right of whoever the first user will turn out to be

Which is obviously a very acriculturally way of looking at use of land. As there can be different ways of looking at use of land, for example between sheep hearders, farmers or hunter gatherers.

I will not doubt that revolution will be decried as the utmost grand theft. It's because we have a different conception of the legitamicy of property. As simple as.

[Yehuda Stern]

I'd say that the guidelines are simple - that we don't take private property such as apartments and small houses, small pieces of lands, etc., but that we do take over large estates and land in general, and of course, industry.

[Decolonize The Left]

What is the marxian analysis of labour vs property?

This is unclear to me. Labor is the most human act we know - property is expropriation. Could you clarify this question a bit more?


Furthermore how do we distinguish between beourgiose and proletarian property or should they be treated the same?

What type of property are you referring to? Public property would obviously become meaningless, but if you wish to distinguish between the proletariat/bourgeoisie, then it would be proletarian property. Personal property will naturally change, although much of it will remain in tact. We will not be taking spoons from people... so long as everyone has a spoon.

And as for private property, it will naturally be abolished.


By which i mean should all the property of beourgiose who became that way be redistributed, or only property they acquired since that point since it did not come about by their own labour? How can we overcome the impracticalities involved in this?

The working class will decide, as a whole, what to do with the vast amounts of private property recently fallen into their possession. Most likely it will be redistributed on a decentralized basis.


What should our critique be on John Locke's work of the same theme?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_theory_of_property

Well, Locke's theory of labor poses many problems.

The first is that Locke makes a foolish distinction, common to all religious folks, that one can "own" oneself! He claims that one can only own oneself and one's labor. But this posits a position of ownership within the self, which is insane because it splits the self (no doubt into a soul and a body).

So, as we do not need to indulge in this absurdity, we can say that one is oneself, and hence one's labor. One is only one's actions. Following from this, one cannot own oneself, or one's labor. One cannot own at all! For ownership was derived from the mind/body split, which as I have mentioned, is insane.

- August