Economic power: "property rights" or legal reductionism?

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://fora.tv/2008/10/20/Naomi_Klein_and_Joseph_Stiglitz_on_Economic_Power

Years ago, when I heard that Hernando De Soto's argument in The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else was for all-encompassing "property rights," I initially dismissed him as yet another Big Establishment economist (and he is with his defense of "economic freedom"). However, in the video above (courtesy of David Harvey), and with guests Naomi Klein and Joseph Stiglitz, De Soto talks of property rights in terms of accounting and legalism, including even "social property rights" in all of this (and even praises Hugo Chavez at one point). He then mentions that all this derivatives mess was a result of having no property accounting and legalisms in place and evoked feudal times, when property accounting and legalisms weren't developed. [On a sidenote, he praises the development of American "property rights" and compares it with present-day enclosures in Britain.]

With what he's saying, do we need to refine our stance on the "abolition of private property"? On the other hand, CPGB comrade Dr. Mike Macnair, with an extensive background in legal history, is calling for a communist minimum programme to abolish constitutional rights to private property (as opposed to state nationalizations, expropriations, etc.) (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/625/macnair.htm). Are there potential legal reductionisms in all of this?

[davidasearles]

The person using the pseudonym Jacob Richter states that Mike MacNair is calling for a communist minimum program to abolish constitutional rights to private property, yet "Richter" provides no citation.

"REVOLUTIONARY MARXISM":

Is not the Issue.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Link:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/625/macnair.htm

[davidasearles]

Charlie Brown was never able to kick the football just as our vocabulary sifting friends are never able to come right out and stand for worker control of the industrial means of production.

Why an amendment merely to abrogate the constitutional protection of private ownership of the means of production? A political program to only take away the constitutional protection of private property protection but not a prohibition against it. Not a simple provision that recognizes a corresponding right of the workers to collective control of the industrial means of production.

It's a MINIMUM program? Oh I see.

Never be forthright - never openly assert the workers' full right.


From the cited MacNair article that "Richter" cited:

+++++++++++++++++++++

Political Platform

This understanding enables us to formulate a core political minimum platform for the participation of communists in a government. The key is to replace the illusory idea of ‘All power to the soviets’ and the empty one of ‘All power to the Communist Party’ with the original Marxist idea of the undiluted democratic republic, or ‘extreme democracy’, as the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

This implies:
l universal military training and service, democratic political and trade union rights within the military, and the right to keep and bear arms;
l election and recallability of all public officials; public officials to be on an average skilled workers’ wage;
l abolition of official secrecy laws and of private rights of copyright and confidentiality;
l self-government in the localities: ie, the removal of powers of central government control and patronage and abolition of judicial review of the decisions of elected bodies;
l abolition of constitutional guarantees of the rights of private property and freedom of trade.

++++++++++++++++++++

Also what kind of mindless crap is being pushed here - that courts not be able to declare legislative enactments void for being in violation of the constitution?

The US Supreme Court should not have had the authority to declare void all manner of due process and equal protection violations as a result of legislation setting up Jim Crow? How stupid is that? In the US it's a reactionary line to complain that courts have too much power. Is that the element you hope to play to?

You carry these ideas forward from some text that you consider holy, so they just can't be wrong. If you want to be religious just go to church and be done with it.

"REVOLUTIONARY MARXISM":

Is besides the point

[Die Neue Zeit]

So you have nothing to say about legal issues, then?

[davidasearles]

AS a matter of fact I do.

The workers ought to not beat around the bush but through the current political system openly and directly push a change in the private property law concerning the industrial means of production and distribution - to transfer it to the workers' collective ownership and control.

"REVOLUTIONARY MARXISM":

Is besides the point

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ The "Constitutional Amendment Proposal" is exactly the same as Mike Macnair's proposal to abolish constitutional rights to private property, since "exclusion of the workers... shall not exist" is equally "weak." I believe you and Mike discussed strengthening Section 1, but one of you opposed more forceful language.

[davidasearles]

The person who identifies himself as "Jacob Richter" fails to see the difference - abolishing a right is not exactly the same as now prohibiting that which was previously as of right.

You may walk across my front lawn if you have a right to, even if I object. Or you may walk across my lawn even if you have NO right to, if I raise no objection.

Assuming by property that we are talking about the industrial means of production and distribution held as private property - merely stating an abolition of that private property relationship does not determine who of right has the industrial means of production and distribution.

My comment was:

"not a prohibition against (private ownership of the industrial means of production and distribution). (And) Not a simple provision that recognizes a corresponding right of the workers to collective control of the industrial means of production.

The first section of the workers' amendment proposal doesn't state a mere prohibition but clearly indicates that that right belong to the workers. (And "Jacob Richter" is incorrect again - the "strength" of that section is not being discussed at the yahoo group, deleonism-list, but the clarity of its wording.)

And then there is a second section in the workers' amendment proposal. That section does clearly state a constitutional process through which the workers actually obtain collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution - something that is TOTALLY LACKING in the MacNair proposal. Something that apparently is ALWAYS LACKING by the great majority of those who consider themselves leftists, even revolutionary leftists or "revolutionary Marxists".