Property Rights

[G. Adams]

This one follows from the RIAA thread, but I'm going to change the property, not the problem though, from music to medicine. This is just for context, feel free to reduce it simply to property. (And for clarity, property only refers to means of production)

Throughout the developing world there are horrific diseases ravging the people, in particular AIDS. These diseases, though not all curable, are usually treatable, and the suffering of afflicted eased. This requires medicines. These medicines are easily copied by pharmacists and then mass produced, providing such medicines cheaply, essential for the third world, yet this is being stopped because of property rights, in this case it is patents. When South Africa began creating its own AIDS drugs the US government, protective of its bourgois as always, put pressure on SA to stop, or aid would be cut. SA had to bow to the US, at the expense of its own citizens (hey, there's democracy and sovereignty out the window at America's behest once again). Now recently there has been a change and AIDS drugs can be copied in afflicted countries as long as they don't end up in western markets. Although this is obviously welcome, it is not because the pharmaceutical industry grew a conscience but because it was starting to get a dirty image (C4's documentary Dying for Drugs brought this problem to the front for at least a short while). This is only one disease among thousands that need to be dealt with, and the companies will certainly not give way on all of them, simply because it is not in their interests.

When I have raised this issue before some have argued that these companies require such extraordinary profits in order to fund research into new drugs. Tell me, what is the point of new drugs if they will only reach 1% of the human population? I would rather not have an aspirin that works a minute faster if I knew that malaria, TB, scarlet fever etc were being dealt with in the third world.

This is simply one example where property ownership benefits a small minority, in the form of profits, at the expense of the majority.

Also, briefly, the vast majority of people do not own any property, and the numbers are increasing. So property rights do not protect 'individuals', they protect a minority class of individuals. It keeps property away from the majority. And if you do not own property, you MUST work for those with it, or you will die of starvation. If you MUST work for someone else or die, in what way is this different from slavery? I pick and change my owners, but I MUST be owned or else.

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it till you believe me, man is enslaved to property, and thus for individuals to own property, man is enslaved to the owner. Unless we are going to give up on the progress of human liberty made throughout history, we are going to have to relinquish the idea of private property.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Yes, the current system has its flaws and any system will have its flaws. The problem is not the existence of property, it is who is going to have control over it. When every man is allowed to own his own property, there will be abuses from one man stealing the property of another. The only other alternative is giving our property to the state. Since there is already an example of this called taxes let us see how the state handles those...

First, the government does not look at tax revenue as if they should make every dollar count. They see a budget, one that they can simply demand more money to raise, the concept of giving tax money back to the people never really occurs to them. The closest we ever come is attempts to spur an economy, and that is not done for us, it is meant to get us where we can send them more money.

So, you are suggesting giving the rest of our resources to these people that never give any back???

I am not even going to go into correcting your overexaggeration of Africa.

[Geoff332]

Very few people (at least very few I know of who take morality seriously) argue for unrestrained capitalism.

There are several points to note.

1. Most developing nations are not capitalist: they are essentially feudal systems. Much of what you have described is the core moral problem with feudal/argarian systems. However, Marx himself recognised that capitalism was a natural progression out of a feudal economy. The main targets of his analysis (European nations) were moving out of feudalism and into what we now call capitalism; he was concerned with the next step. Many of the problems you cite could be resolved by establishing a rule of law and system of protecting individual rights. The problem is not the economic system, but the political one.

2. The example of drug-companies and their abuses of power is enabled less by intellectual property and more by the fact that the US has the military and economic power to very badly effect anyone who opposes it. It is an abuse of power, but (as the Soviet Union demonstrated), it doesn't take private property to enable the abuse of power. It takes control of resources.

3. Giving property to the state is not what 'genuine' communism proposes. It is talking about collective ownership of the means of production. Most people assume this means state ownership (and this is the way it was implemented in the Soviet Union), but that is not what Marx meant. Collective ownership means that no-one actually owns the means of production, but that the society has the shared access to those means and can use them to produce what is necessary for the society. Those decisions were meant to be made collectively (yes, how this is done is a problem -- see the next point).

4. Collective decision making is grossly ineffective: anyone who has been involved in committees to make decisions will know exactly what I mean. It is also difficult to establish what constitues the 'best' decision -- the definition of 'best' depends on the criteria used, and everyone can (and usually does) have different criteria. The practical result is usually a balance -- some representative decision making, some referrenda, all operating within a rule of law to protect rights (at least in theory). Fully collective decision making does not work. (There's a nice analogy with how we cognitively process information; our minds take a lot of short-cuts because it's too inefficient to process everything we see every time we see it. If we tried to, our minds wouldn't cope with the information load.)

5. As soon as you move away from fully collective decision making, you end up with power disparities. You might (should) have rules guiding these decisions, which have to be enforced and monitored, you have the decisions about setting these rules, you have interpretation and so on. These problems are unavoidable and will exist in both capitalist and communist systems -- they are inherent in any form of collective behaviour.

6. Power disparities make abuses of that power possible. History and human nature have taught us that if an abuse of power is possible, someone somewhere will do it. Since power disparities are inevitable, regardless of the economic system, the abuse of power made possible by power disparities is independant of the economic system. The nature of the problems and the solituons might vary; but the fact of them is unlikely to.

7. At a global level, the legal system is a mess. Basically, there is no independant enforcement arm (or judiciary for that matter), so international laws have no power beyond that which the individual states are willing to give to them. This means that there is no system for defining and protecting rights within that system -- might makes right. This is, once again, not a product of 'property rights' but of military power and resources. It's a political problem, not an economic one.

8. What you have observed in many nations has very little to do with property rights and much more to do with military power and control of resources. The US has vast resources, because it's a big country and can stop anyone else coming in and taking those resources. This is nothing to do with rights and everything to do with having a big military. Is this right? Not really. Would communism prevent it from happening? Probably not -- it would merely shift the locus of power.

9. There is a problem with the inertia of power. Irrespective of the system in place, those who have power will protect it and try and increase their control over it. This, again, is part of the Marxist critique of capitalism. Unfortunately, there's nothing I have seen to suggest that communist systems would offer a better alternative in this respect (at least nothing that is actually practical). There will be disparities of power and those with power will try to protect and increase that power.

[G. Adams]

My example was a bad example, and clearly forces beyond property, such as US bullying, are key factors upon the example. But the US justifies its actions because of property rights. If it did not have these to hide behind, its actions would be seen for what they are, abuse of its military and economic strength.

My example aside, the problem still stands, that while property is owned by a minority, the majority must work for the minority rather than itself.

And I do believe that communism would solve these problems, if it failed to do so it could not be called a communist society.

This is not on topic, but if society is not geared towards a eutopian society, instead to simply serve yourself at others expense, then there is no real reason, other than opposing power (the law), for me to steal what I want, kill who I don't like etc

[Geoff332]

No matter how you allocate the power -- there are going to be people who have and people who have not. Whether you are referring to ownership of property or decision making over the use of shared capital is secondary. How does communism over-come this?

I'm afraid the notion of an idealist utopia has never worked historically -- how will this be different under communism?

Let me put this another way: I am not saying property rights are either good or bad. I am saying that most of what I consider to be the major problems of society are independant of the means of making production decisions. Communism might solve some of the problems of capitalism (of which there are many), but it would create a whole new raft of problems.

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

As Geoff said, every form of government has it's inate difficulties. Nor can keep the advantages of one system and tack on the advantages of a new system. The cure could be worse than the original disease...

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by Geoff332@09-15-2003 08:28 PM No matter how you allocate the power -- there are going to be people who have and people who have not. Whether you are referring to ownership of property or decision making over the use of shared capital is secondary. How does communism over-come this? I'm afraid the notion of an idealist utopia has never worked historically -- how will this be different under communism? Let me put this another way: I am not saying property rights are either good or bad. I am saying that most of what I consider to be the major problems of society are independant of the means of making production decisions. Communism might solve some of the problems of capitalism (of which there are many), but it would create a whole new raft of problems.

well list the major problems that you don't attribute to capitalism and i'll, if they can be, show how communism could solve them.

[Geoff332]

I'm not the one that's calling for a revlution.

The core problem centres around control of resources. Some people control (make decisions about the use of) more resources than others -- and when those people who control more resources act out of their own self-interest, this can harm the majority.

[G. Adams]

These resources would be taken out of the hands of such minorities, and into the hands of those who work these resources. When this occurs for all resources, the democratically elected delegates from each resource would agree to distribute all surplus to the others in return for a share of their surplus. If one area decides that it is going to hike its prices or such, all the others would stop dealing with them, forcing them to back down and return to fair shairing.

I believe that if we put this society in place, after a few generations, (many of) the bugs would be ironed out, and the children would grow into people who would not lust for power, because such power is no longer a benefit.

This rests upon the idea that the prime human drive is survival. While capitalism, and era's preceding it such a feudalism, reigns then accumulating power is of a benefit and aids survival. In fact, this drive is neccesary to simply live. However, when striving for such power is detrimental to survival, humans will turn away from such actions. Supporting this will be the fact that there are no shortages in neccesary goods, there will be no risk to survival, thus there will be no need to grab for power.

[Geoff332]

So, if we're all good little communists, 10,000 years of history will go away. I'm afraid this is not an analysis: this is an ideology that I simply believe to be false. Give me evidence to support your claim.

The key to your position is that individuals will be able to substitute the survival of their society for their survival as an individual (to put collective interests above individual). This behaviour can be seen in some individuals, but the opposite is far, far more common. Once again, the weight of historical evidence is heavily against you and, aside from your belief, there is no reason for me to reject this evidence. Can you give me something more substantive?

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Adams
Ambition is what drives the human psych, all our art is about pain, sex, and death. Therefore we seek pleasure, love, and immortality, unless you satisfy all three of those urges, people will still seek power. Nothing short will do.

[fedfem]

Originally posted by GreatWyrm of Babylon@09-18-2003 12:39 AM Adams Ambition is what drives the human psych, all our art is about pain, sex, and death. Therefore we seek pleasure, love, and immortality, unless you satisfy all three of those urges, people will still seek power. Nothing short will do.

Oh my! Speak for yourself, but please do not generalize the human psyche.

I would argue that survival not ambition is what drives the human psyche. Maslow's Hierarchy of needs comes to mind. I disagree with your analysis of art. Some artists express these conditions but not all.

.

[Geoff332]

Originally posted by fedfem@09-18-2003 08:22 AM I would argue that survival not ambition is what drives the human psyche. Maslow's Hierarchy of needs comes to mind.

I agree -- to an extent. We might reach a point where the psycho-social maturity of the vast majority of people reach the higher level of self-actualisation. But the reality I see is that the vast majority of people are no-where near that (myself included, sadly). But, according to Maslow's heirarchy, most of us here are sitting around the third or fourth levels (social and ego needs). In Maslow's book, he makes it very clear that self-actualisation is very rare. Right below that, the level that most of us reach, we have ego needs: service of self.

In Adam Smith's theory of economy, he argues that the invisible hand of market forces operate such that if every individual acts from their self-interest, the collective impact of their actions will actually serve society. He described the mechanism by which this process would occur.

The model of communism I see here has the same form of 'magic wand' -- by instituting as communist structure to society, people will become less self-interested and more altruistic. What I don't see is the mechanism by which this will occur.

[G. Adams]

Originally posted by Geoff332@09-17-2003 09:42 PM So, if we're all good little communists, 10,000 years of history will go away. I'm afraid this is not an analysis: this is an ideology that I simply believe to be false. Give me evidence to support your claim. The key to your position is that individuals will be able to substitute the survival of their society for their survival as an individual (to put collective interests above individual). This behaviour can be seen in some individuals, but the opposite is far, far more common. Once again, the weight of historical evidence is heavily against you and, aside from your belief, there is no reason for me to reject this evidence. Can you give me something more substantive?

It is impossible for me to give evidence for any of this since none of it has been tried before.

I don't believe that it is ambition that drives human beings, but ambition has been up until now tied to survival. The ambitious, if succesful, survive. This would no longer be the case under communism.

The model of communism I see here has the same form of 'magic wand' -- by instituting as communist structure to society, people will become less self-interested and more altruistic. What I don't see is the mechanism by which this will occur

It is not communism that will bring this about, but this that brings communism about. It is only when this, in combination or succeeding with, a revolt against alienation between labour and capital. If we only have the revolt without the mind change, we would be just building new USSR's, and nobody wants that. This isn't anything new, Che Guevara said that once the revolution was over, there must be a revolution in conscience.

I do not want communism now, because I know full well that we are not prepared for it mentally. I would argue that the only role for communists today is to teach what they know, rather than try and bring about revolution now. In this way, we at least can bring people onto a more socially aware, and considerate, left leaning. Then when a revolt becomes neccesary, its success would lie with the revolutionary socialists.

[Geoff332]

So, describe to me the mechnanism by which this change in behaviour/attititudes will occur.

[G. Adams]

the mechanism for humans becoming more compassionate? I believe that the revolution, social or violent, will occur only after the vast majority have been pushed into extreme poverty. If they succeed in ridding themselves of the people who have done this to them, why would they allow it to happen to others again? Its just a matter of people learning from their past and mistakes. Like the European Union. The idea behind it was to make war between the member states impossible, because they have seen how terrible it is. After the revolution, people would do their best to make such poverty and oppression among humans impossible again.

I believe that there is already the neccesary aspects of conscience present, it just requires somebody or some event to awaken it within people. Most people are apathetic at the moment. If they knew the extent to which suffering goes on because of capitalism, they would reject it. And as for people in the rich west, who benefit because of capitalism, it'll take the poverty to start reaching into their lives for them to give a shit. I think most people when they see suffering on tv, especially as we see so much of it, they begin to care less. But if they see it in real life, they will want to do something about it too. Because they will begin to see extreme poverty in their everyday lives eventually, as the only way for the rich to get richer will be to start taking away the benefits, cut pay and increase hours for western workers.

[ColWTH]

G Adams,

You goof balls crack me up. Your little utopian nonsense has been bandied about for over 100 years and it has not even come CLOSE to fruition! Workers revolution! Ha, ha. A discredited threory scooped up out of the ash heap of history.

[G. Adams]

Wow, how little you know about such things.

Firstly, the theory was born out of the french revolution, "liberty, equality and fraternity". When Napoleon started stamping down on the third principles, many philosophers started defending it and the theories followed.

The big moment for such ideas was the French/German revolutions in 1849, out of which came Marx and Engels "The Communist Manifesto". These revolutions themselves were socialist ones.

But as for workers revolutions, or workers movements, we can look back to the levellers of the 1600's after the English Civil War. I'm sure we can go further back if you want.

So, its a little older than 100 years.

If you knew enough about communism and socialism, you would know that its not close to fruition because the world is not yet ready for it. We are still thoroughly in the capitalist era. And any attempts at communism now are doomed to failure.

And as for workers revolution, if you look throughout the history of the west you will see that the rich have bowed down time and time again when they feared new laws and police oppression would stop a workers revolution. Things you take for granted now, the 8 hour day, safe working conditions, welfare etc all have come about because workers have stood up and demanded it. Believe me, if the Establishment hadn't conceeded on these basic demands you would have seen October revolutions across the world.

[Geoff332]

So, make everyone suffer enough and we'll all become nice and friendly? Once again, that strikes me as pure idealism, with little by the way of substance to back it up.

as the only way for the rich to get richer will be to start taking away the benefits, cut pay and increase hours for western workers.

Funnily enough, under capitalism, production and wealth has increased far faster than labour has increased. This is because technology has generated enourmous increases the productivity of capital. The only way to increase wealth is to increase production of either capital or labour. Technology has allowed the former and, once again, looking at the facts, the relative wages paid in the west compared to 100 years ago have actually increased, not decreased. In terms of the labour process, production surplus has decreased. Labour has benefited in the west. The global situation is not actually that different (at 19th century production levels, India would not be capable of producing enough food to survivie; today they can -- indicating the increased productivity of land. Starvation is decreasing there -- even if it has a long way to go).

I have been asking you these questions to see where you sit. There are some very good and robust Marxist critiques still floating around -- it is far from a dead theory, despite what some people seem to think. I was wondering if you'd actually encountered any of them. So far, it appears not.

[G. Adams]

Well as for me encountering many Marxist theories that would be no, being that I am 18, have only two years of looking into this area, with only perhaps the last six months being even close to getting in depth. On top of this, my beliefs come from a objection to great social injustices that I feel cannot be solved under capitalism because capitalism either maintains or expands them. This started with finding out that we have far more food in this world than we need to feed everyone well, yet it doesn't happen. Maybe in a few years I can present an argument based in dry theory, but for now I am limited to what I know so far.

I don't deny the benefits that capitalism has brought. Marx never attacked capitalism for what it is, an era in history following feudalism. I admire its continual search for more efficient ways of producing and distributing, and the technological advances made under capitalism are the things that can make poverty a thing of the past. However while these technologies and assets are in the control of people who use them to collect wealth for themself, rather than better create and distribute it, poverty will remain.

The wages in the west have risen only as a result of globalisation. Whereas there would be massive working class, smallish middle class and tiny ruling class in each country 150 years ago, now it is as if we are one giant country, with the middle class and ruling class living in the West. The rich can afford to pay higher wages in the West in order to raise living standards, which increases stability in these countries. But they'll be damned if they pay their workers in developing countries anything like it. A person making t-shirts in britain will earn the min wage of £3.70 an hour, roughly $5.50, while in honduras they'll get 50 cents an hour. But if free trade would be fully actualised, where goods AND labour are free to move around the world, you would see equally shoddy wages for every worker around the world.

India is moving from towards a first world nation. It has better teaching than it used too. But with rising intelligence comes rising demands for better wages. If all countries around the world were first world nations, in terms of education, everyone in the world would be demanding good wages. But they would not get it, because if everyone around the world got good wages, the rich would no longer be rich. This is because of the simple fact that the rich can only be rich while there are poor people. If we were all rich, the value of our money would decrease, making us all equal.

Of course that point will never happen, because poor countries are indebted to the west through the World Bank and IMF, and they demand that these countries cut their education budgets.