Re: [A-List] Academic life of Mises

["Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A Socialist organizer was sent to a small farming village to raise the
revolutionary consciousness of the masses.  He began his speech befor
a gathering of villagers by saying that if a person owns two farms and
he can only farm one, he should give one to another who has none. 
There was wild applause of approval from the sudience.  Encouraged,
the organizer went on to say that if a person has two houses and he can
only live in one, he should give one house to another who has none. 
Against wild applause.  If a person has two cars and he can only drive
one, he should give one to another who has none.  Again wild applause. 
If a person has two chickens and he only needs one, he should give one
to another who has none.  Dead silence.  Confused, the organizer
turned to his local cadre and asked what happened.  "They all have
two chickens," was the reply.

Henry C.K. Liu

Waistline2@xxxxxxx wrote:

In a message dated 12/18/02 5:30:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, Annewilliamson@xxxxxxx writes:
 

It also occurs to me that the Henry George
approach to property might be of interest to A-Listers.  I
learned about his work through Michael, and I have a
number of books on it but - alas - I have not read them
yet (your note prompted the guilty memory of that failure,
and oh what an educated woman I'd be if I just got all the
books on my shelves read :-), but perhaps all the A-listers
already know all about that approach. -A.
 
 
 

I, also am not familiar with the material quoted above and several days ago added by two-cents or rather dollar (must take into account 30 years of inflation or value reduction) concerning the meaning of property.

By property is not meant buying a house or simply owning. My use of property as I have come to understand Marx, means ownership of the material wherewithal that reproduces capitalist property relations or ownership of those things that allows one to dominate people. The quality of this "domination" compels a huge section of society to sell their labor power to the owners or institutions and institutional frameworks reproducing capital.

Capital most certainly means money in our day and age, but more fundamentally it - capital, is a historically evolved social relations or better yet, a social power. This social power is the instrument by which humanity is converted into modern proletarians and compelled to sell the only thing they own - labor power.

My computer is not my personal property as such but part of my personal possessions, as is my car, home, books, etc.

Property in the modern sense of the word is bound up with means of production and a home is not means of production, nor is a car.

I wanted to follow this thread, as Mark Jones introduced some material from Marx "Outline" that spoke of the genesis of "property" before the emergence of the mode of production in material life. I sidestepped this presentation because personal consumption items is not my meaning of property or that of Marx in his works published for the masses.

If our working class thinks that private property means personal possessions devoid of the ability to reproduced a historically evolved social relations of production, we can all go home and forget winning them to a certain kind of political revolution. No one has to give up their Mercedes-Benz or mansion for that matter. Our country is very developed and does not require taking things from individuals. Nor is there a need for the state as such, to own the means and instruments of production.

We probably need to be a lot more creative in our approach to how people think things out and understand their surrounding.

Melvin P.
 

Melvin P.