Re: Origins of Private Property -Reply -Reply

[Jim Jaszewski <jjazz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 20 Jul 1995, Lisa Rogers wrote:

> Jim, I don't think we've answered my question, which I think is
> interesting: _why_ would people have or not have "avarice"?
>
> It cannot only be the fault of capitalism, because that just leaves
> the problem of how the avarice of capitalism itself came about,
> doesn't it?  I suspect the questions are related.

        Avarice is a selfish act (or thought?), and in my mind that
signifies a certain ignorance first-off.  The more enlightened you are,
the more you see the point of _not_ acting avariciously...

        Obviously, Capitalism is only the most recent (and efficient)
example of this ignorant behavior...


> You don't have to believe it, but I know that many pre or
> noncapitalist societies do indeed have concepts and behavior
> regarding property.  There is no such thing as a "communal herd" or
> "communal garden" in "primitive communism".

        The point's been made that _no_ society _we_ know of, today, could
be classified as a bona fide communistic one.  For that, we'd have to go
far into pre-history (or maybe beyond 500 years of Imperialism -- even
supposedly `pristine' societies in the Wilds of Amazonia were fighting
conquistadores during this whole epoch...)


  Everyone knows exactly
> which cow belongs to who, who dug those tubers, who's arrow killed
> the wildebeast, who shot the arrow, which garden is which, who has
> rights of land use or tenure, etc.

        Before herding came communal slaughter of wild herds -- including
entrapment in enclosures.  I would doubt highly that there was _any_ talk
of PP then.  What does the record say on the attitude of First Peoples
here on Turtle Island?


> Questions of property are much more complicated than "capitalist PP
> rules" or none at all.  And how did we get from one to the other?

        I agree.  I hope you don't think I implied differently.  Indeed;
how DID we get from then to now??  It's OUR job to (at least try to)
provide the answer...


> Since I'm studying property from an anthropological point of view,
> and marxism-et-al has something to say about it too, I thought this
> might be an interesting place for hybridization of the fields.

        Like most here, I believe, I too am here to help synthesize
all(?) present knowledge into a coherent, consistent marxist Theory of
Everything...   |>


> BTW, "aboriginal landclaims problems" today have *nothing* to do with
> "having trouble with" the "concept of private property".  The problem
> is getting the powers that be to recognize, respect or defend any
> landclaims that do not serve their own interests.  And to get those
> powers to recognize land use and control methods that differ from
> US/western "standards" as still being legitimable.

        Didn't I cover that (or was that the `lost message')?

        I'm talking about the trouble the WHITEman has with concepts that
*DON'T* include PP.


> Even farming does not automatically mean land ownership in the sense
> to which we are accustomed, [and foraging does not mean that there
> are no landclaims].  There are many many ways to hold rights to land
> use.  For instance, some societies have land use "rights" that look
> similar to ours except that if a site is sold it must remain within
> the clan or village.  Or it can't be sold at all, and every woman
> gets a garden, but only if she is part of the patrilineage, by birth
> or marriage, and when she dies the land-use is still controlled by
> the patrilineage, etc. (Except if you are powerful enough you can
> thumb your nose at any "rule" and sometimes people do.)

        These are pretty much all examples of the evolution of PP, prior
to its present exalted state in the pantheon of Mamon, I would think.


> Even people [foragers] who are the least territorial, the most likely
> to welcome visitors, and least likely to be stingy, for instance the
> !Kung of the Kalahari, famous for sharing, even they have clear
> concepts of rights of access to the countryside.  They visit
> neighboring areas often, but only where there is a blood-tie.
> Especially the areas in which one's parents were born are recognized
> as alternate "homes" for a person, but even there one must find and
> visit with the residents before going out to lunch.

        PP relations look pretty tenuous here!!  Again, I assert that
early communism no longer exists on this planet.


> They may have lacked a word for "rights" (although I'm guessing they
> have one now!) as they lacked fences and well-defined boundaries, but
> only because it had not been a big issue before.

        Bingo.


  They certainly did
> know where they could go, what they could use, what was home, the
> proper social procedures for obtaining access to resources, etc.
> Their word for home-range [or some might say territory] means
> literally "countryside" which is by implication "*my* home".
>
> I hope you can see why I want a closer look at property/land use than
> to simply say that all non-capitalists lack all property claims, (or
> to say that all people _are_ greedy.)

        I agree.  I never claimed the latter.




-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

   Jim Jaszewski   <jjazz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

   WWW homepage:   <http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------