hardt/negri property law
the problem w property is not merely that some have it and some don’t. private property itself is the problem.
private property is not intrinsic to human nature or necessary for civilized society
rousseau was so lucid and sever when identifying private property as the source of all kinds of corruption and cause of human suffering
‘the first man, who, having enclosed a piece of ground, to who it occurred to say this is mine, and found people sufficiently simple to believe him, was the true founder of civil society…how many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors mankind would have been spared by whim who, pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had cried to his kind: beware of listening to this imposter; you are lost if you forget that the fruits are everyone’s and the earth no one’s‘.
for rousseau, this lost eden posed a challenge to the present while undermining the newly emergent myth of progress. european civilization was not some higher state or advancement over prior ‘primitive’ cultures. forward momentum could go in reverse, w positive attributes forgotten or suppressed in the frantic quest of improvement. modern civilization, not original sin, was the source of man’s defilement..
property and sovereignty .. are intimately mixed in the twinned operations of possession and exclusion..
the need to defend id and its privileges.. sometimes eclipses all other goals.. id and property thus have a double relation in right wing populisms: id serves as a privileged means to property and also as a form of property itself.. which promises to maintain or restore the hierarchies of the social order
act 4:32: and the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common
the refusal of property is thus not only essential to spiritual transformation, according to franciscans, but also to a life of plenitude.. poverty is not the absence of wealth, but perhaps paradoxically, its fundamental precondition: ‘everything for everyone’ .. to cite a zaptista slogan..
in the capitalist world poverty became inextricably linked to exploitation.. the poor tend to become no longer slaves, beasts of burden, untouchables at the margins of the human race, but instead integrated and subordinated as producers..
if wealth today tends to be produced not by individuals but only in expansive cooperative social networks, then the results should be the property of the productive network as a whole the entire society, which is to say the property of no one; that is, property should become non property and wealth must become common
legal projects to reform property .. have had beneficial effects but now we need finally to take the leap beyond..
it is becoming increasingly clear.. that property can and must be stripped of its sovereign character and transformed into the common.
the common is defined first, then, in contrast to property .. it is not a new form of property but rather non property.. that is, a fundamentally diff means of organizing the use and management of wealth.. the common designates an equal and open structure for access to wealth together w democratic mechs of decision making..
how about 2 convos.. to facil have/need ness (esp because unless we’re doing daily self-talk/detox.. we’re faciling fake wants.. no where near true needs/desires.. completely changes what it means to make decisions)
private property is not intrinsic to human nature or necessary for civilized society, ..t.. but rather a historical phenom: it came into existence w capitalist modernity and oe day it will pass out of existence..
David Wengrow (@davidwengrow) tweeted at 2:56 AM on Mon, Feb 18, 2019:
Locke’s (1690) ‘Second Treatise of Government,’ for instance, argued that many Indigenous Americans had no rights to their own land, because “property” was to be legally defined only in terms of “labour” invested in fixed plots of territory .. 2/4
sheldon wolin in politics and vision: ‘the compulsion arising from a system of property’
commerce alone is not capitalism; rather, capitalism, or a ‘system of property’ emerges when the possibility of trade becomes the necessity
@locusmag: “There’s a name for societies where a small elite own property and everyone else rents that property from them: it’s called feudalism.” A new article by @doctorow!
sept 2 2019 article
The problem with markets is that selling things is inefficient.There are so many people who don’t need the thing, just a momentary use of the thing:..t
We gave up on owning things ..t.. – property now being the exclusive purview of transhuman immortal colony organisms called corporations – and we were promised flexibility and bargains. We got price-gouging and brittleness.
we have to do it 100%.. unconditional.. or it won’t work
hardt/negri property law et al
There’s a name for societies where a small elite own property and everyone else rents that property from them: it’s called feudalism. ..twenty years on, DRM is revealed to be exactly what we feared: an oligarchic gambit to end property ownership for the people, who become tenants in the fields of greedy, confiscatory tech and media companies, whose inventiveness is not devoted to marvelous new market propositions, but, rather, to new ways to coerce us into spending more for less..t
key isn’t to ie: get property back or tweak the market/money.. key is to come up with a nother way to live.. for everyone (small elite and everyone else).. won’t work.. we can’t dance.. unless everyone is in sync
“Every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you,” Walt Whitman