have been linking all property ness to ownership – intellectual property
6 – how to open property to the common
for centuries the ruling power have told us ta tp;rivate property is a sacred and inalienabel right.. the bulwark th atdefends society agaisnt chaos.. the right to property is written into constitutions.. so embedded deeply in social fabric that it defines our common sense.. w/o property it seem impossible to understand ourselves and our world.
today, however, as property is increasingly unable to support economic needs/political passions.. cracks begin to appear in those common sense understnadings..private property is not the foundation of freedom, justice and development.. but the opposite.. an obstacle to econ life, the basis of unjust structure of social control, and the prime factor that creates and maintains social hierarchies and ineq’s..
the problem w property is not merely that some have it and some don’t. private property itself is the problem..
kool beans.. adding page property in anticipation of this chapter (ie: creates obsessions/myths w id; security; et al .. because it disturbs our commons/commons house/common\ing.. aka our undisturbed ecosystem.. )
the mystification of contemporary capitalist relations rests on the almost permanent re proposition of two terms, the private and the public, which function together as a kind of bait, but correspond to two ways of appropriated the common..
in the first case, as rousseau says, private property is an appropriation (the action of taking something for one’s own use, typically without the owner’s permission) of the common by an individual, expropriating (the action by the state or an authority of taking property from its owner for public use or benefit) it from others;
‘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…
dang.. i hope this is saying what i hope this is saying.. ie: property/mine-ness is killer and foundation of civil society (as in civilization is killer)
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‘..
today private property negates people’s right to share and together care for not only the wealth of the earth and its ecosystems but also the wealth that we are able to produce by cooperating w one another.. rousseau’s indignation at the injustice of private property remains today as viral as it was over 200 yrs ago
indeed.. root of the disturbance to our ecosystem..
where rousseau was so lucid and sever when identifying private property as the source of all kinds of corruption and cause of human suffering, he stumbles when he confronts the public as a problem of the social contract.. given that private property creates ineq ..as rousseau says.. how can we invent a political system in which everything belongs to everyone and to no one..
land rights are thus a recurring theme.. this relationship between id and property takes two primary forms 1\ id provides privileged rights/access to property superior race.. whiteness, christianity, civilizational.. 2\ id itself is a form of property.. the possession fo something exclusively one’s own..
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
the violence of religious id’s – one key to understanding many religious movements today is the way they combine the defense of religious id w resentment against alien powers..
the focus on the purity and stability of id is why religious movement often tend toward dogmatic closure .. and why religious movements can communicate and mix so freely w movements based on racial or civilization id..
the cult of id, religious fanaticism, and social conservatism are interwoven in a deadly and explosive mix of sad passions ta nourish violence and totalitarian tendencies..
religious movements thus line up w disastrous political projects: saintliness is offered to those who hate and destroy…
ghandi’s key insight, we think which remains equally vital today is that no religion per se but religious id, the construction and defense of a religious people, leads inevitably to violence and barbarity, and must be destroyed..
movements must be nonidentitairan..
let out only label be our daily curiosity
id based on race and ethnicity, religion, sexuality or any other social facto closes down the plurality of movement,s which must be instead internally diverse, multitudinous..
poverty as wealth
the crucial point is that the affirmation of poverty and the critique of property are not conceived as deprivation or austerity but rather as abundance
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..
the proletariat, a multitude of re sellers of labor power who have nothing else to sell and no other means to survive is cast in a ‘second nature’ constructed by capital and reinforced by theological justification of the work ethic and the hierarchies of the social order.. the poor are invited to participate responsibly in their own exploitation, and that will be considered a dignity.. .. capitalist asceticism becomes the damnation of the poor and exploited..
marx, after denouncing the poverty of workers, links that poverty to their power, in the sense that in capitalist society the living labor of workers, although stripped of the means of production is ‘the general possibility of material wealth’.. that explosive mix of poverty and potential represents a mortal threat to the private ownership of the means of production..
richard on capitalism
a second response (to precarity and poverty – first is to double down on id).. refuses the siren calls of id and instead constructs, on the basis of our precarious condition, secure forms of life grounded in the common
vulnerability of the poor, disabled… forces us to recognize the ineluctable dependence on other that all of us share.. the development of circuits of interdependence.. are the primary (perhaps the only) path to a real security..
this combo of precarity and possibility is expressed esp powerful in the lives of migrants.. multitudes that cross over, around and thru national boundaries have the potential to undermine fixed id’s and destabilize the material constitutions of the global order
these subjectivities, ever more mixed, are increasingly able to evade the fusional, identitarian powers of control.. undermine the hierarchies of traditional id’s.. in the inferno of poverty and in the odyssey of migration resides a new power..
again.. the essence of the franciscan project: poverty as not deprivation but a state of wealth and plenitude that threatens every sovereign and transcendent power.. practices of nonproperty … once again have revolutionary potential in the struggles of the common against teh financial power of capital..
even deeper: does poverty contain the seeds of a radical refusal of id and the creation instead, of an antagonistic, multitudinous subject grounded in the common?.. there is indeed a sacrilegious, corrosive element in poverty
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..
we whole heartedly endorse ostrom’s claim that the common must be managed through systems of democratic participation. we part ways w her, however, when she insists that the community that shares access and decision making must be small and limited by clear boundaries to divide those inside from outside.. we have greater ambitions and are interested instead in more expansive democratic experiences that are open to others, and we will have to demo the feasibility of such a new, fuller form of democracy today in the following chapters..
ostrom’s formation of ‘common-pool resource’ often seem to name merely another form of property.. the common stands in contrast to property in a more radical way, by eliminating the character of exclusion from the rights of both use and decision making, instituting instead schema of open, shared use and democratic governance..
fable of the bees; or, passions of the common.. passions prompt them to be wicked.. you are what you have.. key passions:
1\ security (against fear) – private property promises to connect you in community.. but instead separates you.. property’s promise of security.. but really no one is safe
2\ prosperity (against misery) – there is a world of needs/wants beyond private property
vulnerability can be a form of strength when it is mobilized w others..
3\ freedom (against death) – state action is always enlisted to protect private property and to exert coercion against all who are excluded from tis use. perhaps such state coercion is invisible to those whose property is defended, but to those who are excluded it is just as real and powerful as any other form of violence..
on the one hand, only the extension of freedom can construct coop, org the common and guarantee social security. on the other only the rules of coop and the norms of democracy can construct free, active subjectivities..
i go w the first hand.. if we do that right.. we don’t need rules of coop.. if we go w the second hand.. and start w rules.. it won’t ever work.. and if it does for a bit.. it won’t last.. we need the energy from the coop coming from w/in alive people.. first.. ie: meadows undisturbed law
alexander kollontai argues that the logic of possession is so deeply ingrained that it infuses even the modern conception of love. people have no way to think of their bonds to each other except in terms of property: you are mine and i am yours..
not having.. but in being
private property will not dissolved on its own.. humanity needs a push in order to leap over the precipice into the common
via daniel pinchbeck:
Daniel Pinchbeck (@DanielPinchbeck) tweeted at 5:19 AM – 25 Jul 2018 :
Had a great conversation with Sterlin Lujan, communications director at https://t.co/gYowRTCv7r and a “relational anarchist” – listen in here: https://t.co/6Tn1OpXssx (http://twitter.com/DanielPinchbeck/status/1022078925382541313?s=17)
51 min – d: libertarian is also very connected to idea of private property.. i look at societies that seem more successful than our own.. ie: indigenous communities who didn’t necessarily have the idea of private property..
56 min – d: in maintaining private property.. just winding way back to feudalism.. so govts.. for protection..t
58 min – s: the ultimate problem that leads to all of these injustices is statism
59 min – d: some would say it’s private property itself..t
1:00 s: i don’t think there’s a limit of size of property.. as long as land is worked/used.. and people own it economically
1:01 – d: so if i have my property and take care of it.. i get to keep it.. but for others who don’t have property.. what do they get
s: i think that’s what we call those emergency type situations..
rather.. normal today..