Origins of Private Property -Reply
ab975 at main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca
Tue Jul 18 00:37:29 MDT 1995
On Mon, 17 Jul 1995, Lisa Rogers wrote:
> are you referring here to modern industrial societies in part? I
> would guess so for your "should" statement, and this normative
> statement you would apply to future revolutionary society as well.
It obviously doesn't have much to do with the present reality of
capitalist property relations -- it's only my wish to see 'common' sense
re-introduced into legal property matters (as if the Roman/British/etc.
legal system has much to do with THAT -- rather than some 'pure' logic
which exists only in the heads of barristers.)
We'll have to wait for socialism to see much of this again...
> But you also refer to pre-industrial, pre-capitalist societies. In
> that situation, do you think that people had such "avarice"? If so,
> why would they? or why not? in your view.
It's quite clear from the historical record (don't ask me for
sources -- no one pays me to do research :) that pre-'historic' societies
didn't have _ANY_ concept of 'private property' (existent ones _still_
have trouble with it -- note aboriginal landclaims problems) -- nor did
they have much, if ANY theft. I believe that most, if not all these
peoples didn't have MANY of the concepts of avarice (meaning, they didn't
even have WORDS for these) which bourgeois apologists claim are human
nature, and INTRINSIC in the human animal, at ALL stages of its history.
This is just another way of proving the Lie of capitalism...
I also understand that when individuals developed these
pathologies, they were seen by their people as being sick and in need of
help -- far superior to _our_ barbaric practices of brutal and crude
Jim Jaszewski <jjazz at freenet.hamilton.on.ca>
WWW homepage: <http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html>
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism