Socialist Forum

Posted: 22 Mar 2005 03:22 pm Post subject: Land For Personal Use

I decided to indroduce this topic since there was no real answer to personal use of land or dwellings. Knowing full well that bourgeousie private property will be in the form of collective ownership of workers we have to come up with a solution to housing and personal land property. I also asked about agriculture and livestock which may have to be done in another thread but lets stick to this dilema for starters.

Considering SIU would be a form of political government in the beginning until SIU is implemented on a national, hopefully international, scale. Therefore, the SIU government would have to come up with a solution to personal land property and housing if we decided to wait until then as Dave wrote. Sorry Dave, I cannot agree with what you wrote though I do thank you for being my teacher along with Mike. SIU is the program for workers to own the means of production along with deductions for health care, education and other protective measures. Since people will aquire TLV's to use to obtain personal items perhaps this should hold true for obtaining housing and land.

Here is my personal idea getting from point A to B which could be a flawed idea but an idea nonetheless. Since SIU would be a government in the beginning, I feel that those who already have dwellings on land should remain their personal property no matter how large or small it may be with no worry of taxation. Those who live in apartment dwelling live there as their own personal space without the worry of a landlord collecting rent. However, people MAY have to stay put until SIU is fully implemented with the new economy. It may sound fair or not fair to people but it may have to be part of the birth pangs of a SIU economy. Secondly, from TLV deductions, more housing, hospitals and mental health facilities can be built on former unused bourgeousie private property which would partly (at first) solve the health care crisis and homeless problem. I feel this is one of the first priorities of SIU government. Since it takes labor to build, TLV's are earned and deductions are made. These facilities will remain public property along with educational institutions and other health care facilities. Housing on the public properties can stay as public housing for families who need to be near their loved ones who are in the hospital or mental health facilities long term.

Getting to point B being my idea of it which would no doubt be flawed. After SIU is in full swing people can begin to think about exchange of personal land property for other personal land property provided that each property is the same size with the same size dwelling being the same TLV value. This should be the base of TLV exchange when it comes to housing and personal land. Since there is no interest or profits made on land and housing, they become more affordable. However, what if the house and land is more than what TLV's people have? TLV deductions which goes to the account of the people who are er, selling personal land with dwelling. How do you stop certain characters from obtaining a lot of person land and dwellings to make a killing obtaining TLV's? Laws would have to be in place curtailing such abuses such as limiting personal land property with dwelling to one family each. Housing or apartment dwellings can be used for vacation, which are in the public domain, either in the mountains or seaside or wherever. If damage is done to housing and land, TLV deductions are made for repairs from those who last occupied them. Oh my, another function in the accounting of TLV's.

Okay, that enough from me. Anyone else like to take a shot in the dark like I did?

Social

Posted: 22 Mar 2005 10:05 pm Post subject:

It's a tough question for me because people have different degrees of need for social contact. I moved to a rural area, zoned for farming and ranching, because I want neighbors to be the people that I see when I walk down the road, not people that I see every time I open the door. When I go outside I can just barely see another building when the trees are leafless. I accept the convenience that if I want a gallon of milk that will require thirty minutes of travel. People who live in cities probably make different choices because they have different personalities. How can socialism accommodate people having such different personalities?

At the moment of revolution, people should stay put, because there will be other problems to tackle. It's afterwards that I find confusing.

There's a very intelligent person named Ron Allen who hangs around in newsgroup alt.philosophy.debate , where he defends the principles of Marxian socialism. On one occasion he proposed that the revolution should (at least tentatively?) allow the former capitalists to keep their mansions (lose their servants) and keep their limousines (lose their chauffeurs), since these material things are not the means of production. I would agree with that. Eventually the overcrowding in certain urban areas will probably require some kind of land redistribution. That is, the land that may be surrounding that mansion, and not the structure itself. People will need to find some compromise.

More later!

Posted: 23 Mar 2005 01:37 am Post subject:

Mike Wrote:

Posted: 23 Mar 2005 12:49 pm Post subject:

I look forward to the time when I do not need the economic security of "owning" a house and the property it sits upon. But seclusion is all a matter of interpretation. Many many many people live the same life of seclusion Mike describes, right in the middle of Manhattan.

From: On Walden Pond

"TO THE SICK the doctors wisely recommend change of air and scenery. Thank Heaven, here is not all the world. The buckeye does not grow in New England, and the mockingbird is rarely heard here. The wild goose is more of a cosmopolite than we; he breaks his fast in Canada, takes a luncheon in the Ohio, and plumes himself for the night in a southern bayou. Even the bison, to some extent, keeps pace with the seasons cropping the pastures of the Colorado only till a greener and sweeter grass awaits him by the Yellowstone. Yet we think that if rail fences are pulled down, and stone walls piled up on our farms, bounds are henceforth set to our lives and our fates decided. If you are chosen town clerk, forsooth, you cannot go to Tierra del Fuego (1) this summer: but you may go to the land of infernal fire nevertheless. The universe is wider than our views of it."

Dave

Posted: 23 Mar 2005 01:46 pm Post subject:

I agree Dave that seclusion can be found most anywhere. However, the security of having ones own space is not the same as having economic security of owning land with a dwelling. I do believe there is a difference. Having ones own space to be free to grow a garden without having to ask permission from a landlord. To make repairs or add an addition to a house without a permit. These are just some of the things people would like to do when they own their own space under SIU. I use to own land with a house and I really loved it when I made few changes inside and out. Of course, my wages could not keep up with the mortgage, electric, heating, taxes, and my wife's medical costs so I had to file bankruptsy. Ah, the joys of living under Capitalism

Social

Posted: 30 Apr 2005 04:44 am Post subject:

Posted: 30 Apr 2005 10:30 am Post subject:

I wish that it was that easy just to have all things in common but peoples midsets in the here and now would not go along with it. Perhaps a few generations later after the demise of capitalism can the concept of common ownership of land be realised. If and when socialism is implemented it has to be realised that people, especially in the West, are accustomed to private ownership of land and dwellings as being their own space. Trying to implement common ownership of all land would terrify way too many people since it would hit home in many regions and the reaction would be negative since they feel it would infringe on their rights. I know the capitalist would say the same thing when it comes to the means of production but it is the workers who create all social wealth which makes the capitalist class rich. The capitalists are absent owners and have no hand in creating products, farming fields, mining, etc. That is why I call land and dwellings personal property since it has nothing to do with owning the means of production. I can see the capitalist's lands which the means of production are owned in common by the the workers being a start towards a cooperative society.

However, if and when socialism is implemented, (and it should be noted that this is capitalism to socialism) people who have their own land and dwellings should be guaranteed that their titles to land and dwellings freely belong to them. I know it gets fuzzy when it comes to people who don't own land and dwellings and what should be done. Perhaps SOME allocation of land and building new houses or just putting a mobile home on them would solve some problems. What land is allocated could come from the capitalist class who own a lot of land. However, the former capitalist can keep his/her dwelling and X amount of land that surround it. Of course there would be people who would be content to live in apartments rent free. Going from capitalism to socialism would require great care as one would an infant who was born. Socialism is the birth of a new society and great care has to be taken to see it grow and develope. That child is the people themselves. People who are accustomed to capitalism will need many things that they can relate to from the old society in the new society.

When a few generations or more have passed and people are content with what they have under socialism being better educated about a cooperative society and having different morals and ethics would gradually (Socialism to Commonism, rather than communism) move towards a cooperative society.

Social

Posted: 30 Apr 2005 10:47 am Post subject:

Vince wrote:

Land: Since the Earth is a finite resource, land cannot be owned privately, but must be owned in common.

The only exception might be if society can find a way to fairly allocate land to individuals for private ownership. This may be difficult to do reliably, consistently, and fairly, especially over the long term, depending on the percentage of the population requesting, at a give time, a free-standing dwelling (i.e. a house) with an accompanying parcel of land.

Dave writes:

Even under captialism there are dozens of way to allocate land. For private land "ownership" title either has to trace back to the soverign (back to a land grant by the sovereign) or be based upon adverse possession (squatters rights) that are not in conflict with land rights of the sovereign. When people talk about ownership of land they usually think of outright possession of land and title to the land - I think this is called fee simple ownership. Whether the revolutionary government would abolish all current private ownership overnight -probably would not be a good idea. I think the SIU will be infinitly confident enough of itself and its ability to provde for the creature comforts of the populace that it can tolerate current private ownerships with the proviso that it may not be transfered, and that the ownership will expire at some point either with the current owner's death or some number of years afterward. Also a system of compensation for the labor hours put into the house or improvement of the property should be taken into consideration.

I could see the fairest way to allocate temporary possessions of land would either be through a lottery or bidding system or perhaps even more fairly through a combination of both. But this is not something thatkeeps me up at night - but I respect the fact that it gives people something to think and talk about.

Dave

Dave

Posted: 25 Jun 2007 01:09 am Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 25 Jun 2007 05:14 am Post subject:

Posted: 25 Jun 2007 05:29 am Post subject:

Just a thought to speculate about. What if society were to treat all forms of inequality by the mandate of upper limits. As for incomes, suppose the highest paid worker were allowed an hourly income that is no more than three times that of the lowest paid worker. Doing something similar for land distribution, suppose a rule said no individual can own more than eighteen acres. Suppose the land can stay in the family for generations, but if the number of offspring leads to the result that someone has more than eighteen acres then they need to choose which piece of acreage they want to be divested of. Dumb idea maybe, but in the brainstrorming method even a stupid idea is useful if it may later generate a new idea.

Posted: 25 Jun 2007 09:40 am Post subject:

I would rather have trees for neighbors as well but being in a small town has proved not so bad. I believe the allotted land would be good for people in general. Under capitalism people are required to pull their roots up and go somewhere else per the corporation they work for. A lot of time people uproot because the economic conditions are poor where they live and they have no choice but to go somewhere where economic conditions are better. Some years later economic conditions sour and the family has to pull up root once again. This usually distresses the children and they end up bitter being in a strange place with strange people. Socialism would help stabilize the family because economic conditions would be stable everywhere.

Posted: 25 Jun 2007 09:57 am Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 30 Jun 2007 09:19 am Post subject:

Something bothers me. Private property tends to concentrate into fewer people's hands, whenever it can, just because it can, due to randomized circumstances. Suppose a socialist system has private ownership of residential land, and it gets handed down in families, but randomness gives us families of different sizes. Go away a hundred years and then come back to see what has become of it. By then there are some families that control many times the amount of land that others do.

Posted: 30 Jun 2007 07:36 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 30 Jun 2007 09:24 pm Post subject:

This is a problem on this side of the revolution that I think needs addressing on the other. Who knows what folks will think about land "ownership" then. Especailly when much of land is held as an investnet or a hedge retaher than for a real use. Much of land probelms - the suburban plague will be resolved or be significantly altered by shifting trafic paterns and the disapeearnce of much auto traffic when rational transportations systems are implemented - and much commuting will simply go away- also the planners could demand the end of the lawn mower, leaf blower, edger and string trimmer, and a main reason it seems to have a suburban house - so a person can wax their car - get rid of car waxing and cleaning products. Without these, half of the suburban population would simply give up and move into town, it would seem.

Posted: 30 Jun 2007 09:40 pm Post subject:

The urban and rural distinction existed in ancient Greece and Rome and Mesopotamia. It seems to be more basic to human behavior than a side effect of modern capitalism.

Posted: 30 Jun 2007 10:03 pm Post subject:

I expect that there would be a distinction but the consequences of the distinction are going to be what? Very hard to speculate until we see what the heck will happen post revolution. I am thinking that the suburban lifestyle wouldn't seem so compelling after the revolution especially when the the poverty that fuels much of sources that push people out of cities is greatly diminished.

Posted: 30 Jun 2007 10:17 pm Post subject:

If residential land is inherited in the family, suppose for six generation each family has six kids, the land keeps accumulating, then in the next generation suppose there are only one or two kids, now suddenly you can have one person with a thousand acres.

Posted: 30 Jun 2007 10:23 pm Post subject:

In commenting on the oldness of the urban and rural distinction, I was only replying to your statement that many of the suburban population might move to town.

Posted: 01 Jul 2007 02:15 am Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 04 Jul 2007 12:49 am Post subject:

oh hell, my two bits just outa principle. and keep in mind it would definitly need some sorta refinin. Doctors , teachers , and what not. What not being any specilized profesional needed in this grand thing we call society, will automatically be granted x amount of property and home given that they provide their service for such said amount of time ( 20 yrs , 30 yrs , whatever). Not only would it drive others to greatness it would also help keep those needed (especially teachers) during the time of upheavale between Capitilism and Socialism. General run of the mill labourers would have their hours tracked and averaged out for remaining property. as in Billy Bob averaged 32.5 hours a week last year which would entitle him to a 2 bedroom 1 bath home thats his as long as he keep the work up for such said amount of time. While on the other hand Jim Bob averages 47.3 hours a week last year which would entitle him to a 3 bedroom 2 bath home as long as he keeps the work up for such said amount of time.while such property is in their possesion the can do whatever the hell they want to it as long as they keep their averages up. i havent had the time to delve into taking familiy situations into account but give me time. Im a garbage truck driver with no radio in my truck so i spend alot of time deep in thought. scuze the spelling my company is brutalizing me on the work front. God bless capitilism Rolling Eyes

Mailman

Posted: 04 Jul 2007 06:00 am Post subject:

We all throw our two cents into these discussions. Very Happy

I don't know if homes for labor would swing that well with everybody. It would be like paying rent or mortgage. What if a person cannot do 32.5 hour a week due to some unfortunate accident or illness? What if something happens that a teacher or doctor cannot do 20 years of service? I believe everyone should have their own space without conditions. We have discussed Time Labor Vouchers on this thread.
http://www.deleonism.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24
And here is the algorithms:
http://www.deleonism.org/v1.htm

Your spelling is fine and pack a Ipod with ya in the lunch wagon.

John T.

Posted: 04 Jul 2007 10:35 am Post subject:

Just my perspective that come a sane society that folks will gravitate back to city life instead of seeking refuge out in the burbs and the outburbs. But there is a whole lot of re-thinking that should go on about trying to live where we ought not try to live - New Orleans e.g. The land is sinking and everything done to protect the city from the sea merely lowers the city further. (from what I have read)

Postman, good to see you back.

doctors and teachers - a preference? I vote no.

dave

Posted: 04 Jul 2007 03:41 pm Post subject:

New Orleans is hopeless. Nature wants its wetlands back. The city never should been built there in the first place. To build a coastal city below sea level? But the capitalaists made the jobs available there, because of the river and gulf, and wherever jobs are made available people will surely arrive to take them.

Posted: 04 Jul 2007 04:02 pm Post subject:

Posted: 04 Jul 2007 06:32 pm Post subject:

Mike tour thinking is way 60s and 70s. Today they are tearing down perfectly good 1500 and 2000 sq ft homes to throw up 10,000 and 15,000 ft sq. monstosities on a quuater or a third of an acre.

hell even figue alotting each couple a plot of one acre - abode, garden, woods the US is 3.8 milliom square miles. Lets put 90% of that off bounds for one reason or another. that leaves .38 million x 640 acres per mile that gives spapce for 230 million of these dwellings.

plenty

and then take cities which many people will live in for a good part of their lives - NYC home to 8.2 million on 322 sq. mi.

Assumiong 2 persons per dwelling one new york city would free up almost a third of a million sq. miles - even assuming their food to be farmed elsewhere.

No I don't see it as a big problem, but hard to shake it all out before the revoution. tell ya what. Give me the revolution and i will sleep in a tent for the duration of my life and be quite happy with it.

Posted: 04 Jul 2007 09:59 pm Post subject:

whats up dave....sorry to have been quiet for so long. been buzier then hell. i have been lurking and studyin , just not sayin nuthin. it just so happens that this paticular topic really strikes a chord in me. my greatest desire is to have a piece of my own property on which i can do what ever the hell i want. i dont need much. im not a farmer, i dont need 100's of acres. hell an acre or two in my possesion and i would be happy as a pig in mud. im right with the greenman on the fact im quite content out here in the boon docks away from "civilization". hell give me squatters rights and i'd be in heaven. as it stands I'll never be able to own my own piece in my area because we've got all these damn west coast f$@#s moving in building multi million dollar homes and driving land prices through the roof. ive watched the place i love become the fastest growing area in the nation. when the recession hit it didnt even faze us. the housing markets slowing down. isnt even an issue here. this place is exploding unchecked and it makes me sick! it pisses me off to no end that i kill myself day in and day out and ill never be able to "live" here. (deep cleansing breath.....count to 10) anywho....whats an I-pod? Very Happy

wouldnt even know how to run one if i could afford one. ask me how to line up a 100+ yard shot on a fatty ass doe. Or where the fish will be bitin depending on the weather... I can answer them questions. Technology sucks. Its amazing i can operate a computer w/ the skill i can.

Posted: 05 Jul 2007 01:50 am Post subject:

Dave, I don't see how people believe it is natural to live in really big cities. The only big city that I have no phobia is Erie, Pa. It is spread out and does not have that menacing over crowded feeling as Cleveland, Ohio. Erie has its bad areas but all in all it is not such a bad place. I even work there. New York City would be a nightmare. One fellow I got to know was from the Bronx and he told me he was mugged seven times, beaten up a few times, robbed at gunpoint, shot through the hand, chased 20 some odd times. He will never live in the Bronx again. Really big cities are not for working folk under this present capitalist system.

Mailman, an Ipod is a small device that holds music files to listen to with earphones. I don't have one and I have no idea what it cost. Like you I like the open area. I live in a very small town that has only one light at the intersection. That is because the school is located at the intersection. Got a small house and just under an acre of land. If my wife was healthy we would have been gardening using Perma-culture methods and canning. My poor wife's health is getting worse and I am afraid I am going to be all by myself in the not to distant future.

At any rate, land and dwelling should be a right as with health care, social services and education. Socialism, IMHO, is about rights of the individual, rights of the workers and rights of those who live in society. Not the dictates of a bunch who think that they have the right to rule as the Leninist believe. With them come worker submission or else slave labor at a gulag.

John Trimbath

Posted: 05 Jul 2007 02:03 am Post subject:

How much of that mugging is drug policy gone awry , and simply little in decent jobs - and also a general breakdown of respect for the common worker.

Under capitalism a bunch of people wouldn't want to live there in the Bronx. It was upscale at one time. Hard to believe.. But it doesn't have to be that way. It can all be as economically upscale as decent parts of Manhattan.

Posted: 05 Jul 2007 03:22 am Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 20 Aug 2007 06:37 pm Post subject:

You know, something occured to me when I wrote in the thread "To Each According To..." is what is the definition od collective ownership of industries? The Soviet Union example was that the State took full possesson of everyones land and the CPSU became the sole executors of the entire land from what I read so far. Aside from that I believe that a good concept should be established on what is what.

When we say collective ownership of industries would it be the people, ie, everyone, or would it become the sole property of the SIU? I would think that both SIU, the industrial property which we call the means of production, be the common property of ALL. The Industrial Constitutioon should make that very clear so that no persons or political groups could claim sole ownership as in the case of the former Soviet Union. Also, as we talked in this thread about land for personal use I woud have to say that land and dwelling is individual or family property which has nothing to do with the means of production. When it come to this there has to be a solution. There are many people who live in cities who own their own home. Well, as far as they are concerned after the mortgage and taxes. There are apartment dwellings but these were created for the purpose of gaining profits, by landlords, from those who are propertyless. Another question is the family farm. Since I live in an area that is mostly farmland. I had some relative who owned a dairy farm. All of them worked hard to maintain that farm. That was a long time ago but I alway believed they were in their natural enviroment and enjoyed themselves. They lost the farm to big business unfortunately. It would be interesting to have the SIU return to the family farm with farm hands. Wink

Posted: 20 Aug 2007 08:59 pm Post subject:

I can't be of much help. I have never in my life heard a suggestion about how to manage land that I like. All of the options I can think of produce what I feel to be unfairnesses or irrationalities. If society allows land to be purchased like movable items are, I know of no reasonable way to determine who gets the lot that's closer to the beautiful beachfront and who gets stuck with the lot that's closer to the swamp. Disallow land from being purchased, and the use of personal savings on a home and its improvements loses a lot of its meaning. Allow land to be inherited, and a new caste system develops in a few generations. Disallow land from being inherited, and society has to evict families just because a certain calendar date is reached or because Granny died. All of the options I know of are unacceptable to me.

Posted: 21 Aug 2007 11:27 am Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 21 Aug 2007 04:32 pm Post subject:

John, I do not see it as an issue at all.

Here's a coercive measure that would immediately free up millions and millions of acres in the US - ban power mowers, edgers, string trimmers and leaf blowers. Bulldoze shopping malls. All the acutrements of suburbia.

Posted: 21 Aug 2007 04:46 pm Post subject:

What has banning of lawn mowers and trimmers have to do with anything? Capitalist private property such as malls and those mansions in other states and various other vacant buildings and lots would be used with no problem. However, I want to add a few more thoughts on the subject at hand. The SIU is the administration of things rather than being a political entity according to definition. Having a Department of Land Management, or perhaps more correctly rendered, the Industrial Union of Land Management in the Department of Public Service, would serve as the social instrument to handle land distribution and to give clear deeds to those who already have home and land. Perhaps Land Management might have to ask for few acres from landowners who own a lot of acreage and yet have done nothing with it. We don't want the I.U to do an "eminent domain" tactic as capitalist do. Things have to be done in a fair manner and "asking" rather than taking is a far better approach. Some sort of material compensation might have to be taken into consideration. There are people who own farms and struggle in the present system. I would let them keep the land as to promote organic farming of vegetables and livestock. They get their TLVs like anyone else. I figure that those who work the land be treated better than those who lived under the former Soviet Union. This would also promote good relations with Amish and Mennonite communities.

Posted: 21 Aug 2007 09:34 pm Post subject:

When I said a new caste system I meant it's difficult for me to visualize a balance that allows people to acquire and keep land but not cause vastly unequal distibution at a later time. We would probably assume that children won't get evicted from their homes if their parents die, and that means we have inheritance of land by families. So you got yours by having to do something (I don't know doing what. By working for it?) and I got mine by doing nothing but my parents died. That's inequality number one. Now consider two such families in which the children acquired their land by their parents dying, but one family has two children and the other family has eleven children. Inequality number two. With each generation that passes the inequality multiplies further.

Posted: 21 Aug 2007 11:07 pm Post subject:

John wrote:

What has banning of lawn mowers and trimmers have to do with anything?

Good Christ man, ride around the suburban ghettos on a weekend. I should have also mentioned on my prohibited list shammi rags for the car and car wax. Ban all of this stuff and by droves people would move away. Put up a sign at the edge of the ocean saying this way to the next suburbia heaven of lawns. Let em drive right into the sea. it'll free up millions of acres guaranteed.

Posted: 23 Aug 2007 12:08 am Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 23 Aug 2007 03:42 pm Post subject:

Posted: 23 Aug 2007 06:11 pm Post subject:

mike wrote:

Posted: 23 Aug 2007 07:10 pm Post subject: PCS STATEMENT ON LAND USE, etc.

Greetings,

A critical conversation and topic; in some respects symbolic of the very plausibility and viability of a Cooperative System.

People For a Cooperative Society preliminarily posits that:

1. No finite natural resource can be individually-owned in a Cooperative Society (CS), as that would be unjust. Thus, there can be no land ownership.

2. Since buildings, including homes, must sit on land, there can be no building ownership. Thus, no one will own a home.

PCS introduces the concept of "Extended Use." Thus, a family or individual, once placed in a home, apartment, or other dwelling, is understood as its long-term occupant, and cannot arbitrarily be removed.

"Dwelling distribution" will be determined, among other criteria, by the expressed preference of each individual or family, the number of people in a given social unit, and the availability or projected availability of this or that form of dwelling.

Thus, a single individual may express a preference for an apartment, rather than a house sitting on an independent parcel of land. A single individual in a wheelchair may express a preference for a medium or large-sized apartment, to accommodate the dimensions of their wheelchair; a couple may also request a larger apartment, though for a different reason; a couple planning on one child soon may request the largest apartment available, or a small independent house on land; a large existing family may request a large home with a reasonable plot of land.

Relatedly, PCS has also recently broached the topic of population control, an apparently commonsense recommendation for the new Cooperative Society.

Regarding the meaning of "long-term," the definition would probably be along the lines of:

- The lifetime of the occupant, if a single occupant.
- The lifetime of the surviving partner, if originally a couple.
- The lifetime of the last surviving child still living in the dwelling, if originally a family.

To make the new common ownership, "extended-use" model palatable to citizens before the revolution, the new model can be grandfathered in after the revolution. Thus, individuals owning property before the revolution will keep it afterward. Eventually, when they die, the land and whatever sits on it will become common property.

This model is predicated on the PCS "Needs" paradigm, as presented at the PCS site; any competing claims for use that may arise under this model will find resolution formally by a local "Needs Committee," based on the person/s with the apparently strongest need.

Why will people accept the decision of the Needs committee?

Because:

1. The composition of the committee will be representative.

2. Parties with competing claims will be able to present their case in full to the committee.

As a matter of fact, we should do away with phrases like "competing claims," in favor of those like "alternate claims," to better reflect the absence of a competitive mindset in the new society.

3. The decisionmaking process of the committee will be transparent.

4. All participants will have been genuinely and deeply imbued from birth with the notion of love of neighbor. Thus, adjudicants will not maintain a narcissistic "I hope I win" mentality, but instead, all will maintain a pacific equilibrium in a common search for what is best for everyone.

Just as citizens of the new society will revere the principal of common ownership, so will they revere the principal of common interest and common search for truth and justice. Without discounting the assertion of Marx that the new society will birth from the womb of the old, it is also true that a revolution is, well, revolutionary: along with the remnants of capitalist perspective or culture that may cross the blood-brain barrier into the new revolutionary society, we must expect that in some large measure, methods, principals, techniques, and processes of the new society will, in fact, differ dramatically from the old, and find acceptance by the larger society. Were that not the case, society would not have elected for revolution in the first place. The pre-revolutionary period of education and national (or international) dialogue will have acquainted everyone with what is to come afterward.

Moreover, the Needs process of adjudication will only be necessary in case of a competing claim on this or that resource. If we do our homework before (and in some measure, after) the revolution in wisely conceiving our new Cooperative Socialist constitution, such adjudication should only infrequently be necessary.

The "Needs" model and indeed the entire PCS program is presented and discussed in fair detail at the PCS site. I urge genuinely interested persons to read carefully through that program and supporting information at the site; I also urge joining the new PCS Discussion Forum, for discussion of the social question that is both PCS-specific and non-PCS-specific.

Regarding Dave's remark that until the revolution we just can't or don't know what will work--yes, that's a given. But the fact is we have to start with something. And it is our solemn responsibility as individuals actively calling for social revolution to work arduously to determine that 1) a revolution is really necessary, and 2.) our plan is genuinely and dramatically better than what exists now. "Better" refers, of course, to theoretically sound, even elegant--and plausible in practice, as well.

This responsibility, essential in view of the catastrophic consequences revolution can bring, is defined by PCS as the principal of the "Responsible Revolutionary," again, presented at the PCS site. Our principal of "moral consciousness," a compliment to class-consciousness, is also presented there.

We also have a new preliminary analysis of the present sub-prime lender crisis.

Regards,

vince
----------------------------------------------------
PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org

Posted: 23 Aug 2007 11:06 pm Post subject:

Of course a difficult part of the idea that concepts this side of the revolution may not at all desirable on the other side of the revolution. Lifetime tenure in all instances? there is the idea of eminent domain that I assume will still exist then.

We radicals quite often take it upon ourselves to assume that our own notions ought to be the standard. There is always science behind this stuff that we very seldom are adept at acknowledging.

Who knows, PK's idea here may be top notch. But that's just it. Who knows?

Posted: 24 Aug 2007 01:37 am Post subject:

We definitely don't know what may come on the other side of the revolution. I know it gonna be a hard struggle just to convince workers to accept the idea that to end exploitation is to hold in common the means of production. The capitalist will fight tooth and nail to keep their profit making property. How many homeowners, who are workers, will give up their homes and land on which it stands, to be common property? This is what concerns me because I own a home. Some Socialist may just do it but many people are not Socialist. They may see the SIU as being in their interest but to hand what property they have over to society may be the sole reason many Americans are against Socialism. They may see it as being deprived of not only their property but their liberty as well.

Moreover, I don't think inequalities would ever be solved unless, of course, a vanguard uses military force to have everyone share the poverty at gun point. Nature has not made us equal in height, weight, abilities, or intelligence. That does not mean we don't strive for it. Artificial means of force won't solve a thing but what is done with trial and error would solve the land and housing issues.

The best thing that can be done is to have a small judicial government to handle what land property rights, liberties and civil rights everyone will have throughout the nation. I say this in case the industrial government cannot handle social disputes of civil rights and liberties. Outside of SIU, a wise man cannot always be counted upon to act justly and just men may not always be available when needed. I just cannot accept the concept that everyone will freely hold all property in common. What property that will one day be held in common is the property that will be taken by force. It must be stressed that what property workers and families have will continue to be there own to call after the revolution. What capitalist property that becomes common property will have homes erected upon to be occupied by individuals or families. Whatever the outcome the properties of the common folks has to guaranteed theirs and worry about the inequalities later as Socialist society forms and advances.

John T.

Posted: 24 Aug 2007 01:53 am Post subject:

John wrote:

The capitalist will fight tooth and nail to keep their profit making property. How many homeowners, who are workers, will give up their homes and land on which it stands, to be common property? This is what concerns me because I own a home.

Dave writes:

This makes sense - BUT I am not so sure of it at all. I thin the resistance is much lower than we think. Sure if someone comes onto to "your" property you want to fight him or her. Defend the homeland and all that caveman stuff.

Homes are sold all of the time. Companies are sold all of the time. We are anything a mobile community with fewer and fewer actual ties that we wouldn't give up on with just a bit of economic persuasion.

If I see a viable stable secure economic future - hell I'll will gladly trade my car and my house for some hiking boots and a tent. It's not really the possessions that is the issue that I foresee. Will there be some miscreants who will shoot anyone that comes on their property. No doubt. But there will be multitudes who will be happy to get out from under mountains of debt. Individual and corporate as well.

Posted: 24 Aug 2007 04:08 am Post subject:

Does owning a home make me any less of a caveman? Laughing

Posted: 24 Aug 2007 05:51 am Post subject: RESPONSE TO POSTS ON LAND USE

Hi,

The last few posts have presented good points. I've incorporated my response to them into my existing post above, titled PCS STATEMENT ON LAND USE, etc., so as not to split up what I hope is a coherent and evolving body of theory.

That original post is now substantially longer and more explanatory. I respectfully suggest reading it from the beginning, again, to view the new material in proper sequence.

Warmly,

vince, PCS

Posted: 24 Aug 2007 05:57 am Post subject: OFFLINE WORK

Hello, Again,

The interesting, important, and dynamic posts, above, have inspired me to sound a note I have played before: the dialogue in this Forum at DeLeonism.org is actually rather amazing, in its dynamic and comprehensive consideration of so many of the key topics, considerations, and aspects of fashioning a new society. A real homebrew of important discussion in socialist political theory. I genuinely hope the new PCS Forum can follow in these footsteps. Having said this, I wonder if the participants of this Forum ever get out into the real world, doing actual party work on the ground. You may have spent years leafletting, already, talking to people on the street, etc., but if you haven't done this in a while, I suggest that you need to join a group, if there is one that reasonably reflects your views, and immerse yourself back into the offline population.

The 'Net is necessary at this point, but so is building an organization, or at least an organizational structure that can agitate in the real world and reach large groups of people. And God knows the efforts so far (SLP, NUP, etc) have shown themselves to be less than stellar over the long term.

Regarding PCS, whether you agree with the entire program or not--have you read it?--I can meet with people in the general New York/New Jersey area for such things as discussion, joint planning, and agitation. We need not belong to the same organization to work together to spread the message of Cooperative Socialism. As far as I know, for example, both Mike and John are in New York. I am in New Jersey. After all this time, why haven't we had a meeting? Walter Petrovich and Lillia Frantin ("People For a New System") indicate that they are amenable to meeting. We easily have the seeds of a solid meeting, here.

Mike Lepore asserts that he is presently "not a joiner." Well, you don't have to join anything to meet and work together.

Regards,

vince, PCS

Posted: 24 Aug 2007 02:53 pm Post subject:

My claim wasn't based on an idea of exchange value in land. It was based on a practice of inheritance being an example of what engineers call a state machine, i.e., part of its present condition is a memory of a previous condition. Without human intervention to prevent it, this automatically concentrates something into clumps.

The universe was once a very nearly uniform distribution of particles, but gravity gave the distribution some memory. If by random luck any two or more particles were closer together than average, this produced a bias for all other particles to prefer being attracted in that direction. The distribution became increasingly lumpy.

A mud puddle is another example. At first the driveway is nearly flat. But it's not perfectly flat, so there is more splashing over here than there is over there. Everytime there is a splash, it carries away more matter, so the puddle which was initially located there by luck is now systematically forced to get deeper.

A meandering river, or serpentine river, is an example. At first there are only very slight bends. That's enough to make the wide turn side have greater than average erosion, while sediment tends to get dropped mainly on the sharp turn side. After a while, the path wiggles all over the place.

The inheritance of property is is like this. Not necessarily greedy policy, but simply various kinds of randomness, is all that it takes to make the distribution gradually concentrate into lumps.

Even if we disagree about what to do, at least we're documenting a recognition that the effect has to be treated by some intentional policy. Capitalism allows the effect to run wild.

Posted: 24 Aug 2007 07:43 pm Post subject:

Definately has to be something as to policy about the very ground we walk on. Dave wrote as to the present capitalist system already forces people to sell and relocate in different areas. This is true, however, from the impression I have that Socialisim's effect on society would be that people won't have to be force to relocate. I have a gut feeling that the running around from place to place capitalism has everyone doing would slow down and people would actually seattle down and not move around as much. Therefore land and dwelling most likely would be handed down from one generation to another. Lets back up a bit. Each acre has one building and there is 100 buildings to one Hatfield and 10 buildings to a McCoy after 100 years. Dave suggested a Jubilee could be declared by the SIU and therefore 99 buildings of the Hatfield property would become common property as well as 9 McCoy buildings. Building and land could be given to those according to need just as it was done after the revolution. Hatfield and McCoy retain the original building and acre of land.

This could be a workable presentation to workers at this time because most workers feel that Socialism is out to take waht they have and give it to someone else. Now I have read that the Commies and Anarchist want to have a policy to walk in a person house and take whatever extra they have like a microwaves, computers, the second car, etc., on top of taking the capitalist property which is the means of production. They also want a "Free Access" society but they also figured that production won't keep up with consumption so they want to legalize theft of personal property of workers. Check out a few thread at revleft and you will see that this is what they have in mind.

John T.

Posted: 24 Aug 2007 11:51 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

My claim wasn't based on an idea of exchange value in land. It was based on a practice of inheritance being an example of what engineers call a state machine, i.e., part of its present condition is a memory of a previous condition. Without human intervention to prevent it, this automatically concentrates something into clumps.

dave writes:

Mr. Lepore you have a very annoying habit of concentrating on what I wrote as opposed to what I was thinking when I wrote it.

It wasn't the exachnage value 9this goes down into the nether world) I was thinking more about the pschlology of it.

Where is a person's security? In property or in cooperation with his neighbors?

Maybe I just am a prodeuct of having smoked too much reefer in my lifetime. Maybe I am going over the hill and actually can see the time of my own death creeping up ever faster and faster. Who knows? But it is a reality. Maybe only the slightest reality, maybe just a glimmer of one. Who knows.

The idea of socialism logically is easier and easier to put across. Or so I have convinced myself. So if I fool myself into beliving that this idea will take hold? Fine. Pass me another joint.

But tht's what I was getting at. Long long gone are the days that a person went to work at the job or the store his dad worked at or owned or in the busness that has been owned by a single family for 120 years. All of that has gone away. We do not have the hosrty that holds us back like we did. that which was unthinkable even 50 or 60 years ago as far as social change is common place now.

dave

Dave

Posted: 25 Aug 2007 12:41 am Post subject:

Dave said: "concentrating on what I wrote" -- No, I was replying there to John's question about whether I was suggesting a form of socialism in which "land has a wealth value."

Although it's a problem that socialists have no plan for land to build a house on to be acquired by individuals by means of purchase or lottery or some other method, my recent point wasn't about the valuation and purchase of it. It was about how the land could be reabsorbed from a past generation before being reused by a future generation. I emphasized my ambivalent attitude about inheritance.

Posted: 25 Aug 2007 02:44 am Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 25 Aug 2007 03:53 pm Post subject:

I'll try to state it better. I do not think that owning a home or apartment tenure is one of the human imperatives. Security dconcerns I think drive much of a perceived need for home ownership or apartment tenure.

I don't know how related this is, but it does seem that a big effect of security is that people choose to have fewer children. In general I believe that this may be axiomatic around the world.

Posted: 25 Aug 2007 04:54 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 25 Aug 2007 07:51 pm Post subject:

For me, home ownership isn't about security. It's about control. If I want to knock out a wall to enlarge a closet, I don't need anyone's permission. I wanted all pine paneling and only used drywall in two small places. I decided to plant clover seed instead of grass, and I didn't need anyone's permission.

This will sound stupid, but the single greatest factor that made me buy a house was constantly being in various apartments where the neighbors allowed their dogs to bark outside my bedroom window. I wanted a place where I could sleep late and never hear a dog. (Actually, I have a labrador retrieve, but I have trained her to know that she would get hit with a stick if she were to bark early in the morning, so she never does.)

Posted: 26 Aug 2007 01:08 am Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 26 Aug 2007 02:55 am Post subject:

Vince, I was not ignoring you but I do want to talk about some of what you wrote. To get into depth might end up as a book and I don’t want to do that. It was bad enough to put this on Notepad just to commit time to a response.

Hi, John,

Glad to read your response, and your recognition that maybe I was feeling ignored, as it did seem that I was being ignored a bit in the forum, and elsewhere, as my recent posts have gone completely unresponded to, and, I recently sent Mike several emails on a topic, which themselves, have, so far, also gone begging.

Thanks for your sensitivity. It is exactly the kind of interpersonal behavior and ethic that PCS maintains will be necessary for the most full, rich, complete, and successful revolution, which is to say, the creation of the long-sought, almost mythical "brotherhood of man" (/humankind").

Anyway, for now let me simply point out a fundamental misconception here: whatever property policy we end up with in the new society will not exist because it is "PCS policy." "PCS Policy" in the context of the new society is meaningless. PCS is not going to run the new society, nor have the sole hand--or any hand, necessarily--in composing the new Cooperative constitution!

Whatever property policy we end up with will doubtless be the result of our collective national or international constitution-writing process; thus, whatever policy results, in any area of running society, will presumably be what everyone, or certainly a majority, is comfortable with.

What PCS attempts to do in part, is posit what the new society should look like, were it based on strict principles of libertarian socialism, as predicated on what are commonly identified as the most glaring defects of capitalism--one of which is the money-making control over people the ruling class has, in large measure because of inordinate property ownership, commonly in the form of landed property.

Moreover, by "finite" resource PCS refers to resources that are limited in quantity--like land. I see no way to fairly allocate a finite resource, especially given uncontrolled population growth. If we had a small, controlled population, then we could dispense land based on need. But that paradigm breaks down when the sheer number of people who might legitimately need land so far exceeds the available land.

"Need" is a key parameter in the PCS view of the new world--but not in the case of a finite resource.

Last, I daresay that the PCS paradigm would have little in common with the distribution of housing under capitalism. Distribution under the latter is generally money-based, even for the poor; distribution under a CS is needs-based. And not subject to the artificial lack of resources of capitalism (manifest in this case, for example, in the form of dwellings more prone to dilapidation, initial construction with cheap or unsafe materials, etc.).

Relatedly, please also note that there are sections on both homelessness and home ownership at TouchingWisdom.net, our satellite site for topic analysis.

BTW, Dave, regarding "should" -- my preliminary thought is, everything in life and society comes from "should," its inverse "should not," or its emphatic form "must."

We should defy King George.
We should establish socialism.
We must eat food to survive.
We should not murder people because they took our parking space.
We should include love in the socialist program.

However, here is the dictionary.com def:

1. Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.
2. Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.
3. Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I.
4. Used to moderate the directness or bluntness of a statement: I should think he would like to go.

Thus, before I'd announce my view, above, as definite, I'd have to spend some time thinking this through. Which I shall not do now.

Warmly,

vince, PCS

PS. The Grand Opening of the new PCS Discussion Forum was yesterday. Register now--your participation is welcomed!

Posted: 02 Sep 2007 10:29 pm Post subject:

Vince: The last that I checked this forum is not about you. Mike does not do meetings. I respect that and so SHOULD you. ISTM that ou are the one being direspectful, but certainly no one will ever get you to see that.

As to "ownership" of land - under the current regime land is owned through title either through a chain of titles back to the sovereign, back to a verifiable claim of adverse possession or a title clearing court judgement.

As I have written, but I have noticed that you have not responded to (am I being ignored?) I suspect that much land today is held out of security and that it is a status symbol. After the revolution we are going to have to look at the question of how it should be allocated, if at all.

Most of our housing stock will need to be totally refitted to meet energy conservation needs. Also the willingness of people to peddle or walk from their homes should be a large factor in what is decided. Certainly all floodplains and certainly cities in unviable locations such as New Orleans (and what about the island of Manhattan?) will have to be reconsidered as to future habitability.

I wouldn't be so sure about "money" not being a factor in whatever distribution system is decided upon. I am idealistic enough to believe that there will always be people who will choose to do not work under any circumstances. Should they have a place to stay at night? Certainly. Will it be in a three bedroom ranch on 1.7 acres? I wouldn't vote for that. And deprive them of their independence? No way!

Posted: 03 Sep 2007 03:03 pm Post subject:

Hi Vince,

It is not good for me to comment on things of personal nature between participants on this board and I distance my self from them.

Posted: 03 Sep 2007 05:45 pm Post subject: Value Systems in Cultures

Hi, John,

You stated:

>>>Interpersonal behaviors and mores could be as diverse as they are now. Even these are in constant change as I write.

Yes, true. And this touches on a key point:

Though there is variability in interpersonal behaviors and mores, there remains a core of these that do not change. Most people the world over recognize that murder is wrong, or at least inadvisable in certain respects. Most people will accept kindness and love, and prefer it over rudeness and pain, etc. etc.

The larger point is that every culture has its own value system, usually both implicit and explicit (and that value system implies and drives certain behaviors). Certain things determine that system, whether religious or spiritual creeds, influential books or people, and so on. The new Cooperative Society will be no different; it, too, will no doubt operate generally from a value system. Thus, if our new society is to have a value system, why not decide upon it beforehand, as we will carefully decide upon every other key aspect of the new society? Why not make our new value system work in our favor, reinforcing the success of the new society and new social paradigm?

This is the predicate underlying the inclusion of the love ethic in the PCS program.

Make sense, or no?

Now, regarding the determination of need, PCS posits the creation of "Needs Committees"; the PCS site contains fair introductory detail on this idea.

Warmly,

vince, PCS

Posted: 03 Sep 2007 08:20 pm Post subject:

Vince wrote:

[quote]Though there is variability in interpersonal behaviors and mores, there remains a core of these that do not change. Most people the world over recognize that murder is wrong, or at least inadvisable in certain respects. Most people will accept kindness and love, and prefer it over rudeness and pain, etc. etc.

The larger point is that every culture has its own value system, usually both implicit and explicit (and that value system implies and drives certain behaviors). Certain things determine that system, whether religious or spiritual creeds, influential books or people, and so on. The new Cooperative Society will be no different; it, too, will no doubt operate generally from a value system. Thus, if our new society is to have a value system, why not decide upon it beforehand, as we will carefully decide upon every other key aspect of the new society? Why not make our new value system work in our favor, reinforcing the success of the new society and new social paradigm?

This is the predicate underlying the inclusion of the love ethic in the PCS program.

Make sense, or no?
[/quote]

Makes sense? Makes me want to puke.

Oh sure everyone is against murder until it comes time to actually kill someone or put someone in danger of dying or leaving someone in danger of dying then it's not murder. Your website demonstrates this over its PROFOUND hesitation to commit as to a right or a wrong regarding abortion. Don't want to turn nobody off!

Posted: 11 Sep 2007 03:39 am Post subject:

wow....ive been offline to long. catchin up on some reading and came across this weird wandering tangent......interesting turn....

Posted: 11 Sep 2007 07:29 pm Post subject:

Quick stop in...It may wander more but I am trying to define a concept that land and dwelling is not the same as common ownership of the means of production. We all want our space and we should honor those who want their own space too. If a person builds on his space and cannot go beyond the boundaries that are established by contract then what prevents a person from going upwards and downwards on his lot? The earth has a lot of room which includes going skywards and going into the earth.

John

Posted: 12 Sep 2007 02:00 am Post subject:

Posted: 14 Sep 2007 01:12 am Post subject:

I was just trying to figure out how this discussion went from land for personal use to abortion.....even using the full extent of my imagination I cannot connect the two in any way shape or form Confused

. i mean both are very touchy subjects...... but wow. i think there might be some underlying issues here but hey what do i know im just a truckdriver.

Posted: 14 Sep 2007 01:16 am Post subject:

oh and John i completly agree w/ you. personal land ownership and ownership of means of production have absolutly nothing to do w/ each other. its just a matter of trying to figure out how to divy it up in a way which everyone feels like they got what they wanted. say billy bob wants an acre in the boondocks while malibu barbie wants an apartment in LA. theres got to be a way to make them both happy. you know what im sayin.
Mailman

Posted: 14 Sep 2007 07:36 am Post subject:

The thing that bugs me, if we're talking about continuously produced goods, we might say there's some number, say, 200 times the labor time needed to make that car compared to the labor time to produce a bag of potatos, so whatever time you can work to earn the buying power to get a bag of potatoes, you could also work 200 times that to earn the buying power to get the car. For continuously made goods, the formula is so direct. But it falls apart for ownership of land, because the occasional labor to "improve" land is next to nothing compared to the fact that it can't be produced.

Posted: 14 Sep 2007 10:44 pm Post subject:

Mike, I understand where you are coming from. Land has always existed. It was made to be inhabited and to sustain life. The right to own land for the purpose of erecting a dwelling or having and existing one has to be thought through. Land will never produce more land unless the sea level drops. There has to be a social agreement to lot size. Its about having ones own space for comfort, protection from the elements, security, a place for the dog to take a dump, etc. The you have the electric and sewage system hook up and that requires using the land to carry away my sacrifice to the toilet god and to light up the house. Despite the equations or how much it would violate the Marxist equality concept people are not all the same and no matter what the material conditions would be...everyone would act differently in response. Socialism lacks a living quality. Owning the means of production is crossing over into unknown territory for the majority of people who will view it as blatant theft. Mess with their personal land and property then you will get total rejection of SIU. If Socialism becomes something that people would want then there has to be different concepts to grasp and talk over.

Posted: 15 Sep 2007 07:50 am Post subject:

I wouldn't like to mess with their personal land. I'm just wondering how the newly-born people will get some.

Posted: 15 Sep 2007 12:02 pm Post subject:

under today's parameters land is a perplexing subject as of how a transition could be made into a cooperative society.

Obviously under capitalism land/home ownership is more untenable every day.

but this is a good problem becuase it challenges the self management idea as to how it actually will work.

One great tool that we have to solve the problem is productivity. We could easily build our way out of the problem. if people will happily move to phoenix Arizona to live in a god damned desert, they can live happily anywhere. Quarter acre plots with another half acre per lot for streets alleyways and rights of way would be plenty. Lepore wants more land - fine. A tax on larger lots which will be given over to those who find condominium living their cup of tea. Of course you need a "state" to levy a tax don't you?

This also raises the importance of the social "store" in managment. If we didn't have that concept but had a "free access" nothing would prevent industrial workers from building their own homes and then quitting. Hard to imagine a lot of homes getting built like that.

Posted: 15 Sep 2007 01:18 pm Post subject:

Yes, home ownership is hard to attain under the present system but I am still sticking to my guns on home ownership. I may be repeating myself but there are people who are content with an apartment with neighbors next to them or across the hall. There are those who live in and own their own condominium. Then there is people like me who like having elbow room. In the town I live there is a lot of elbow room and hardly any crime. I don't think you would have to move people into the desert to live in mobile homes but they do exist. Land is no problem because there is plenty of room and if you can't spread out then there is the option of going up and down.

I do think there has to be an office of land management and some sort of reality office. People could buy what lot they want for one voucher/one dollar and then pay for the labor to erect a home. Older homes would go for more or less which depends on maintenance and adding more living area to it. When it comes to apartments and condominiums the people purchase the units they live in and that would include the land underneath. This is closer to communal living I think. Now, I wonder if everyone in each unit would pay, in a single fund, for lawn care and maintenance for water, sewer, shingle the roof, electrical repair, etc.? Makes me wonder if there will be a lot of fights? On the other hand, people who do own their land and dwelling would be responsible for whatever lawn or maintenance has to be done. I would think these people would be the happier.

Posted: 15 Sep 2007 02:31 pm Post subject:

(Lawn care) I would think these people would be the happier.

Dave writes:

To each their own. My neighbors think that I am the anti-christ becuase i have a very utilitarian view of lawn care. (Mow it just before it becomes too long to mow) Also the realization that in fact many weeds can be appealing to the eye. And that a dirt driveway never has to be sealed.

Sure there should be a land allocation office.

Modular housing solves a lot of these issue if home ownership is high on your list. Get tired of the neighborhood? call in the crane and the trucks and down the road you go. Just have to have a lot with a view that everyone else wants, maybe lease it for 5 years and go somewhere else. Give someone else a chance at the view that you have become tired of.

I have a great view out of my window. But I have seen it and could bear to look at the ocean for about 5 years or so.

Posted: 23 Sep 2007 06:47 pm Post subject: Post Re-Direction

Hello,

I've composed a combined post, remarking on the issue of ownership of land and dwelling, in concert with other issues recent to this forum.

Please see my post: Statement of the Obvious, dated Sun Sep 23, 2007, in forum To Each According To, here at DeLeonism.org.

Thanks.

Best,

vince

Posted: 23 Sep 2007 08:30 pm Post subject:

if it's that important you can paste the salient points that refer to this thread here. I really have betther things to do than to try to parse out what you mean where. Mike won't complain. There are plenty of spare pixels to use.

Posted: 11 Oct 2007 03:59 pm Post subject:

Let’s define what land is actually called…it is called “real” property hence real estate. Personal property would be anything that a person purchases or given to them. The belief among all those of Marxist or Anarchist persuasion is that all land would be held “in common.” The finite earth we should refer to as being the “Commons.” However, the negative aspect of the holding “all things in common” if it is even remotely possible to do so would have a devastating outcome when people, in general, seek their own interest which is a trait of the human species which comes in various degrees. Unfortunately, the very belief that people of every region would hold the Commons en mass may soon realize that they really don’t own in a collective sense, but the very State itself unless we today discuss this issue and look for solutions.

I am in favor for holding “real” property with dwelling since it involves ones own elbowroom. This essay may help in my defense of real property. Then it may not. I do advocate that people have a right to land and dwelling and the maintaining and creation of small businesses and farms by individuals on their land for their own interest. A small bread and breakfast out in the sticks could relive a weary traveler. Diners in large cities or small town would attract people who would prefer a home cooked meal to the garbage that is served at fast food restaurants. A small farm in which the owner is also the custodian of the land he/she works on producing organic meats, grains and vegetables not produced by the SIUs. These people would not overuse the land but, for their own interest, would have an incentive to take care of the land they are on. This explains why the Kulaks did better than the collective farms.

The idea of common property to use as “to each according to his needs" has proved in modern times as devastating because of land overuse and abuse.

In an article written by Garret Hardin: “The Tragedy of the Commons” he wrote:

Posted: 12 Oct 2007 02:13 am Post subject:

That was a well done essay. I will return to it later. Now I have many chores to do.

Socialists who say they don't believe there should be private residential property have fallen into the common trap of adopting positions because they sound nice to them, but without ideitifying the implications. Imagine that someone parks a trailer right in front of someone else's front porch, and announces their intention to stay there. People wouldn't consider that tolerable. To be able to stop such an activity _is_ to have property. As any introductory law textbook would explain, the word "property" means a listing of someone's rights related to the control of something. (I have been puzzled largely by certain other dimensions of the idea of real property, namely, acquisition and disposition.)

Posted: 12 Oct 2007 06:40 am Post subject: Huh?

One need not own something to control it. One need not own property to have a social sanction to control it.

Ridiculous. I can't believe you even wrote that.

Posted: 12 Oct 2007 05:32 pm Post subject:

Vince it is in no way apparent what you are referring to. Who wrote something ridiculous and why do you write that it was ridiculous?

Posted: 13 Oct 2007 02:10 pm Post subject:

We ordinarily think we know what we mean by "property" without being required to dissect the idea, but the legal tradition has been required to identify all of the parts. It is an "any or all of the the following" type of meaning. In various cases ownership of property can mean the right to determine the future of something, the right to receive the benefits of something, the right to associate a chosen name with it, etc. Any one or more of this type of right may be recorded, not necessarily all of them. You can own something and never be allowed to see or touch it. You can have something in your hands throughout your life and not be its owner. You can be the owner while someone else receives all of its benefits. It can be an option to declare a contract in force at a future time, like an option to buy or sell, a choice that you may resell to a third party. So there's no other way around this. If a human society has any sort of privacy, that's your home is secure and a neighbor may not burst in, and if it's definable whether you are allowed to knock out a wall to enlarge a close, whether you may plant a tree, and other issues of control and benefit, then that is a form of property. It may have some and not all of the aspects that may be found in property. It is property according to the strictly correct use of the word. There the Communist Manifesto called for "abolition of private property", we see there the laziness of generating bumper sticker slogans to condemn one thing or praise another thing, without the completeness of thought that is actually needed to change the world.

Posted: 13 Oct 2007 03:33 pm Post subject:

JT, your description of the SIU as a managed commons is a good one.

I wouldn't be so quick to cite the popular "tragedy of the commons" anecdotes. Most of them are capitalist propaganda intended to show that property rights are needed in production resources, while profit-seeking has already been assumed. For example, overgrazing the pastures, overfishing the seas, strip mining, clear logging, these things are is done out of the drive for private profits, and then the debater "proves" the obvious, that the business is likely to waste and ruin a resource if it's merely "found there" and it isn't the business's own property. The supposed conclusion is that you need private property of resources to have people care for natural resources and not waste them. Sure, but the profit motive was already assumed. The faulty logic has this form: starting with the assumption that capitalism is necessary, I will now demonstrate that capitalism is necessary.

Posted: 13 Oct 2007 03:46 pm Post subject:

John, I'll have to be stubborn a little longer :o) I'm not ready to concede the point that "a central form of authority leads to abuse of power." I don't see evidence for that. Sure, the Soviet Union has centralized authority and they also had the abuse of power. Well, they also ate ice cream. Why not blame the eating of ice cream for the abuse of power? Because two things being found together doesn't establish that one caused the other.

Now, not having freedom of speech and fairly contested elections, I will blame those faults for all kinds of things, including blaming them for the general abuse of power. But that's not the same issue as having central authority.

The Soviet politiburo was practically an appointed-for-life body of octagenarians. Everyone reporting to them was required to tell them what they wanted to hear -- that everything is efficient and everybody's happy. It's possible to have a central administration without doing that.

Posted: 13 Oct 2007 03:57 pm Post subject:

I remain unconvinced about feasibility of the "mom and pop businesses" and "the small farmer", but I'm not as intolerant as I used to be. If an overall solution includes them, and the plan is an improvement over what we have today, I will support it.

Posted: 13 Oct 2007 04:48 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote of Marx's "abolition of private property":

we see there the laziness of generating bumper sticker slogans to condemn one thing or praise another thing, without the completeness of thought that is actually needed to change the world.

Now give Karl a break here. Who was he wring for? these poeple had NOTHING of any of the various forms of property that you wrote of. And it seemed pretty clear that he was writing about the means of production as private property. (at least as I recall it was obvious ti me) And wasn't that clarified in one of the prefaces? Perhaps I am totally off on this.

Posted: 13 Oct 2007 10:13 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 14 Oct 2007 04:55 am Post subject:

JT wrote:

If Mr. Marx was saying that “private property” only meant the “means of production” I would ask: Was he against workers owning their own land and property?

Remember we're going back 160 years. Home ownership for the masses I doubt would have even have been on the radar. Hell they didn't even have radar!

Posted: 14 Oct 2007 10:14 am Post subject:

Posted: 14 Oct 2007 10:38 am Post subject:

Dave, I don't think that's true. The working class always had a large proportion of people who owned at least a small piece of land and at least a one-room house. Even in the poorest countries today, Afghanistan, Thailand, others, some of the the people who severely lack food or clothing are sitting in their own houses on their own land while they are lacking that food and clothing. It's mainly in the U.S., and only in the last thirty years in the U.S., that having some ownership is interpreted as a rule that the person isn't allowed to be called poor. In other times and places, it's not unheard of for people to say, "My family's going hungry and naked, because not much of my little wage is left over, after paying the town the taxes required for us to keep this house." But in the modern U.S., you could be near dead from malnutrition, and get rejected for public assistance, with the government clerk giving the reason, "You couldn't possible be poor, by definition, because you have a home to live in." The rest of the world has never thought that way. Other people in the world have always understood that the house is not a luxury because the human body can't fit in a post office box.

Posted: 14 Oct 2007 10:46 am Post subject:

Posted: 14 Oct 2007 11:10 am Post subject:

Posted: 14 Oct 2007 05:04 pm Post subject:

Posted: 14 Oct 2007 09:15 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 18 Oct 2007 02:54 pm Post subject:

Think of the Amish, Mennonites and other groups who don't really want to be part of anything outside their community. They rather have their own businesses and way of life. I have been to this cheese factory in Amish country in Ohio.

http://www.heinis.com/?gclid=CJm0iIzYmI8CFTaoGgodqnOkfA

This factory could be IU and continue to do business with the Amish. The Amish have their own tool and equipment for farming. Are we to treat them the same way as Stalin treated the Kulaks? I am sure those on revleft would.

John T.

Posted: 19 Oct 2007 01:30 am Post subject:

It might be best if people who have a demographically-based and cultural preference for a particular way of life be free to follow it, but I don't know how to see to it in advance that any society will know where to draw the line. Some harmful cultural preferences also exist. The old southern racial segregation is also a preference for a specific way of life. The way the Taliban treat women is a preference for a specific way of life. But we are morally approving toward the Amish culture. This determination can't be a built-in system feature, but rather a case of we as individuals who are now saying, "I believe there's justice in this thing, so it should be allowed; I believe there's injustice in that thing, so it should be disallowed." I don't think such a judgement could be programmed in advance into a political or economic system, made part of its constitution. The majority always have power to tell the minority to conform, and we hope that, through education, this power will be used wisely and sparingly.

Posted: 19 Oct 2007 01:48 am Post subject:

I don't see the analogy with the kulaks. The misery imposed on the kulaks by Lenin and Stalin wasn't the act of informing them that they couldn't be farm owners anymore. The kulaks were killed and imprisoned just because of where they came originally from, subjected to group blame. There was even Stalin's order in 1937 to round up former kulaks who no longer had any connection with that past, nor any signs of loyalty to it, and send them to the concentration camps. That's way beyond receiving a notice that one's land has been nationalized.

Posted: 19 Oct 2007 02:02 am Post subject:

John, several times you mentioned people who already own the farm equipment. The equipment wears out in a decade or two. Today, since companies that manufacturer farming equipment [ref: The Association of Equipment Manufacturers - aem.org] do choose to manufacture and sell that kind of equipment, then people who want to be farmers will be able to buy it. Also, in a socialist system, if socially owned industry chooses to manufacture and sell that kind of equipment, then people who want to be farmers will be able to buy it. In any case, the availability of the equipment isn't a "given" as with natural resources. Someone went out of their way to form a policy of providing it, and, after it wears out, to continue providing it, as well as the replacement parts for it. Sometimes we can't buy various things anymore because no one sells them. We can't buy vinyl phonograph records anymore because no one sells them. Maybe in the future someone will sell farming equipment, but, on the other hand, maybe they won't.

Posted: 19 Oct 2007 11:09 am Post subject:

First of all thank you for responding and providing information. What is disturbing is the range of influence Leninism has in just about every political group around the globe as I wrote before. I am sure these people would treat the Amish or any other group as Lenin and Stalin did with the Kulaks. I see that even them thar rock throwing boys and girls (including adults) Leninist are firing Lenin quotes at Dave over on revleft who are drooling to enact the DOTP of Leninism in whatever stripe it may come in. I wanted to make sure De Leonist don't carry that sort of discrimination against certain groups who want to be outside of the mainstream of society and yet still do business with it.

I apologize for trying to portray De Leonism as a variant of Leninism/Stalinism but I am sure in some underhanded way they will wrest control from the workers using the same tactics they used in Russia. We have seen similar tactics which brought the invasion of Iraq and police powers over the U.S. of A. I kinda figure that they would throw the SIU out the window in favor of having total political Party control over everything and everybody.

Another thing is that the Left teaches that our form of government has to be smashed. Interaction with people in general has taught me that the American people view the Constitution as being important to their freedoms and such. Yes they do elect people to continue their enslavement to capitalism because they think Socialism is the Communism of the Soviet Union. Everyone seems to have an idea of what Communism is but have no idea, not even a clue, to who Daniel De Leon was or the Socialist Industrial Union.

It will be interesting when Dave goes on the campaign to talk about the organization of SIUs. A lot of critics will proclaim the idea as Communism in disguise. I know Dave can answer the critics and that I have no doubt.

Posted: 19 Oct 2007 12:50 pm Post subject:

No need to apologize. All of the topics you raise are part of strengthening this movement. The old socialist habit of responding to any question by quoting an old book, and just assuring the inquirer that everything will work out somehow, or, what is even worse, not entertaining tough questions at all, is a weakness. Einstein had to entertain the suggestion that there was something inadequate with Newton. To grow and to criticize are the same thing.

Posted: 19 Oct 2007 01:03 pm Post subject:

When discussing abuses of power, we need to keep in mind the basic democratic principle that we don't hand absolute power to any leader in the first place. If the people vote to adopt a policy, and then they come to understand that it was a bad idea, they can go back and repeal it. If someone looks at the reigns of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, a person should be thinking: what the hell is with this appointment of an emperor for life? Americans are not disposed to handing power to anyone for life. We won't have those kinds of problems here. If we did have a socialist reconstruction go wrong, it might go wrong in such areas as not properly preventing bureaucracies or privileges, and then that would have to be reformed, but we won't see it go wrong in the direction of the appointment of a lifetime emperor. American socialism would have its own special kinds of problems.

You said: "... in some underhanded way they will wrest control...." My point is that there is no "they" involved. The population of the country is the subject. Pre-socialism socialists will not have any influence whatsoever in how socialism is operated. Do you expect that the preliminary socialist movement would provide the administrators for a socialist society? I've never understood that to be the intention.

Posted: 19 Oct 2007 02:47 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 20 Oct 2007 12:30 am Post subject:

John writes:

It will be interesting when Dave goes on the campaign to talk about the organization of SIUs. A lot of critics will proclaim the idea as Communism in disguise. I know Dave can answer the critics and that I have no doubt.

Dave writes:

Critics of my ideas? Perish the thought. Besides I'm not going to talk about SIUs only that the workers should have a legal right to collectively control and operate the means of production. Let people figure out SIU for themselves. I don't have anything outrageously insightful that anyone else wouldn't have.

Posted: 20 Oct 2007 01:20 am Post subject:

At their worst, De Leonists acts like know-it-alls, they think they are all wise, they some of them think that they shouldn't have to lift a finger, while the responsibility solely falls on the working class population to seek out the wise gurus to hear their gems of wisdom. But even at their worst, I have never heard any De Leonists say that they, or the movement of which they are a part, should become the new leaders of society. They feel that they are the only teachers who can point the way, which will eventually result in the working class turning around and acting with a new momentum, so that today's little socialist movment can be dissolved and absorbed into it.

Posted: 20 Oct 2007 01:31 am Post subject:

Posted: 20 Oct 2007 01:37 am Post subject:

Posted: 21 Oct 2007 02:56 pm Post subject:

Mike wrote:

Posted: 21 Oct 2007 11:20 pm Post subject:

Take a break if you want. I'm getting ready to send my computer to the repair shop soon, and I may be gone for weeks.

Posted: 27 Oct 2007 12:43 pm Post subject:

John I agree with you. A lot of what we d is on the wearing out side. In looking at this topic of land use under socialism - I think that we are always going to be wearing ourselves out trying to look into the future and come up with workable schemes of how things OUGHT to be. Of course with 100 people you will always have about 10 thousand opinions. Unity will NEVER be achieved like this only division over things that we have no control over whatsoever.

Since August 8 when the amendment proposal saw the light of day I have been coming around to the idea that prior to this we have pretty much been pushing Socialism as a total solution. The answer to every problem was socialism. And of course the private home land brings out the impracticality of this approach.

I am starting to see what I think the Frank Girrard group was heading for with there industrial democracy approach. They didn't even use the term socialism mush as I recall. When I first read their material I thought that this was terribly suspect, that they were trying to push socialism but avoiding the word. But now I am seeing that socialsm is way to broad of a topic to ever have it be able to signify any unity of action or even of any agreement of how we OUGHT to proceed.

In behaviour modification they look at SPECIFIC targets to address. So in using this approach it seems that the specific target that we all could agree upon is collective ownership and control of the means of production and distribution - that if we didn't have that we would not be anywhere close to the society that we wanted AND if we did have that but nothing else, that everything else would be far more easily attainable than it is now.

So that is developing into my current approach to everything concerning socialsm - that everything will be addressed by the workers when they are in collective control and ownership of the mends of production and distribution.

of course it's wonderful to talk about how things could be "under socialsm", but it's ANALOGY ALERT much like children discussing what things will be like when THEY are adults. If there is ANY overlap between reality and prediction it is almost purely coincidental, or so it seems looking backward.

Posted: 28 Oct 2007 12:41 am Post subject:

Dave, Frank Girard wasn't associated with that group you're talking about.

(If I happen to get to the store tomorrow with this problem computer to get it repaired, I will be out of e-contact until I get it back.)

Posted: 28 Oct 2007 09:41 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 31 Oct 2007 01:17 pm Post subject:

They'll get tired of him soon enough. But itt's best that they have lenin to keep them occupied. Do we really want them on our side? Just kidding. They'll come around.

Posted: 31 Oct 2007 06:02 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 31 Oct 2007 09:43 pm Post subject:

I think that you give the "Leninists" way too much power over your thoughts. Try reading Ancient Society by Lewis Henry Morgan through a couple of times to clens your brain.

Posted: 01 Nov 2007 10:05 am Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 01 Nov 2007 10:07 pm Post subject:

JT:

their human rights abuses, the arrests, the tortures, the shootings, the mutilations, imprisonments in gulags, and how a whole nation laid down and let them do it.

Dave: You are referring to the current administration in the US of A?

Look at the fun I am having at revleft:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=72284

Posted: 02 Nov 2007 05:11 pm Post subject:

Posted: 02 Nov 2007 06:18 pm Post subject:

I think that they'll come around, most anyway - once they see that their words are meaningless.

"I've seen the steel an' the concrete crumble. ...The proud and the mighty all have stumbled"

http://kokomo.ca/pop_standards/weave_me_the_sunshine_lyrics.htm

Posted: 04 Nov 2007 05:14 pm Post subject:

Dave, I want to go down to at least argue about having more than one SIU in the appropriate thread. I wonder if a confederacy of SIUs would curtail abuses? Having a single planetary All-Industrial Congress would be counter productive since we have to consider time zones. People will be working and sleeping at the same time. I would post there but I just got home from a long day at work. I am going to take a nap. I had to write this down before I forget about doing it.

John T.

Posted: 05 Jan 2008 03:52 pm Post subject:

Somewhere on this board we discussed mom and pop businesses. Since I am getting good experience when it come to the distribution of food stuffs I find people really don't care about home made apple pie. They just rather pick it up and serve it at home. Some people would have home made pie and we can't forget the pizza place. However, both products can be mass produced. Pizza, bread, donuts and pies can be made fresh right at the social food store.

Today I did see that the corporation closed a bakery department. The factory made bread that sold cheaper that the national brands and people would buy it over the more expensive brands. However, the factory was only able to produce four percent profit for the corporation. The corporation was not going to do any modernization to increase production. About 168 people lost their jobs. Those that are older would get an early retirement and severance pay. The rest may be absorbed into other positions. Another reason why we need the Socialist Industrial Government of Labor.

John T.

Posted: 06 Jan 2008 03:17 am Post subject:

JT:

Some people would have home made pie and we can't forget the pizza place. However, both products can be mass produced. Pizza, bread, donuts and pies can be made fresh right at the social food store.

DS:

And here all of this time you have led us to belive that you have religious sentiment.

There is no pie but home made. There is no pie but home made. Say it and tap your heels together. That will bring you back.

Posted: 06 Jan 2008 03:24 pm Post subject:

DS--And here all of this time you have led us to believe that you have religious sentiment.

I don't understand. Dry humor?. Confused

On the other hand, I still don't see how owning a small piece of land with dwelling can inhibit world peace.

John T

Posted: 13 Apr 2008 09:33 pm Post subject:

The concept of who owns the means of production has become quite clear to me as of late. Another thing is that a very important educational experience has caused me to reconsider the argument of land. A roof over anyones head, that includes water heating and lighting, has to be a right as health care, education, social services, food, water, etc. Common ownership of land has to be done in a democratic manner but it definitely cannot be owned by the state. Don't get me wrong...I like where I live at but mowing that huge field in the back is getting old.

John T.

Posted: 14 Apr 2008 12:59 am Post subject:

I have a little more than six acres. How much do I mow? Just a twenty foot wide ring around the house. The rest is trees.

I heat the house by cutting up fallen branches and using them in a wood stove. I never cut a live tree.

I hope I can continue to do this after the Socialist Reconstruction.

Posted: 14 Apr 2008 01:54 am Post subject:

JT:

Common ownership of land has to be done in a democratic manner but it definitely cannot be owned by the state.

DAS:

Doesn't it seem like of all the things that the state does pretty well possessing land and allowing almost unrestricted access to it "the state" does a pretty good job. Things could always be better. But that should always be the case.

Of course there are always the dreaded planning board types.

Posted: 14 Apr 2008 09:38 am Post subject:

DS--And here all of this time you have led us to believe that you have religious sentiment.

JT I don't understand. Dry humor?.

DS Well ineffectual humor anyway. I was trying to imply that anything but fresh pie was sacreligous.

Posted: 14 Apr 2008 12:52 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 14 Apr 2008 03:17 pm Post subject:

Here's a link to New York State Parks:

http://nysparks.state.ny.us/gmaps/?spks=1

also lands of the various conservation land trusts that are open to the public in many instances.

Here's a link to properties maintained by the US Parks Service:

http://home.nps.gov/applications/parksearch/atoz.cfm

also see:

http://gorp.away.com/gorp/resource/us_national_forest/main.htm

for links to national wildlife refuges, recreation areas, national forests etc.

Add to that dozens and dozens of county, town and city parks all across NYS

Even with allowing pil drilling, the govt doesn't seem to have that bad of a record. We're going to need oil after the revolution as well I would assume.

Of course the state currently favors the capitalist class in many things, but that's to be expected.

Posted: 14 Apr 2008 07:15 pm Post subject:

Under capitalism it has a good record. There is a belief that because people have free access to these parks that the people would eventually destroy the value of the parks. In other words, the capitalist wants to obtain these lands for their own gain and those park accesses would be limited by whatever a person can offer in money in exchange to use the park. The idea is that bourgeoisie private property would better preserve these isolated pockets. But we know all to well that the capitalist would exploit the resources and have a track record of destroying the environment while extracting resources.

Another thing I want to run by you is the belief that the capitalist class holds that "just" because they own industries with land, building, tools and machines, they believe that they themselves--through ownership--create wealth and that labor and time plays just a part but not in the creation of wealth.

Posted: 15 Apr 2008 12:15 pm Post subject:

JT:

In other words, the capitalist wants to obtain these lands for their own gain and those park accesses would be limited by whatever a person can offer in money in exchange to use the park.

DS:

Yes, very good argument against having capitalism.

The political state without class rules, and within strong constitutional limits, what else would we have to work with as far as managing land?

"private" land grants and leases as long as they are equittable and run no longer than the lifetime of the owner with some prefernetial treatment for possible survivors who want to remain is totally fine by me. But it's strictly a politcal question for the democratic political republic to determine.

Posted: 22 Apr 2008 01:48 am Post subject:

Workers owning the means of production should be viewed as the highest form of liberty and freedom. No person owns production or distribution which would ends wage slavery and the idea of another person owning another person as a slave. There are a lot of shitty people who wrap themselves with the American flag and brag about upholding the Constitution but want only freedom and liberty for the bourgeoisie class and to further enslave the proletariats. Staughton Lynd wrote: The Constitution protects us only from action by the government. It does not protect us from private employers. If you work for a city, or a state government, or the Federal government, your employer is the government and you can claim constitutional rights to free speech, to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, to due process, to equality before the law. However, in the private sector the employer has no legal obligation to respect your constitutional rights. In the private sector, when you punch in you leave your constitutional rights in the glove compartment of your car. In the private sector, you do not have a constitutional right to free speech. If your employer makes a product which is unsafe, and you "blow the whistle" on him by telling the press, the Constitution will not protect you from being fired. (There may be a law that protects you, however.) Likewise, in the private sector, you are not innocent until proven guilty. When an employer disciplines or discharges you, you don't stay on the job until the grievance is arbitrated. Instead, you are off work and lose pay, and get the money back only if you win the grievance.

The thing about socialist is that they don't speak about freedoms and liberties. We let the opposition do that in which they get people to think that they represent their interest when in reality they represent the lunatic fringe of the capitalist class.

Posted: 23 Apr 2008 12:56 pm Post subject:

I tried to log in at revleft and found that I was purged from the website. I do know there are some intelligent people there. My son made a profound statement: "Is there intelligent life at YouTube?" Laughing

I have to do more study of Marx. Most people don't have a clue about what Marx and Engels wrote. I even find some of the things hard to comprehend. Be back later. I've been working a lot lately.

John T.

Posted: 23 Apr 2008 05:14 pm Post subject:

A lot of forums delete accounts that haven't logged in since a certain number of week or months, if the administrator decides that the size of the user file requires it. The admin over there said recently that they had deleted about 4,000 accounts. Anyone interested can register again.

They're so oblivious over there. The Stalinists go around preaching violent coups, political persecution, religious persecution, etc. - and then recently the Net Nanny "parental control" site tagged revleft as "a hate speech web site", and a lot of the people in the forums said they couldn't understand why.

Posted: 23 Apr 2008 11:45 pm Post subject:

That is why I wrote that there is some intelligent life on revleft but they are a small minority. They do talk of killing people. There are starting to rank up there with stormfront being as intolerant of people different from their ideology. I do find some interesting reading as long as I limit myself to those topics.

Posted: 24 Apr 2008 10:58 am Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 24 Apr 2008 06:29 pm Post subject:

JT:

Strong Constitutional limits is the key to this complex issue of land. Common ownership of the means of production and distribution would take a Constitutional Amendment in which I have no doubt and that issue is not as complex as people having their living space. I mean, people don't want to be assigned an apartment the size of a large closet and have to share the same toilet with other tenants.

A politocal democracy as well as the worker's union I am sure would ave no troue comg up with minimal living spece requirments.

that large closet apartment with shared toilet wouldn't be so bad for some for a while. Just off Central Park near Columbus? I'd do a year or so there.

Posted: 24 Apr 2008 06:35 pm Post subject:

JT:

The bottom line is that real estate sales of homes would have to continue which has nothing to do with the common ownership of production. People need to understand that Socialism is not about taking their homes or titles. It would never confiscate their shelter nor would it force total strangers to live with you. I don't doubt public housing would continue and be expanded to meet the sheltering needs of people.

Socilism or anthing else will be what the Constitution, the people and their elected representaives say it will be. affecting land titles and everything. There is not magic formula except for what Jefferson said: eternal viglilance (or was it Franklin)

Posted: 25 Apr 2008 02:29 am Post subject:

At least it is on record that socialist are not for taking people's homes and titles away from them. Very Happy

Posted: 26 Apr 2008 12:01 pm Post subject:

But some "socialists" are.

That's why personanlly I am steering away from interminable arguments as to what socialism is or must be. Free market, labor vouchers, govt. ownership of land, state, no state yadda yadda. The workers have to collectively own and operate the means of production, control distribution, etc. Keep in place the framework of constitutional political democracy (so it can be finally be put into practice) and I could give a dam what it's called or what the specific bells and whistles are.

Posted: 26 Apr 2008 08:21 pm Post subject:

Dave wrote:

Posted: 27 Apr 2008 04:43 pm Post subject:

Posted: 28 Apr 2008 06:49 pm Post subject:

"Mr. Searles says he wants the workers to take control of the means of production. That's the same policy under which the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia murdered millions of people. We've had quite enough firing squads and mass graves, Mr. Searles."

Somehow I usually can come up with something to say in the moment. If not concentrating on all this stuff is a luxury I am entitled to it. I'm bring people their dinner, they want me to chew it for them? No thanks. I've raised two kids that's enough.

Posted: 29 Apr 2008 12:45 pm Post subject:

To get on topic: If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required to show that the power to take from a man his thought, his will, his personality, is a power of life and death; and that to enslave a man is to kill him. Why, then, to this other question: What is property! may I not likewise answer, It is robbery, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?--P.J. Proudhon

I see that Anarchist make a valid distinction of private property and that of possession meaning those things personally owned. That possession would include a person's home--which Anarchist would readily agree too. I have maintained the idea that the land on which that home sits on is a possession as well. With all due respect the land does not have to occupy a space larger than what a person needs but it would be well within the parameters of personal space. The common ownership of production and distribution is entirely a different matter since different individuals come together to produce and distribute what they create be it shoes, liquor or food stuffs. Basically these industries are inter-connected being that they make up each individuals and communities livelihood in which natural resources are taken from the commons.

Posted: 29 Apr 2008 04:52 pm Post subject:

Today the distribution of residential land makes use of a tradeoff that fits various personalities. You can get more space for a given price if you choose to be more isolated. On the negative side, I have to go five miles to buy milk or bread, which can be inconvenient, but, on the plus side, I have six acres to jump around on, for the same price that would have gotten me less than a quarter of an acre in the town where I grew up, just forty miles south of here. The competitive market is responding to a personality characteristic. We know it's personality-driven because the people who settled in cities could have come here instead, but they decided not to. I don't know how socialism will distribute residential land, but I would prefer a method that gives the individual more land in return for more isolation.

______________________________________________

"Hell is other people." -- Sartre

"I'm even more xenophobic than Sartre." -- Lepore

Posted: 29 Apr 2008 09:18 pm Post subject:

I don't know just how it'll play out.

One thing that will change a lot of things is when local and state govts. decide to accept labor vouchers instead of $$ for property taxes to support local services that are not automatically provided gratis by the union.

Posted: 29 Apr 2008 11:02 pm Post subject:

I wouldn't prefer a system where government collects vouchers as taxes. I think all public uses of wealth should come out of the total production inventory, before the remainer of the production gets divided up for individuals, exactly as Marx wrote in Gotha.

Posted: 30 Apr 2008 04:50 am Post subject:

Be sure to bring a copy of that with you on property tax grievance day.

The point being that it will be up to the workers to decide the standards of what is going to be provided gratis.

Marx thinks that something should be provided as far as infrastructure goes that the workers don't feel that they should provide gratis? You know what he would say? That it's up to the workers.

Posted: 30 Apr 2008 09:15 am Post subject:

I wouldn't say gratis. We get back all that we produce, some directly and some indirectly. What we personally yanked off the shelf in the store and said I want this, we perceive that as getting it back directly. What Dr. K. H. Marx called "general administration" is what we get back indirectly. If the people don't like the latter, let them go without having a fire department for a little while and then they will learn their lesson, they will change their minds and and vote for it.

Posted: 01 May 2008 05:07 am Post subject:

I think that the workers union should take upon itself tasks such as providing basic food housing clothing medical care education to everyone regardless.

Obviously the labor going into the production of these is going to be labor's gift - that hopefully labor will decide to provide.

That's what I mean by gratis.

Posted: 01 May 2008 08:00 am Post subject:

What did you mean by: property tax grievance day

Posted: 01 May 2008 02:45 pm Post subject:

You didn't catch my wry sense of humor.

ML:

I don't know how socialism will distribute residential land, but I would prefer a method that gives the individual more land in return for more isolation.

DS:

I don't know just how it'll play out.

One thing that will change a lot of things is when local and state govts. decide to accept labor vouchers instead of $$ for property taxes to support local services that are not automatically provided gratis by the union.

ML:

I wouldn't say gratis. We get back all that we produce, some directly and some indirectly. What we personally yanked off the shelf in the store and said I want this, we perceive that as getting it back directly. What Dr. K. H. Marx called "general administration" is what we get back indirectly. If the people don't like the latter, let them go without having a fire department for a little while and then they will learn their lesson, they will change their minds and vote for it.

DS:

Be sure to bring a copy of that with you on property tax grievance day.

++++++++++

Tax grievance day is when people go into the town and complain about their tax assessment on their property.

It seems that there are going to be services provided to landowners or that the town is going to have to expend because of your "land" whether it's a special lighting district, school district, rescue squad district, road district, etc. You probably live in one or more of these and might not even know it until you look at your town property tax bill real closely.

Whether or not we have socialism someone is going to have to plow the main roads, do the police work, inspect for any number of public health issues, etc.

You want to joys of owning a house out in the boonies? More than likely the union might say that it would like some labor equivalence flowing back into it to justify necesary expenditures. If it is decided that someone is going to arrange for these services, typically that would be the town.

In Vermont we have a very practical approach to providing such services.

In our town we have a guy named Tony. Tony works on the highway department for some things, for other things he's a private contractor for the town to do various things like plow. Who keeps the money straight I have no idea - but you can be sure that every dollar expenditure is scrutinized up and down.

So whether the town would make arrangements with the Union, whether you would make arrangements with the union, whether the town would contract with Tony or whether you would contract with Tony for these services all has to be ironed out by the town, or by you, or by someone.

I can image in that in Vermont, town meetings are going to look pretty much as they do now. The vocabulary may change a bit, but all in stride. My reference to tax grievance day has to do with me imagining someone coming into a tax assessment or expenditure discussion and saying "but that's not how Marx envisioned it in the Gotha Program!"

You would get a lot of smiles.