Note on Slavery and the Origins of Property:
http://libertarian-labyrinth.blogspot.com/2012/05/note-on-slavery-and-origins-of-property.html
The first link explains why the collective consciousness of humanity is not ready to abandon the concept of property, and that rather than ignoring the matter we should rather update the theory of property and move forward.
Private property initially aimed and actually served to reward the laborer with his product. Unfortunately as industrial capitalism developed the theory of non-Proviso Lockeanism (the historically theoretical background for most legalistic forms of private property) essentially failed to account for the particularly destructive material relations and exploitative social forms of industrialism and is how the revolutionary aims of private property were eventually dialectically inverted to instead divorce the laborer from his product. Since the development of industrial capitalism neither the complete theory of Proudhon or Locke (Proviso Lockeanism) have been practiced, and I believe it's safe to say that both theories would have positive social and ecological implications especially within the context of global corporate capitalism.
A Tale of Three Proviso's:
http://libertarian-labyrinth.blogspot.com/2012/08/a-tale-of-three-provisos.html
The second link beautifully ties together the intersection of both Proudhon, Stirner, and Locke's theories of property. Locke's Proviso's are likely the emergent norms of Proudhon's theory, the norms that Stirner considered somewhat unnecessary for a "Union of Egoists" and Proudhon left to persons practicing of reciprocity or the Golden Rule.
"as industrial capitalism developed the theory of non-Proviso Lockeanism (the historically theoretical background for most legalistic forms of private property) essentially failed to account for the particularly destructive material relations and exploitative social forms of industrialism and is how the revolutionary aims of private property were eventually dialectically inverted to instead divorce the laborer from his product. "
ReplyDeleteI'm sure a neo-lockean would protest and say that we DON'T have non-provisio Lockeanism as the basis for our current property rights, and thats the whole problem.
Of course, but I don't think that apologizes for the flaws of "neo-Lokeanism" in itself.
ReplyDeleteTo me, and apparently to Locke as well, the proviso's ought to exist for a good reason. With the complexity of industrial material relations justice in appropriation isn't simply emergent anymore, which is why rules in just appropriation were formulated by Locke. Without justice in appropriation private power can grow to magnitudes as strong as public power, or that of a state.
Locke believed property rights, the right of exclusion, was derived from labor-mixing but he didn't think all labor-mixing necessitated such a right of exclusion. This is the divide between property as a fact and property as a right, which is all the more an important distinction given the scale and complexity of material relations today.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete