If I had to pick one word to talk about in this week’s readings, it would be property. How is “property” defined in the North/Thomas and the Marx/Engels frameworks? What is important about property in the two different frameworks? How does property relate to social relations, the market, politics, institutions, and the state? (Note: This last question could serve as the basis for a twenty-volume dissertation. Pick out what you think are some of the most important aspects of property and its relationship to capitalism).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Marx/Engels define property (of the bourgeois) as "the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few." Thus, neither the "petty artisan" nor the "small peasant" has any property, since industry "has already destroyed it." Similarly, a wage-earner does not gain property, but rather capital, which is only useful in perpetuating is own exploitation. p. 484-5
As opposed to the Marxist view on property, which as Max points out, is at the heart of the problem of class struggles, one of North's big ideas is that the existence of property rights, by allowing the existence of a more efficient economic system, is what enabled the the rise of the west. But I believe it would be over simplistic to content oneself with this view and see property rights as either good or bad.
I believe it is important to note that "property rights" is not abolished under communism but it changes form. Property is transferred from the hands of a few to the hands of all, and the incentives that arise from property rights are substituted by other types of incentives.
By the end of the first chapter in The Rise of the Western World, North points out that there has been little exploration into new forms of property rights because they fall under the category of "public goods."
Is it possible for "communal property" to be a more efficient form of property right, or does 20th century history prove it otherwise? The answer might not seem particularly straightforward if we think of economic growth as some measure reflecting more of the social than the private rate of return.
Sebastian
Post a Comment