Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    If all land was 'unowned' and you simply utilised the land for whatever purposes suited you, it wouldn't work. The incentive problem would rise soon enough.
    Native American lifestyles? How do you mean the incentive problem?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Native American lifestyles? How do you mean the incentive problem?
    That if property is not owned privately then there is no incentive to protect or better the property for future use, since the person using it makes no gain and carries no risk.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    That if property is not owned privately then there is no incentive to protect or better the property for future use, since the person using it makes no gain and carries no risk.
    I would argue that people would find it in their interest to maintain the land because the wealth comes from what is garnered from the land, not who owns it. Therefore, it would make sense to maintain the land from this point of view. At the same time, no one person owns it so you simply move on when you're done or want a change. The Native Americans employed such lifestyles.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    I would argue that people would find it in their interest to maintain the land because the wealth comes from what is garnered from the land, not who owns it. Therefore, it would make sense to maintain the land from this point of view. At the same time, no one person owns it so you simply move on when you're done or want a change. The Native Americans employed such lifestyles.
    Sounds like a Capitalist principle to maintain land. The assumption is that property is proportional to an aspect of wealth.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    I would argue that people would find it in their interest to maintain the land because the wealth comes from what is garnered from the land, not who owns it. Therefore, it would make sense to maintain the land from this point of view. At the same time, no one person owns it so you simply move on when you're done or want a change. The Native Americans employed such lifestyles.
    If you're talking about nomadic lifestyles, then you garner things from the land and move on. Since you are not selling it you have no incentive to leave it in a decent condition for the next group of people. Since there is no ownership of land, there is no way to tell who actually has a right to use the land. What if Group A wants to use it whilst Group B are working on it and living on it? If all have some equal right to the collectively owned land then who does the land go to, and how would the decision be any diferent to the decision made if the property was private?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    Sounds like a Capitalist principle to maintain land. The assumption is that property is proportional to an aspect of wealth.
    How is that? Of course it is the case that if I own the land, it is capitalist but without ownership, it is hardly a capitalist ideal. People who find interest, potential or anything else in the land are welcome to use it but those area which aren't are simply left alone.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    If you're talking about nomadic lifestyles, then you garner things from the land and move on. Since you are not selling it you have no incentive to leave it in a decent condition for the next group of people. Since there is no ownership of land, there is no way to tell who actually has a right to use the land. What if Group A wants to use it whilst Group B are working on it and living on it? If all have some equal right to the collectively owned land then who does the land go to, and how would the decision be any diferent to the decision made if the property was private?
    There is always scope for land to be re used again and besides, it's in the general interest of all involved to maintain the land because, if all people had the same attitude, no one person would be able to use any land at all. For your point on land rights, I would say it would apply to the individual situation. It would be up to Group A and B to come to some sort of agreement which allows them to work together or not. In terms of private land, if I bought up to 400 acres (let's say) but could only realistically use 2, I would still charge people for using the remaining 398 because it belongs to me. Without land ownership, I can do no such thing as I can only own the land which I directly tend to. Going back to the issue of land rights, Group A and B would only have problem if they both wanted to work on the exact same piece of land.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    How do you mean?
    I don't understand what you're point with respect to the nomadic lifestyle. Hence, kill them all.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    I don't understand what you're point with respect to the nomadic lifestyle. Hence, kill them all.
    I just mean no land ownership.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    I just mean no land ownership.
    Isn't that what they want? A rolling stone gathers no moss. If they don't wish to own "land", in our formal sense ... then why should they?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    If you're talking about nomadic lifestyles, then you garner things from the land and move on. Since you are not selling it you have no incentive to leave it in a decent condition for the next group of people. Since there is no ownership of land, there is no way to tell who actually has a right to use the land. What if Group A wants to use it whilst Group B are working on it and living on it? If all have some equal right to the collectively owned land then who does the land go to, and how would the decision be any diferent to the decision made if the property was private?
    This is where you are wrong. The nomadic people often took very good care of their land. If you look at history, you will see that it was only when the west intervened that precious resourcess (e.g. the buffalo in North America) were depleted. Before there was an industry for felling trees in the rainforest, the nomadic people (both then and now) would only ever fell a few trees at a time where they were based at the current time. Then they would move on after a month or so and since it was only a few trees that had been felled in a small area they could grow back. Now however private companies who fell trees for rubber, farming, etc. deplete huge sections of the Amazon at any given time with little (or applying little knowledge) as to how to preserve the Amazon in its natural condition. Indeed any nomadic person certainly does have incentive to preserve their land, as history will tell you: if their actions harm their environment they will be the first to feel the pain when there are no buffalo left or when the crops will no longer grow because the land is barron. They do not just take what they want and leave it. Consequently when you have private businesses whose owner smokes cigars exported from Italy and has a mansion over looking the sea in Biarritz it makes very little impact on his lifestyle when his actions are destroying the environment in some third world country. Even if there are private property rights assigned and he depletes all the natural resources in the land he owns, he will still have his fortunes he accumulated before the destruction of the land that he owned privately.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    How is that? Of course it is the case that if I own the land, it is capitalist but without ownership, it is hardly a capitalist ideal. People who find interest, potential or anything else in the land are welcome to use it but those area which aren't are simply left alone.
    Confusing. Are your implications of land production through ownership of an individual?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    I just mean no land ownership.
    Do you not feel then, that land should be owned by the commune? I mean, I know that at one point in time when technology was non-existed or largely underdeveloped and the society had not developed its "civilisation" it was possible to have no significant property-rights. The current capitalist economic climate, of course, demands for property-rights on a much larger scale than when we were living in a primitive society. I am not completely blind to the necessity of such rights, however, I merely mean to decentralise all property into the hands of the community and replace property-rights with use-rights. I can't really imagine man, with its current dependence upon technology, property and metropolitan life, generally deciding to abolish the world's wealth and capital in favour of a nomadic primitive life - though I wouldn't hope that he would as I would not have any particular wish to escape the promises that modern industry hold for society. I merely wish to redistribute those benefits so all may enjoy the wonders of (socialised) capital.

    p.s. I have not forgotten your other post I am just trying to figure out a way to answer it
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Isn't that what they want? A rolling stone gathers no moss. If they don't wish to own "land", in our formal sense ... then why should they?
    Well, I mean it as a kind of loose ownership (explained in above post). So someone uses the land for a time, as and when they need it and then moves on when they don't. I don't understand how this is what they want; sorry for misunderstanding.

    (Original post by Low Profile)
    Confusing. Are your implications of land production through ownership of an individual?
    Or as a commune, as AnarchistNutter points out below as another possibility. The long and short of it is this. The value of land is not (or at least, should not) determined by who owns it or where but what the land can produce. A rich, fertile soil is more lucrative than arid land. However, with the incentive of lack of competition in these seemingly barren places, one may be encouraged to set up there and come up with inventive ways of using it. Note I am referring to agricultural uses but simply because that's the easiest example to use to come to mind. Of course you can substitute anything into this equation.

    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    Do you not feel then, that land should be owned by the commune? I mean, I know that at one point in time when technology was non-existed or largely underdeveloped and the society had not developed its "civilisation" it was possible to have no significant property-rights. The current capitalist economic climate, of course, demands for property-rights on a much larger scale than when we were living in a primitive society. I am not completely blind to the necessity of such rights, however, I merely mean to decentralise all property into the hands of the community and replace property-rights with use-rights. I can't really imagine man, with its current dependence upon technology, property and metropolitan life, generally deciding to abolish the world's wealth and capital in favour of a nomadic primitive life - though I wouldn't hope that he would as I would not have any particular wish to escape the promises that modern industry hold for society. I merely wish to redistribute those benefits so all may enjoy the wonders of (socialised) capital.

    p.s. I have not forgotten your other post I am just trying to figure out a way to answer it
    Yes. This is a good point. There is nothing to say that by removing land ownership, land cannot subsequently be utilised. However, I use the word utilised deliberately because I still maintain that, group or individual, there should be no fixated holding over a piece of land. In such cases, I think you give rise to a state, no matter how small. I believe states and the exclusivity of them is what causes much conflict today. So whilst I wouldn't say people should be forced to move, as an idea, I believe it ultimately to be better to assume a more nomadic stance/lifestyle. With reference to the point about primitivism, please read the emboldened part of my post.

    Glad that the post has made you think . I would probably take a look at Libya who is one of the fiercest advocates of Pan-Africanism and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Afr...Pan-Africanism too. Also, I've appended the Hunan Peasants' Movement to the OP if you'd like to look at it.

    ANARCHY__
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Yes. This is a good point. There is nothing to say that by removing land ownership, land cannot subsequently be utilised. However, I use the word utilised deliberately because I still maintain that, group or individual, there should be no fixated holding over a piece of land. In such cases, I think you give rise to a state, no matter how small. I believe states and the exclusivity of them is what causes much conflict today. So whilst I wouldn't say people should be forced to move, as an idea, I believe it ultimately to be better to assume a more nomadic stance/lifestyle. With reference to the point about primitivism, please read the emboldened part of my post.

    Glad that the post has made you think . I would probably take a look at Libya who is one of the fiercest advocates of Pan-Africanism and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Afr...Pan-Africanism too. Also, I've appended the Hunan Peasants' Movement to the OP if you'd like to look at it.

    ANARCHY__
    Ah yes, pan-africanism. No I was refering to your post about organising highway maintenance, national health services (after they had been decentralised and put into the hands of the community) in a post-revolutionary society. There is an interesting article I keep meaning to dig up that I found: it was written by one of the post-civil war Spanish anarchists on the topic of organisation in a post-revolutionary society. However I will deal with your inquiry about pan-africanism.

    It is a very interesting ideology and indeed has brought many benefits for the oppressed natives of South Africa: I am particularly referring to the end (or diminution, rather) of apartheid in South Africa. It holds many of the same ideals (mainly that of social equality, including social equality for all ethnicities) as anarchism but to what extent can one actually declare it anarchism? I have not been able to discover any purposeful objections to capitalism and statism within the ideology. In any case this topic of xenophobia reminds me of Marx's attitudes towards reactionary ideas (particularly among the working class). I believe he said something along the lines of (I am unable to dig up the exact quote, my apologies):

    "You do not get rid of the crap first and then create the revolution: you create the revolution and that, in turn, gets rid of the crap of the centuries"

    In other words, sure it is important to hold struggles against oppressions and undesirable traits in society (this, apart from anything else gets publicity for anarchists) but it is far from the end goal. No. Racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. are all delusionary concepts that have been portrayed by the bourgeois owned media to further divide the working classes. What's more is that, we are not so much divided by these small, petty differences as we are divided by class: any of these reactionary ideals we see present among members of society are all a result of a divisive class based system. After we have created a revolutionary society, most citizens will hold a revolutionary mindset (and this can only be expanded by the self-management of labour and new found political power which will enhance the individual, furthering their energy and self-esteem) and over time these reactionary mindsets (racism, homophobia, sexism, nationalism) that have evolved from the unpleasant circumstances of capitalism will naturally degenerate.

    So I would argue that while its great to focus upon abolishing apartheid, abolishing a patriarchical society under the present day economic infrastructure, none of this will be achieved until we have obliterated all forms of domination in society as this is the root of all our struggles. Nonetheless, I support the beliefs of pan-africanism and some aspects of the ideology certainly have similarities with anarchism. For instance, in the same way that the dialectics of anarchism (and other communist ideologies) trace back history as a result of class struggle (between the bourgeois and the proletariat), pan-africanism places stress upon the historical importance of the economic and social circumstances of Africa, tracing back the roots of most of its present day problems to slavery, racism and colonialism. I think it is safe to say a lot of these circumstances are in one way or another a result of class-based domination of the whites over the blacks, of the slave masters over the slaves, of the colonialists over the African natives and of the exploiting classes over the exploited classes. This all boils down to class analysis and is very relevant to some very basic dialectics which many anarchists subscribe to.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by ANARCHY__)
    Well, I mean it as a kind of loose ownership (explained in above post). So someone uses the land for a time, as and when they need it and then moves on when they don't. I don't understand how this is what they want; sorry for misunderstanding.
    I still don't really get what you're trying to say ...
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    This is where you are wrong. The nomadic people often took very good care of their land. If you look at history, you will see that it was only when the west intervened that precious resourcess (e.g. the buffalo in North America) were depleted. Before there was an industry for felling trees in the rainforest, the nomadic people (both then and now) would only ever fell a few trees at a time where they were based at the current time. Then they would move on after a month or so and since it was only a few trees that had been felled in a small area they could grow back. Now however private companies who fell trees for rubber, farming, etc. deplete huge sections of the Amazon at any given time with little (or applying little knowledge) as to how to preserve the Amazon in its natural condition. Indeed any nomadic person certainly does have incentive to preserve their land, as history will tell you: if their actions harm their environment they will be the first to feel the pain when there are no buffalo left or when the crops will no longer grow because the land is barron. They do not just take what they want and leave it. Consequently when you have private businesses whose owner smokes cigars exported from Italy and has a mansion over looking the sea in Biarritz it makes very little impact on his lifestyle when his actions are destroying the environment in some third world country. Even if there are private property rights assigned and he depletes all the natural resources in the land he owns, he will still have his fortunes he accumulated before the destruction of the land that he owned privately.
    The early nomadic tribes were nomadic because they didn't take care of the land. They saw land as an unlimited resource. They'd use up all the resources on a certain patch of land, and then move somewhere else. They had no concept of ownership of capital, and thus no division of labor. Primitive man was not really that different from animals. So, when the West arrived on the USA and fought the settlers, that we had justified appropriation of the land.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    The early nomadic tribes were nomadic because they didn't take care of the land. They saw land as an unlimited resource. They'd use up all the resources on a certain patch of land, and then move somewhere else. They had no concept of ownership of capital, and thus no division of labor. Primitive man was not really that different from animals. So, when the West arrived on the USA and fought the settlers, that we had justified appropriation of the land.
    You see, this is precisely what I mean when I say that private ownership of capital, historically has been enforced by the state. I can't believe a libertarian, with all of their endless rhetoric about "self-ownership", "liberty", how important property rights are, etc. could justify the forced "appropriation of the land".

    You stated that the early nomadic tribes did not take care of the land. Did you read what I said about the English imperialists who orginally invaded the US killing off a large proportion of the buffalo - whereas the nomads had previously sought to preserve their natural resources. Why would they deplete their resources when it is essential to their very own existence?

    You say they were nomadic because they didn't take care of the land. What relation does the word "nomadic" have to lack of concern for the environment. Indeed some of the biggest corporations in the world could certainly be described as "nomadic" if this was the case. No. Nomadic stems from the greek work ???????, nomádes, "those who let pasture herds".

    I also find this quote to be a tad disrespective of pre-civilised society:

    "Primitive man was not really that different from animals"

    I think to describe their early, peaceful ways of life as savage, animalistic, barbaric would just be ignorant.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
    You see, this is precisely what I mean when I say that private ownership of capital, historically has been enforced by the state. I can't believe a libertarian, with all of their endless rhetoric about "self-ownership", "liberty", how important property rights are, etc. could justify the forced "appropriation of the land".

    You stated that the early nomadic tribes did not take care of the land. Did you read what I said about the English imperialists who orginally invaded the US killing off a large proportion of the buffalo - whereas the nomads had previously sought to preserve their natural resources. Why would they deplete their resources when it is essential to their very own existence?

    You say they were nomadic because they didn't take care of the land. What relation does the word "nomadic" have to lack of concern for the environment. Indeed some of the biggest corporations in the world could certainly be described as "nomadic" if this was the case. No. Nomadic stems from the greek work ???????, nomádes, "those who let pasture herds".

    I also find this quote to be a tad disrespective of pre-civilised society:

    "Primitive man was not really that different from animals"

    I think to describe their early, peaceful ways of life as savage, animalistic, barbaric would just be ignorant.
    But I like animals . Sometimes I think the only difference between animals and humans is the division of labour. That is a manifestation of our higher intellectual capacity. So, the comparison with animals, as being “savage, animalistic, barbaric” is really your own.

    The nomadic tribes moved around – not because they liked moving around or going on long-term holidays – but because they used up all the resources on a certain patch of land. They would then arrange for the whole tribe to move to a new area. The leader would probably study the new terrain for potential and decide on setting up a community there. Those communities were basic. They didn’t become a society – because a society is founded on division of labour. To them, there was an infinite supply of land. Therefore, they had no incentive to maintaining the land. Why would you? Once this patch is used and empty, you’d move on to the next one. That is how animals operate. They move to a better patch of land …

    The colonies arrived and understood the importance of private property. That is not say that because I understand what they did, that I agree with the means employed to do so. I don’t like, for instance, the fact that they sold poisonous blankets to Indian Americans, or as you say overhunting the Bison and so forth.

    Lastly, where you have instances of individuals or firms ‘abusing’ the land, then it is a clear case of a lack of private property rights. Instead of letting private parties internalize the externalities, a government intervenes in the process and causes unnecessary property destruction.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    But I like animals . Sometimes I think the only difference between animals and humans is the division of labour. That is a manifestation of our higher intellectual capacity. So, the comparison with animals, as being “savage, animalistic, barbaric” is really your own.

    The nomadic tribes moved around – not because they liked moving around or going on long-term holidays – but because they used up all the resources on a certain patch of land. They would then arrange for the whole tribe to move to a new area. The leader would probably study the new terrain for potential and decide on setting up a community there. Those communities were basic. They didn’t become a society – because a society is founded on division of labour. To them, there was an infinite supply of land. Therefore, they had no incentive to maintaining the land. Why would you? Once this patch is used and empty, you’d move on to the next one. That is how animals operate. They move to a better patch of land …

    The colonies arrived and understood the importance of private property. That is not say that because I understand what they did, that I agree with the means employed to do so. I don’t like, for instance, the fact that they sold poisonous blankets to Indian Americans, or as you say overhunting the Bison and so forth.

    Lastly, where you have instances of individuals or firms ‘abusing’ the land, then it is a clear case of a lack of private property rights. Instead of letting private parties internalize the externalities, a government intervenes in the process and causes unnecessary property destruction.
    You have points, and as I am sure you are aware, it is not a system of free-for-all land that I advocate but rather a system of use-rights in place of property-rights. For the reasons stated, not in the previous post but the post before that, I still believe that private property rights will be abused. It is far more likely to result in a just system where all members of society (with there development of sophistication in the present world) would have control over how land is managed/distributed.

    In any case, it is necessary to defend the nomadic life style for the sake of refuting the claims of propertarians. It is quite clear that upon western invasion, many natural resources were depleted (though, admittedly no private property rights had been assigned). Also, I have seen little evidence that nomads would deplete their own natural resources. From what I can see they would not travel too far (as this requires precious energy, time and effort). For this reason, they would utilise land without depleting all of its resources during season, move to another area (partly because this area was more suitable in different seasons due to weather and climate but also partly so they would not deplete all the natural resources) for the next season before moving back. I mentioned one strategy which was to only chop down a few trees (in the case of the Amazon) and only remain in the area for a limited period of time. There is no guarantee that nomadic tribes will not have to stay in the same place on more than one occasion.

    Basically, for the nomads, it was in their interests to preserve their own environment. Even if it was not, they did not have the means of destroying land that we do in the present day with the rise of the growth of technology that has been concentrated into the wrong hands (the private investor rather than society).

    P.s. speaking of animals, what are your views on animal rights? Will the free market protect animal rights? Are animal rights irrelevant?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 5, 2011
The home of Results and Clearing

3,667

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.