Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Collectivist

Frederick Engles "Origin of the famil, Private Property and the State"

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Collectivist said:

Priviate property ownership proceeds from the labor necessesary to create it. In other words, if I create it, I  own it. Labor creates value

1

FYI, this is not the Objectivist position on either property or value.  It seems that you are following Locke's Labor Theory of Property.

And the position you are putting forth is actually much closer to Marx's Labor Theory of Value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

So, you're saying that the technique of sharpening a new spear would not advance the tribe as a whole until -- "eventually over time" -- it was shared with others. Aren't you saying that "private property" can advance the tribe if it becomes "common property"?

All new techniques/inventions become "common" don't they? Our primitive wants to survive so he guards his spear making process. If the tribe is threathened from other tribe it would be natural to share the T/I. After that certainly the tribe advanvancse one notch above the other tribes. Progress unitl a newer techinque or invention becomes reality! The primitive through his T/I of private property helped continued survival. Would you not do the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, New Buddha said:

FYI, this is not the Objectivist position on either property or value.  It seems that you are following Locke's Labor Theory of Property.

And the position you are putting forth is actually much closer to Marx's Labor Theory of Value.

Yes, and no. Yes,Would you believe I re-read some of Locke yesterday and I see just a smiggen of a simiarity (which is normal). And no, after thinking about it I perhaps can see what you mean in Marx however "use value" can be a personal thing without being "abstract" Personal private property has no "surplus value" My head wants to say: L=Pp=UV    .....man you guys are making me think/work hard! 

I like it....keep it coming (I think Ayn would have been proud of all posters here. (I'm no so sure about me though. I'm not an intellectual, just curious about things)

Collectivist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a brief summary of Locke, Marx and Objectivism's positions on Property.  Hopefully, it will help you to see that appealing to "anthropology" is exactly the wrong way to arrive at the concept Property.

Locke:  He started from the premise that God exists and that God created the Earth with all its materials and animals to serve his highest creation - Man.  Locke was arguing against the Divine Right of Kings as put forth by the Stuart King James I.

The full title of Locke's famous work is: Two Treatises of Government (or Two Treatises of Government: In the Former, The False Principles, and Foundation of Sir Robert Filmer, and His Followers, Are Detected and Overthrown. The Latter Is an Essay Concerning The True Original, Extent, and End of Civil Government.  (Sir Robert Filmer was a political theorist supporting the Stuarts and a proponent of the Divine Right of Kings).

Under the Divine Right of Kings (as developed at the time of both the German and English Protestant Reformations), the King was (simplified here) seen as the ultimate source and guarantor of property, ownership of land, chattel, the granting of monopolies, etc.  The King could, at any time, take ownership of anything he wished, and people only "owned" things at the Kings pleasure.  This, of course, was exactly what Locke was arguing against at the time of the Glorious Revolution.  Locke argued for a Natural Theory of Rights (and Property) that did not reside in the authority of the Monarchy.  Locke's "foundation" for his ideas was God.

Marx:  Marx was influenced by the writings of Locke (and many, many others).  In the spirit of Positivism and Materialism which was prevalent in Marx's time, he rejected such concepts as "property" and "God" as metaphysical nonsense.  Marx sees thoughts and ideas as "mere phantoms of the mind."  Locke's Labor Theory of Property became Marx's Labor Theory of Value.  Marx reduced a particular commodities Value to the socially necessary number of labor hours it took to create. (Keep in mind that I'm greatly simplifying things here).

Objectivism:  Objectivism rejects the idea that "labor" justifies the validity of either Property or Value -- seeing the argument as being nothing more than evidence of a "concrete-bound mentality" per Marx (or, in the case of Locke, an appeal to "God").  Per Objectivism, Property is a very complex concept - a Concept of Method (see p. 37 of IToE):

"The concept "Property" denotes the relationship of a man to an object (or an idea [intellectual property]):  his right to use it and to dispose of it- and involves a long chain of moral-legal concepts, including the procedure by which the object was acquired.  The mere observation of a man in the act of using an object will not convey the concept "property."

Your seeking to justify the concept of "property" on anthropological grounds and "value" to labor is exactly what Rand rejected.

Edit:  I'll add that Jefferson saw Rights as "unalienable" which was a code-word for "axiomatic" and reflected his Epicurean position - which most took to be and "atheistic" at the time.

 

Edited by New Buddha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Sorry, I wasn't clear on connecting my last 2 posts.

I understand you to be drawing a distinction between a private property in a legal context which has as prerequisite a society complex enough to need a legal system, and the broader or at least lower level idea of property which as an ethical concept which can be found everywhere in any society.  Is that correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grames said:

I understand you to be drawing a distinction between a private property in a legal context which has as prerequisite a society complex enough to need a legal system, and the broader or at least lower level idea of property which as an ethical concept which can be found everywhere in any society.  Is that correct?

That sounds right to me. My idea here is that -private- property takes society into greater levels of creation and into a capitalist society. But disagree with the OP saying that private property took mankind into the early stages of civilization. I doubt that the broader concept managed that either, although personal property is likely a sign of early civilization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

So, you're saying that the technique of sharpening a new spear would not advance the tribe as a whole until -- "eventually over time" -- it was shared with others. Aren't you saying that "private property" can advance the tribe if it becomes "common property"?

My last post I used L+UV=Pp with an explanation.Figures it didn't post Very frustrating

BTW does anyone thing this would be a good paper, if so where would you suggest I send it to

Collectivist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, New Buddha said:

This is a brief summary of Locke, Marx and Objectivism's positions on Property.  Hopefully, it will help you to see that appealing to "anthropology" is exactly the wrong way to arrive at the concept Property.

Locke:  He started from the premise that God exists and that God created the Earth with all its materials and animals to serve his highest creation - Man.  Locke was arguing against the Divine Right of Kings as put forth by the Stuart King James I.

The full title of Locke's famous work is: Two Treatises of Government (or Two Treatises of Government: In the Former, The False Principles, and Foundation of Sir Robert Filmer, and His Followers, Are Detected and Overthrown. The Latter Is an Essay Concerning The True Original, Extent, and End of Civil Government.  (Sir Robert Filmer was a political theorist supporting the Stuarts and a proponent of the Divine Right of Kings).

Under the Divine Right of Kings (as developed at the time of both the German and English Protestant Reformations), the King was (simplified here) seen as the ultimate source and guarantor of property, ownership of land, chattel, the granting of monopolies, etc.  The King could, at any time, take ownership of anything he wished, and people only "owned" things at the Kings pleasure.  This, of course, was exactly what Locke was arguing against at the time of the Glorious Revolution.  Locke argued for a Natural Theory of Rights (and Property) that did not reside in the authority of the Monarchy.  Locke's "foundation" for his ideas was God.

Marx:  Marx was influenced by the writings of Locke (and many, many others).  In the spirit of Positivism and Materialism which was prevalent in Marx's time, he rejected such concepts as "property" and "God" as metaphysical nonsense.  Marx sees thoughts and ideas as "mere phantoms of the mind."  Locke's Labor Theory of Property became Marx's Labor Theory of Value.  Marx reduced a particular commodities Value to the socially necessary number of labor hours it took to create. (Keep in mind that I'm greatly simplifying things here).

Objectivism:  Objectivism rejects the idea that "labor" justifies the validity of either Property or Value -- seeing the argument as being nothing more than evidence of a "concrete-bound mentality" per Marx (or, in the case of Locke, an appeal to "God").  Per Objectivism, Property is a very complex concept - a Concept of Method (see p. 37 of IToE):

"The concept "Property" denotes the relationship of a man to an object (or an idea [intellectual property]):  his right to use it and to dispose of it- and involves a long chain of moral-legal concepts, including the procedure by which the object was acquired.  The mere observation of a man in the act of using an object will not convey the concept "property."

Your seeking to justify the concept of "property" on anthropological grounds and "value" to labor is exactly what Rand rejected.

Edit:  I'll add that Jefferson saw Rights as "unalienable" which was a code-word for "axiomatic" and reflected his Epicurean position - which most took to be and "atheistic" at the time.

 

I don't think I am wrong on this (my basic theory) If Ayn is mad at me and throws me out of the collective again ....so be it

I agree with Ayn on everything else! You however present a good case but I'll stick to my theory.  As I said before I am no intellectual (actually I am a real dope!) but I must admit my curiosity has been heightened by all these postings. I admire you guys for sticking to what you beleive to be true!

And by the way I was a practising Buddhist for 20 years before I saw the error in forcing mind into emptyness (nothingness)-Do you have any expirence with Buddhism?

Collectivist

Edited by Collectivist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Collectivist said:

All new techniques/inventions become "common" don't they? Our primitive wants to survive so he guards his spear making process. If the tribe is threathened from other tribe it would be natural to share the T/I. After that certainly the tribe advanvancse one notch above the other tribes. Progress unitl a newer techinque or invention becomes reality! The primitive through his T/I of private property helped continued survival. Would you not do the same?

I'm not questioning that they would become common; just trying to understand the detailed steps within your argument. I now think you're saying the following:

1. People innovate because they have some selfish motive: e.g. some guy figures out a way to make a spear

2. That innovation makes his life better

3. That innovation is kept private ("jealously guarded")

4. When others finally learn of the innovation, they adopt it

5. Thus, they too derive the benefits the one guy was deriving...and the whole tribe benefits (aka "becomes more powerful")

Are those the steps in your argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Collectivists, It's good that you are sticking around and deciding things for yourself.  And while I hope you learn something from my posts, my writing helps me clarify ideas for myself too.

Regarding Buddhism.  A lot of metaphysical/ontological nonsense gets dragged into it.  Probably because it was introduced into the West in the 19th Century in part by Geman Idealists/Romantics stoned on opium...

I see ideas such as "impermanence," "dependant-arising," and "non-being" as little more than a refutation of Aristotelian Metaphysical Realism - and in many ways similar to Objectivist Epistemology.  I don't see myself as a Buddhist, however.  But it did lead me to explore a bit of Indian history.

I just happened to stumble across Buddhism because, back in the day, I did a lot of long distance running and bought a sports book on "visualization" which was written in the Buddhist vein and focused on meditation.  The Buddha lived in the same general time that philosophy was taking-off in Greece, and I think the world between India and Greece was more connected back then than is commonly thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

I'm not questioning that they would become common; just trying to understand the detailed steps within your argument. I now think you're saying the following:

1. People innovate because they have some selfish motive: e.g. some guy figures out a way to make a spear

2. That innovation makes his life better

3. That innovation is kept private ("jealously guarded")

4. When others finally learn of the innovation, they adopt it

5. Thus, they too derive the benefits the one guy was deriving...and the whole tribe benefits (aka "becomes more powerful")

Are those the steps in your argument?

Bingo! ......keep it going! Agree, Why?  disagree, Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just now, Collectivist said:

Bingo! ......keep it going! Agree, Why?  disagree, Why?

Well, what happens if I remove #3, leaving:

1. People innovate because they have some selfish motive: e.g. some guy figures out a way to make a spear

2. That innovation makes his life better

3. That innovation is kept private ("jealously guarded")

4. When others finally learn of the innovation, they adopt it

5. Thus, they too derive the benefits the one guy was deriving...and the whole tribe benefits (aka "becomes more powerful")

Removing #3 does not break the logical chain, yet in summary you seem to say that #3 is the main cause of #5

So, what would you change to make #3 indispensable to the argument

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, softwareNerd said:

 

Well, what happens if I remove #3, leaving:

1. People innovate because they have some selfish motive: e.g. some guy figures out a way to make a spear

2. That innovation makes his life better

3. That innovation is kept private ("jealously guarded")

4. When others finally learn of the innovation, they adopt it

5. Thus, they too derive the benefits the one guy was deriving...and the whole tribe benefits (aka "becomes more powerful")

Removing #3 does not break the logical chain, yet in summary you seem to say that #3 is the main cause of #5

So, what would you change to make #3 indispensable to the argument

Intersting.......let me reverse this....What would you #3 to fit my arguement/theory. If you put me on the spot however, I would have to answer that unless our primitive surrendered L-UV=Pp he would sacrificed to the "gang" of the tribe. Our primitive did not have the ability to form a consciousness that would inable to "reason" with some who would view his techiques or invention as worth while. The tribe would prob think this was "evil" work and an offense to god(s) and kill him not realizing the harm they did to the climb to progress. This obvious breaks the chain. That's why I want your input!

Collectivist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, New Buddha said:

Collectivists, It's good that you are sticking around and deciding things for yourself.  And while I hope you learn something from my posts, my writing helps me clarify ideas for myself too.

Regarding Buddhism.  A lot of metaphysical/ontological nonsense gets dragged into it.  Probably because it was introduced into the West in the 19th Century in part by Geman Idealists/Romantics stoned on opium...

I see ideas such as "impermanence," "dependant-arising," and "non-being" as little more than a refutation of Aristotelian Metaphysical Realism - and in many ways similar to Objectivist Epistemology.  I don't see myself as a Buddhist, however.  But it did lead me to explore a bit of Indian history.

I just happened to stumble across Buddhism because, back in the day, I did a lot of long distance running and bought a sports book on "visualization" which was written in the Buddhist vein and focused on meditation.  The Buddha lived in the same general time that philosophy was taking-off in Greece, and I think the world between India and Greece was more connected back then than is commonly thought.

Well then, we share something in common......but please keep this discussion going. I haven't been this lucid in years!

Collectivist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Collectivist said:

Well then, we share something in common......but please keep this discussion going. I haven't been this lucid in years!

Collectivist

Let me start with this L+UV=Pp (Labor plus use value (time it takes to make stuff) equals private property! Yes, No? Why?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

 

Well, what happens if I remove #3, leaving:

1. People innovate because they have some selfish motive: e.g. some guy figures out a way to make a spear

2. That innovation makes his life better

3. That innovation is kept private ("jealously guarded")

4. When others finally learn of the innovation, they adopt it

5. Thus, they too derive the benefits the one guy was deriving...and the whole tribe benefits (aka "becomes more powerful")

Removing #3 does not break the logical chain, yet in summary you seem to say that #3 is the main cause of #5

So, what would you change to make #3 indispensable to the argument

I think by eliminating #3 and you  line out " When others finnally learn of the innovation" leaving #4 as "they adopt it," you will arrive at communal communism. Am I correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Collectivist said:

I think by eliminating #3 and you  line out " When others finnally learn of the innovation" leaving #4 as "they adopt it," you will arrive at communal communism. Am I correct?

I think trying to figure where we would arrive is the wrong approach. Anticipating a destination may bias what facts we look for. Better to focus on the premises: to ask ourselves..."what are the facts?" Then, let those facts take us wherever they do.

Why should we be willing to drop #3? Is it not a fact? If it isn't, what made us think ti was? If we dropped #3, maybe we should drop the other premises as well...how can we know that those aren't just as flawed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, softwareNerd said:

I think trying to figure where we would arrive is the wrong approach. Anticipating a destination may bias what facts we look for. Better to focus on the premises: to ask ourselves..."what are the facts?" Then, let those facts take us wherever they do.

Why should we be willing to drop #3? Is it not a fact? If it isn't, what made us think ti was? If we dropped #3, maybe we should drop the other premises as well...how can we know that those aren't just as flawed?

Me thinks by dropping 3,4,5 no progress would never happen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans are imbued with irresistible impulses toward competition and cooperation, greed and generosity,They commonly have a passion to dominate, to display superiority and excellence, to attain distinction and honor, (and to create and to be seen as creative)-Stephen F. Williams Liberal reform in a Illliberal Regime:the creation of private property in Russia 1906-1915. Hoover Institution Press, 2006, Stanford University Pp.16 (underlining mine)

So there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×