Australia’s First Nations put it nicely: we belong to the land. This was of course interpreted by the colonial courts to mean “the land own us”, in rejecting land claims. But it makes sense - we do not own things, things own us. We must serve, care for and maintain our things, or they will break. Our things are a burden, if we do not serve them they become a greater burden. This is the revelation we can have once the capitalist illusion of ownership is broken, and we listen to the wisdom of our First Nations.
Again, so very thought provoking. You certainly know how to challenge your reader to imagine a world that at first doesn't seem possible. I was so impressed in Costa Rica many years ago when the tour guide for the river boat ride pointed out a very tiny (2 meters by 3 meters maybe) casita beside the river that was reserved for poor elders. It was loaned to the individual but ownership stayed with the government (not sure at what level). In this sense government (which many won't every trust despite the many benefits) became the landlord of last resort. Leasing of even business clothes has been an emerging mechanism to give the benefits of use without the benefits of ownership. Software monthly fees have replaced the "ownership" of a license, for example. But of course in the west all of this requires financing by institutions of concentrated wealth (banks) who can further their holdings to the detriment of wealth held in common. Is it possible that in a world of every increasing damage to agricultural production due to the already build-in global warming that a FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency in the US) or a FERP (Federal Emergency Response Plan in Canada) could be the landlord of last resort if they are re-invented to provide emergency shelter as a service (in the way the US Postal Service was created)?
Hi Peace and many thanks. Indeed Meso America (Costa Rica etc) provide many positive examples of community service, care giving, shelter etc. What Brena Bhandar, mentioned in the story, described as "equitable structures of scale". By people for people. As for FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency in the US) or a FERP, I feel these type of big 'provide relief' organizations can be remodeled, and operated (shared) by common people, as in provide the vital services to a given community - the question of training and management then becomes an onus for the vested people and not the state or gov.
The Native American concept of land ownership differs significantly from that of the European settlers who colonized the Americas or their descendants in that land could not be owned, only stewarded and lived with. The Earth is understood by Native Americans as a living, sentient being, and, therefore, no one can claim ownership. 💚
"concept of land ownership" so true. The learning of that was very enriching. Because back in India, that was wiped out a very very long time ago.. Also, this native understanding provides new energy to combat those who think against such "common stewardship" and not "ownership".. Thank you for the comment Carina!
An interesting review of the Christian theologies that attacked private property as the destructive evil that creates poverty— you can’t have one without the other! Unfortunately these examples became the outliers in History. For example, see the Rerum Novarum, the encyclical letter of Pope Benedict XIII, 15 May 1891, for an all-out defense of private property.
I was especially troubled in my early education to learn how thoroughly religions reduced the concept of the ‘soul’ into a debt collection system: they found a way to collect money from the property owners, and pacify the impoverished with the promissory note redeemable upon death.
Hi Bill… Thank you for the comment. Indeed the examples were ignored and rejected, and became “outliers”. Was not aware of "Rerum novarum"...Indeed it merits a mention in the story. (reedited) And will read further, the link you placed. Thanks
I read Pius the XIII’s encyclical while trying to figure out what Leonard Leo is all about, and the 1891 encyclical coincides nicely with the rising fear of socialism.
Hi Bill… Thanks for sending these two links. It does raise a new question, as to what is being, and was claimed, as the “right” to private property. What did the catholic church have to say about the outright violation of the law, when we see the creation of settler colonial nations and their history. The indigenous peoples were (and still are) excluded from this ‘christian’ verdict? Or perhaps were never the owners of any land.
PopeJohn XXIII’s encyclical were obviously written by a socialist humanitarian and he directly criticizes that history and the current state of the world in 1962 - 63: Cold War, the perversion of our technical skills to make weapons of mass destruction, the racism and aggressive violence enforcing the continuing colonization of the third world. Here is the only passage on property in his most loved encyclical:
18. If we turn our attention to the economic sphere it is clear that man has a right by the natural law not only to an opportunity to work, but also to go about his work without coercion.[14]
19. To these rights is certainly joined the right to demand working conditions in which physical health is not endangered, morals are safeguarded, and young people’s normal development is not impaired. Women have the right to working conditions in accordance with their requirements and their duties as wives and mothers.[15]
20. From the dignity of the human person, there also arises the right to carry on economic activities according to the degree of responsibility of which one is capable.[16] Furthermore — and this must be specially emphasized — the worker has a right to a wage determined according to criterions of justice, and sufficient, therefore, in proportion to the available resources, to give the worker and his family a standard of living in keeping with the dignity of the human person. In this regard, Our Predecessor Pius XII said: “To the personal duty to work imposed by nature, there corresponds and follows the natural right of each individual to make of his work the means to provide for his own life and the lives of his children; so fundamental is the law of nature which commands man to preserve his life.”[17]
21. The right to private property, even of productive goods, also derives from the nature of man. This right, as We have elsewhere declared, “is an effective means for safeguarding the dignity of the human person and for the exercise of responsibility in all fields; it strengthens and gives serenity to family life, thereby increasing the peace and prosperity of the State.”[18]
22. However, it is opportune to point out that there is a social duty essentially inherent in the right of private property.[19]
18. If we turn our attention to the economic sphere... natural law not only to an opportunity to work, but also to go about his work without coercion."
What is natural law? According to the person who frames it. And under any top-down governance and economy, common people have little choice, as to what they wish to work or do.
I was educated in Catholic schools, grades 1&2 in a convent school, grades 3 thru 8 in a parish school at the end of our street, and “Nature” was always printed with the capital letter of a “proper noun”, indicating it referred to a single thing or ‘entity’, as opposed to the ‘common’ noun form which referred to a collection or range of different things classified as similar according to some principle— for example the nature of all vines share some basic properties— it is their ‘nature’. Confusion over these two different forms of nature followed me throughout my college and grad school educations, but its clear one is an absolute a-priori assumption underlying religious belief, the other is discoverable through induction (scientific process). ‘Nature’ in Catholic theology refers to all of God’s ‘Creation and His intentions for his creation, which were alleged to be discoverable by church hierarchy of course, but also by any person of true belief in Catholic doctrine through reflection (right reason). Catholics are forbidden to use birth control, for example, because it violates the Natural order of sex and procreation. George Carlin made mincemeat out of such distinctions and Catholic prohibitions, and my friends who went to Catholic High School loved him.
Conservatives today apply the words natural and nature to anything they want to do, own, or justify- class, debt, money, war, slavery, monopolization, the whole Fed/interest rate/unemployment charade, collateralized debt obligations, etc.
Been updating my head ever since Trump was elected and I read David Graeber’s “5000 Years of Debt.” You’re into hierarchies so I’m sure you see the attraction of Anarchy-everything Graeber wrote is wonderfully transforming - a truly peace loving individual.
This was so chock full of history and philosophy! Curious what your thoughts are on cooperative ownership on a small or massive scale as in the Mondragon coop network in Basque regiom?
Hi Emily... Thanks for reading. Since I live in Spain, I am aware of Mondragon (studied the history of the organization, briefly) and indeed it is a great model to learn from. Especially as a foundation model for new cooperative, horizontal organization. Even as Mondragon has grown way bigger, than what the founders imagined, it remains a profitable and sustainable organization, within the Basque region and the other countries where the model migrated to. At its foundation, is an outcome anarcho-socialism.
Thank you for the reply! I studied cooperatives for a time in graduate school; the professor had done a lot of research on Mondragon specifically. I continue decades later now to think of coops as one of the best ways to manage to share resources and live humanely and decently within a capitalist system. Not perfect, but it's something.
Hi Emily. Certainly a cooperative (horizontal) set up is not perfect, as in every system of management involves problems and challenges. The question can also be posed, in terms of scale. By scale I mean size, as in how many people are participating and receiving the “fair share” of their involvement. While Mondragon is huge now, however decentralized, we must take note that it has surpassed it’s initial potential. Is a very interesting place to look for new pathways and answers, objectively contra the capitalism and centralized top-down systems of the past.
Enclosure was, and remains, a crime against humanity.
Exactly friend! As explained by JP Proudhon “property is theft”. And how many “enclosures” for how many people. Currently we are 8 billion+
Australia’s First Nations put it nicely: we belong to the land. This was of course interpreted by the colonial courts to mean “the land own us”, in rejecting land claims. But it makes sense - we do not own things, things own us. We must serve, care for and maintain our things, or they will break. Our things are a burden, if we do not serve them they become a greater burden. This is the revelation we can have once the capitalist illusion of ownership is broken, and we listen to the wisdom of our First Nations.
So true, that sense of belonging but not owning. Thanks for reading.
Always loved this photo.
many thanks. The cover photo? is symbolic of so many things and one (suffering).
Again, so very thought provoking. You certainly know how to challenge your reader to imagine a world that at first doesn't seem possible. I was so impressed in Costa Rica many years ago when the tour guide for the river boat ride pointed out a very tiny (2 meters by 3 meters maybe) casita beside the river that was reserved for poor elders. It was loaned to the individual but ownership stayed with the government (not sure at what level). In this sense government (which many won't every trust despite the many benefits) became the landlord of last resort. Leasing of even business clothes has been an emerging mechanism to give the benefits of use without the benefits of ownership. Software monthly fees have replaced the "ownership" of a license, for example. But of course in the west all of this requires financing by institutions of concentrated wealth (banks) who can further their holdings to the detriment of wealth held in common. Is it possible that in a world of every increasing damage to agricultural production due to the already build-in global warming that a FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency in the US) or a FERP (Federal Emergency Response Plan in Canada) could be the landlord of last resort if they are re-invented to provide emergency shelter as a service (in the way the US Postal Service was created)?
Hi Peace and many thanks. Indeed Meso America (Costa Rica etc) provide many positive examples of community service, care giving, shelter etc. What Brena Bhandar, mentioned in the story, described as "equitable structures of scale". By people for people. As for FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency in the US) or a FERP, I feel these type of big 'provide relief' organizations can be remodeled, and operated (shared) by common people, as in provide the vital services to a given community - the question of training and management then becomes an onus for the vested people and not the state or gov.
Proudhon argued that property is theft. I'm inclined to agree with him. Thanks for this exploration of the subject.
Yes, I so wanted to include PJ Proudhon’s take, but eventually did not. Instead stuck to three contemporary arguments. Thanks for reading.
For sure. Thanks for your work!
The Native American concept of land ownership differs significantly from that of the European settlers who colonized the Americas or their descendants in that land could not be owned, only stewarded and lived with. The Earth is understood by Native Americans as a living, sentient being, and, therefore, no one can claim ownership. 💚
"concept of land ownership" so true. The learning of that was very enriching. Because back in India, that was wiped out a very very long time ago.. Also, this native understanding provides new energy to combat those who think against such "common stewardship" and not "ownership".. Thank you for the comment Carina!
An interesting review of the Christian theologies that attacked private property as the destructive evil that creates poverty— you can’t have one without the other! Unfortunately these examples became the outliers in History. For example, see the Rerum Novarum, the encyclical letter of Pope Benedict XIII, 15 May 1891, for an all-out defense of private property.
https://catholicherald.co.uk/property-and-human-dignity-the-prophetic-message-of-pope-leo-xiii/
I was especially troubled in my early education to learn how thoroughly religions reduced the concept of the ‘soul’ into a debt collection system: they found a way to collect money from the property owners, and pacify the impoverished with the promissory note redeemable upon death.
Hi Bill… Thank you for the comment. Indeed the examples were ignored and rejected, and became “outliers”. Was not aware of "Rerum novarum"...Indeed it merits a mention in the story. (reedited) And will read further, the link you placed. Thanks
I read Pius the XIII’s encyclical while trying to figure out what Leonard Leo is all about, and the 1891 encyclical coincides nicely with the rising fear of socialism.
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/
This site has an anxious counter spin going - on God, man, and of course property:
https://capp-usa.org/right-to-private-property/
Hi Bill… Thanks for sending these two links. It does raise a new question, as to what is being, and was claimed, as the “right” to private property. What did the catholic church have to say about the outright violation of the law, when we see the creation of settler colonial nations and their history. The indigenous peoples were (and still are) excluded from this ‘christian’ verdict? Or perhaps were never the owners of any land.
PopeJohn XXIII’s encyclical were obviously written by a socialist humanitarian and he directly criticizes that history and the current state of the world in 1962 - 63: Cold War, the perversion of our technical skills to make weapons of mass destruction, the racism and aggressive violence enforcing the continuing colonization of the third world. Here is the only passage on property in his most loved encyclical:
John 23 peace on earth
Pacem In Terris
Peace on Earth
Pope John XXIII - 1963
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/john23
18. If we turn our attention to the economic sphere it is clear that man has a right by the natural law not only to an opportunity to work, but also to go about his work without coercion.[14]
19. To these rights is certainly joined the right to demand working conditions in which physical health is not endangered, morals are safeguarded, and young people’s normal development is not impaired. Women have the right to working conditions in accordance with their requirements and their duties as wives and mothers.[15]
20. From the dignity of the human person, there also arises the right to carry on economic activities according to the degree of responsibility of which one is capable.[16] Furthermore — and this must be specially emphasized — the worker has a right to a wage determined according to criterions of justice, and sufficient, therefore, in proportion to the available resources, to give the worker and his family a standard of living in keeping with the dignity of the human person. In this regard, Our Predecessor Pius XII said: “To the personal duty to work imposed by nature, there corresponds and follows the natural right of each individual to make of his work the means to provide for his own life and the lives of his children; so fundamental is the law of nature which commands man to preserve his life.”[17]
21. The right to private property, even of productive goods, also derives from the nature of man. This right, as We have elsewhere declared, “is an effective means for safeguarding the dignity of the human person and for the exercise of responsibility in all fields; it strengthens and gives serenity to family life, thereby increasing the peace and prosperity of the State.”[18]
22. However, it is opportune to point out that there is a social duty essentially inherent in the right of private property.[19]
Hi Bill...
This bit seems difficult to understand,
18. If we turn our attention to the economic sphere... natural law not only to an opportunity to work, but also to go about his work without coercion."
What is natural law? According to the person who frames it. And under any top-down governance and economy, common people have little choice, as to what they wish to work or do.
I was educated in Catholic schools, grades 1&2 in a convent school, grades 3 thru 8 in a parish school at the end of our street, and “Nature” was always printed with the capital letter of a “proper noun”, indicating it referred to a single thing or ‘entity’, as opposed to the ‘common’ noun form which referred to a collection or range of different things classified as similar according to some principle— for example the nature of all vines share some basic properties— it is their ‘nature’. Confusion over these two different forms of nature followed me throughout my college and grad school educations, but its clear one is an absolute a-priori assumption underlying religious belief, the other is discoverable through induction (scientific process). ‘Nature’ in Catholic theology refers to all of God’s ‘Creation and His intentions for his creation, which were alleged to be discoverable by church hierarchy of course, but also by any person of true belief in Catholic doctrine through reflection (right reason). Catholics are forbidden to use birth control, for example, because it violates the Natural order of sex and procreation. George Carlin made mincemeat out of such distinctions and Catholic prohibitions, and my friends who went to Catholic High School loved him.
Conservatives today apply the words natural and nature to anything they want to do, own, or justify- class, debt, money, war, slavery, monopolization, the whole Fed/interest rate/unemployment charade, collateralized debt obligations, etc.
Been updating my head ever since Trump was elected and I read David Graeber’s “5000 Years of Debt.” You’re into hierarchies so I’m sure you see the attraction of Anarchy-everything Graeber wrote is wonderfully transforming - a truly peace loving individual.
… sorry Apple touch screen bit me before i could finish. Can you edit these replies after they are posted?
Yes u can edit (as u please)
Great article!
Hi Jasmine... (sorry i did not read the comment earlier) and many thanks for reading.
No worries🤗 My pleasure 💕
Hey… our little plan (Things_women_were_not_allowed_history)
is pending… Speak soon!
Fantastic🥳 🫂
hi .. can i then send you an email?
Sure🤗
jassmine90@gmail.com
This was so chock full of history and philosophy! Curious what your thoughts are on cooperative ownership on a small or massive scale as in the Mondragon coop network in Basque regiom?
Hi Emily... Thanks for reading. Since I live in Spain, I am aware of Mondragon (studied the history of the organization, briefly) and indeed it is a great model to learn from. Especially as a foundation model for new cooperative, horizontal organization. Even as Mondragon has grown way bigger, than what the founders imagined, it remains a profitable and sustainable organization, within the Basque region and the other countries where the model migrated to. At its foundation, is an outcome anarcho-socialism.
Thank you for the reply! I studied cooperatives for a time in graduate school; the professor had done a lot of research on Mondragon specifically. I continue decades later now to think of coops as one of the best ways to manage to share resources and live humanely and decently within a capitalist system. Not perfect, but it's something.
Hi Emily. Certainly a cooperative (horizontal) set up is not perfect, as in every system of management involves problems and challenges. The question can also be posed, in terms of scale. By scale I mean size, as in how many people are participating and receiving the “fair share” of their involvement. While Mondragon is huge now, however decentralized, we must take note that it has surpassed it’s initial potential. Is a very interesting place to look for new pathways and answers, objectively contra the capitalism and centralized top-down systems of the past.