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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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+
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!
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).
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
Yes u can edit (as u please)