re: Capitalism and Socialism: Strategic Dead Ends

Brainpolice — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:53:09 GMT

I was refering to the question of aquisition of property. The government may recognize private property titles, but not all private property titles have been aquired through labor, voluntary exchange or gift. So there is a possibility that in automatically considering all currently existing private property titles to be legitimate, one is allowing property that was aquired through theft, coercive usury or fraud to be legitimized.

For example, in medieval times, fuedal landlords were legally considered to possess just property titles over what in reality was the peasant's land. The peasants were those who actually originally homesteaded and owned the land, but legal property title arrangements denied them their rightful ownership. There are also modern versions of this problem, what may be called "neo-fuedalism".

re: Capitalism and Socialism: Strategic Dead Ends

kate (aka kblair7) — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:09:03 GMT

Hey BP

Nice blog, its very pleasing to the eye.

Anyways I think your correct that the words capitalism/ socialism have essentially lost their core meaning within the lay English speaking lexicon. I don't think the distinctions are dead between intellectuals, or those who call for command economics. Which if you interpret definition of socialism broadly, you could perhaps say that our fiscal arrangement is quite close to state-control. Yet it is not.

I am curious though what do you mean exactly when you refer to "property titles that are not just?"