Thanks for the clarification. We're on the same page - I completely agree with your post.
Brett
At 11:14 AM 10/20/98 -0400, you wrote:
>To an extent this is a sort of semantic
>preference.
>
>Marxists, after a passage in
>The Communist Manifesto, use
>a formulation "abolition of
>private property ". This means
>private property in the basic
>means of production. It doesn't
>mean "personal property" will
>be abolished. For example, an
>individual wouldn't necessarily
>share their clothes with any
>and everyone else (at least that's
>the way I think of it). But a factory
>or electric power plant would not
>be owned by an individual or
>small group of people. They would
>be social "property" ( I would say).
>In a certain sense, this is
>eliminating PROPERTY , in its
>most important sense. But as I
>say, it doesn't mean there wouldn't
>be rules and laws, even, on power
>and control over the basic means of
>production. This power and
>control would be exercised in the
>interest of social groups not
>private accumulation of wealth.
>The decisions regarding production
>at an enterprise
>will not be ultimately based on
>the profiting of a few, private
>individual interests , but rather
>the interests of a much larger
>social whole; and coordinated
>more with other enterprises.
>
>Charles Brown