[lbo-talk] When is private property NOT?

Jim Devine jdevine03 at gmail.com
Sat Jun 25 09:15:28 PDT 2005


me: > > Chuck, are you a Lockean, a believer in absolute private property
> > rights, totally rejecting state restrictions? (I don't see how
> > property rights could exist with state coercion.)

Chuck: > Jesus fucking christ, I'm an anarchist who clearly stated that I don't
> give a shit about property rights.

You had said >>> I don't give a damn about the American fetish for private property rights,<<<

and since I didn't know your self-definition exactly, I didn't know how to interpret this. (If you had written "fetish of," it would have clearer, at least to me.) I had guessed you were some sort of anarchist (since you say stuff like "fuck god"), but the line between anarchism and free-market "libertarianism" is sometimes permeable.


> If you are going to see this situation as simply a case of some liberal
> versus conservative position, then the right wing is going to hand you
> your head on a plate.

I wasn't seeing things in terms of a "liberal" vs. "conservative" duality. There's a third option, socialism, and there may be more. (BTW, I tend to see anarchism as a radical form of liberalism. Anarchists often have a better sense of humor than liberals, too.)


> It *is* possible to have a position that is
> against eminent domain and unchecked state power, while at the same time
> being against the entire idea of private property rights.

what if eminent domain is employed by a democratically-controlled state? for example, I'm sure that the Paris Commune used its power to take some private property.

Instead of taking a stand against eminent domain, "progressives" need to take a stand against bourgeois power. JD



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list