En relaci�n a Re: [CrashList] The Simultaneous Policy,
el 10 Aug 00, a las 20:15, Norman Mikalac dijo:
> thank you for explaining the acronym. since marxists and socialists
> believe in communal ownership rather than private ownership, then i
> should assume that they are in favor of the Napster position?
>
> norm
In the hope that I am not messing the whole thing, I would begin by
explaining that there is a difference between the ownership relation
and the property relation.
Humankind, according to us Marxists, cannot exist unless through
metabolism of Nature. A part of Nature ourselves, we can exist
insofar as we appropiate Nature through the "metabolic relationship"
(Marx) with it. This is what I would call the property relation
(experts in political economy please correct me if I am wrong or too
savage). On the other hand, this property relation expresses itself
through multiple forms of societal arrangement (wow, the positivist
in my soul has welled out!), one of which is the ownership relation.
Under this relation, by means of societal mechanisms, a fraction of
humankind is invested with full control over parts of Nature. In a
sense, socialism is the attempt to bring the property relation and
the ownership relation to an unity through collectivization of the
metabolic activities of humankind.
>From this point of view, the difference between ownership and
property becomes irrelevant unless as a necessary step in the
deployment of human history towards socialism.
Hope did not blur what I wanted to put clear.
N�stor Miguel Gorojovsky
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
