In the discussion around the clinic, the Marxist term "personal" property appeared. In his article on A2larm, Jakub Ort defends his position - but it is the same thing we already know about walking around a hot Marxist-totalitarian slurry. Controversy with Jakub Ort.
During the discussions around the case "Clinic“One of the supporters of the Clinic and a collaborator of Czech Radio, Jakub Ort, expressed in the sense of "fetishisation of private property", the distinction between "private and personal" ownership“. Jakub Ort elaborates on his theses - the acronym of which aroused passions on social networks, including the demand that the cooperation with Mr. Ort be terminated on radio. A2larmu in the article How is ownership democratized?
I will respond to this article. The text mentions "free market fundamentalists" - among them I probably belong too - but I am still far from, for example, the call for the release of Mr Orto from the Radio and other similar aggression in the debate. Even a person holding such views is, of course, free to think what he wants and to defend his views publicly. The fact that the state forces us to pay for his (but also others) work through enforcement, it is not Mr Orto's problem.
Private and personal
Mr Ort relies, as he himself states, on the Marxist ideology of the division of property into "private and personal". In accordance with the Marxist tradition, he then describes it as follows:
“Personal property is property used - the apartment I live in, a toothbrush, a cottage or a car. Private property is what I use for further profit: the house I rent under Airbnb, the real estate I speculate with, or the land I rent for further use. ”
This division is as old as Marxism itself, as well as the refutation of the factuality of this division. The division is purposeful, in practice non-functional and only serves as advocacy for bending, restricting and even occupying private property. There is only private property, just as there is only theft or theft.
To illustrate a few questions:
- Is the radio editor's personal mobile phone, which is used as a dictaphone at work (used for further profit - wages), is private or personal property?
- Is the apartment in which the freelancer works - for example a copywriter - and also lives in it - private or personal property?
- Is the car I use to deliver people for a fee through Airbnb or as a taxi driver, but "out of working hours" for my personal use is private or personal property?
- Apartment 3 + 1, where one of the rooms is rented for sublet, but otherwise it is mine and I live in it, is it private or personal property?
Surely you, the readers, and Mr. Ort know where I am going, there are many similar examples. A possible answer to these questions is: depends on the degree. If the apartment where the room is rented is owned mainly due to the sublease, then it is private, otherwise personal. If I didn't have a car - if I didn't drive for Uber - then it's private, not personal.
But they are all hypothetical considerations and all similar arguments are applied my subjective values to others - in other words, declaring that my view of things is more important than yours. How else will I evaluate that peace by a third party?
This is, after all, one of the reasons why any application of similar "rules" of Marxism has always degenerated into totalitarianism - but what is totalitarianism other than forced whole nations undergo a subjective evaluation one dictator?
This is a more divorced argument by Jakub Ort, "ad gulagum" - this is why it always appears. It is an acronym - just as "private property is fetishized", but the acronym is valid.
Referring to Ericha Fromma in the text it is then easy to understand in this context - and it is only a more sophisticated Marxist variant argument to the gulag: Fromm doesn't accept a person as he is, but the way he wants it. Fromm is the author of one of socio-engineering theories of the new man - looking for a new one, better human character, new, better a society based on this new man. A company based on reasonable consumption accepted new people in character proposed government commission of experts. A new person who will rather not own and match the characteristics of Fromm set by you he then realizes that he must change society and force the government to enact laws that force production to change in that direction.
In other words, dictate what people they should be, what they should like, what they should stand for, what they should think, what they should want, and then force them to do so by law or education. And Mr. Ort is wild using argument to gulagum?
PS: Notice that I am not dealing with who was or was not Fromm, for whom he wrote or did not write, but only what thoughts he preached. Which, on the contrary, is missing from Mr Orto's text.
The flip side of private property?
Mr. Ort writes:
"Private property as we know it and liberalism as the ideology that puts it first have not always been here, but have emerged with modern capitalism."
Private property as we know it today may have come after the era of feudalism and feudal serf relations - and it was one of the greatest tools exemption masses of serf people without any rights. Respecting their property is an achievement of liberalism and is the first step in comparing the rights of all people. The disintegration of the system of seniors-feudal lords, lazy people and subjects is largely a part of the functionality of property relations - and it was not a "new discovery" but a natural return to the "normal" - that is, that everyone can own.
Next Ort writes:
"The problem with liberalism is not that it promotes the freedom of the individual, but that it puts the freedom of those who own it above the freedom of others. It is one of the paradoxes of liberalism that its history includes the development of the slave trade - the most frightening form of restriction of individual freedom. Of course, when the other is my private property, I can treat him the way I want. ”
There is only one freedom - and for everyone. There is no "supremacy of one's freedom over the freedom of the other," nor is liberalism preaching. The association of slavery with liberalism is absurd - slavery was here long before any liberal ideas, so long ago it is surprising how quickly after the advent of liberal views it disappeared under the weight of liberalism ideas: individuality, freedom and man, as individuals with inalienable rights. The fact that "one cannot own another man" is the basic idea of liberalism and the extinction of slavery based on these ideas is in the long history of mankind the greatest victory of liberalism. The elimination of tyranny and oppression is the primary focus of classical liberalism.
Classical liberalism is at the heart of ideas that deny any privileges based on origin, race, religion, and more.
It is precisely liberalism that has come up against resistance to domination on the basis of the principle of representation (no taxation without representation), the principle of freedom from dictatorshiplaissez faire) and the principle of inalienable rights.
Ownership as a weapon?
To claim that property is used to oppress is the same as saying that weapons kill - it does not kill weapons, but people, it does not oppress "property" but people. People also do ugly things, and only the freedom to own — and therefore to decide for themselves — allows us to defend ourselves effectively.
"New forms of the old problems of liberalism, namely that private property often influences one another, are returning."
It's even worse - people influence other people. This is the fetishization of humanity, it needs to be democratized! Or not?
On the contrary, it's great that there is a mechanism in that diverse human societies can clearly define individual human rights and competences. Ownership is the organizational system of the free world and without it we have only totalitarianism. If we do not want "one person to influence another", we need to remove individuality and make a person a wheel in the "flesh of society", which we attribute to human qualities.
This is pure collectivism, which ends in oppression and does not matter, we will build it on the national level ("nation") or on the class level ("workers", "owners" and others), the mechanism is still the same.
At the same time, it is funny that as an example of the "harmfulness" of today's "fetishization" of property, Jakub Ort states:
"But also, for example, the huge problem of executions, where the private property of creditors is in direct conflict with the right to personal property of others and as a result threatens the entire Czech democracy, as they wrote in the British Guardian a few days ago."
Execution. The system, which was enforced by the CSSD in the Czech Republic and threw a lot of people into the debt trap due to… state regulation, ie the invasion of private property. Today's enforcement system, as it is set up, violates the property rights of debtors! After all, it is the work and expense of the creditor to be able to recover a clearly given debt, there is no reason for these costs to be passed on to the debtor; it is precisely state regulation that has turned the whole principle of enforcement upside down.
The example of housing construction is also ridiculous - it is not a "market problem" where problems are caused by the state's regulation.
Our lives in the hands of others?
"The problem with philosophical liberalism is that it works with the unrealistic idea of a world divided into atomized individuals meeting on equal terms, ignoring the fact that people are bound and dependent on mutual cooperation in all fundamental aspects of their existence."
I know of no system of thought other than liberalism and the application of a market economy, which better describes this system of the need for mutual cooperation. The market is a company. A market is created when people come together and interact - whether it is an "exchange" of opinions, ideas, experiences or products. A functioning market is a condition for functional human cooperation!
The same again
The ideas that Jakub Ort presents are nothing new or revealing, just like the ideas of liberalism. It is still the same effort to find or educate / cultivate a better person, by forcing (regulating) to build a new society on him, to ignore people as they are.
It's still the same collectivist ideas that oppose individualism and see individuals only as a tool for transformation for their ideal society. Ignoring human desires and real motivations, they see the market as something "foreign" without realizing that the market and the economy are people - people different, and that neither he - nor any other Fromm's "expert council" has the right and, in fact, the ability dictate to others how to live or what they want.
They are the core of all collectivist regimes - which, however, always are authoritative. Only a free society based on private property, which is an expression of our past lives, allows people to fulfill their individual lives.