Look behind the veil of ‘private property’

February 17, 2012
Issue 

A string of banks, airlines, car manufacturers and aluminium smelters — all big corporations that have profited for years while extorting billions of dollars in public subsidies — have spat in the face of our society.

They have begun huge sackings of workers, even though Australia supposedly escaped the worst of capitalism’s global economic crisis. The big banks have posted record profits, but they refuse to pass on interest rate cuts to families struggling to keep up with huge home mortgages.

In this context, 91̳ Weekly has run several opinion pieces raising the idea of nationalising the mining, banking, car and aluminium industries. As a result, a few anonymous people have called us “extremists” and even “vermin” in comments online.

Some less hostile responses have asked if nationalisation is possible, considering that the plants and technology these corporations use is “private property”.

But these times of crisis provide lessons on how selectively the corporate rich apply their commitment to private property. In Europe, people are being condemned to the collective punishment of forced economic austerity just to implement capitalism’s only unbreakable rule: privatise the profits, socialise the losses.

In the case of the car and aluminium industries — as Geelong Trades and Labour Council secretary Tim Gooden explains in an interview — the public has paid for the profits of their private owners in times of boom and recession.

These companies have been on the gravy train for decades. They are world’s-best-practice corporate welfare extortionists.

So the public should not be terrorised into submission by the words “private property”. Indeed, we should look behind the veil of “private property” more often.

I am not referring to what most people count as their private property: personal possessions such as clothes, a bicycle, car or home.

Rather, I mean capital: the private property owned by just a few, which is used to oppress others and grossly distorts the social and environmental choices our society makes.

Private property of this nature can often be traced back through time to outright theft: the theft of land owned by indigenous and colonised peoples, slavery and piracy. But such ill-gotten gains have then been multiplied through systematic exploitation of people who have been left with no choice but to sell their labour power to the owners of capital.

The stupendous profits amassed under capitalism don’t appear out of thin air. Nor are they due to the hard work of the owners of private property. They come out of exploitation. No exploitation, no profit. This is an iron law of capital.

“Capital is dead labour, that, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks” the famous German socialist Karl Marx.

If we want to free society from the dead end that capitalism has brought us to, then we need to look behind the veil of private property and see the real relations of power that lie behind it. “Freedom is the recognition of necessity,” Marx’s best mate Frederick Engels noted.

OK, another red has come out from under the bed and I'm urging you readers to defy the “vampire-like” bloodsuckers of today by chipping into our fighting fund this week.

You can donate online to the 91̳ fighting fund here. Direct deposits can be made to Greenleft, Commonwealth Bank, BSB 062-006, Account No. 00901992. Otherwise, you can send a cheque or money order to PO Box 515, Broadway NSW 2007 or donate on the toll-free line at 1800 634 206 (within Australia).


Comments

Why can't we read anything like this in the mainstream Australian newspapers or any of the television media programmes?. Why are we always bombarded with irrelevancies. It's so refreshing to hear these points of view again. I know the go back to Marx and Engels, but most people haven't read them. The entire 'soap opera' leadership challenge, or in fact sport, the stockmarket, just about everything in the traditional media seems more and more to exist just to distract us from the reality of total control and exploitation at the hands of industrial giants. I hope australians aren't just 'too dumb' to get it all?.
Private capital is no different from your bike or car or house; it is a privately owned assett and any attempt for the government to take it is nothing but outright theft. If you want to remove public subsidies from these industries then fine, that is a useful discussion point and one that we should have. But for you to suggest that the factories, IP, machinery and tooling is not "private property" then you are seriously mistaken. Your claim that "Private property of this nature can often be traced back through time to outright theft: the theft of land owned by indigenous and colonised peoples, slavery and piracy." is disingenous. Give examples that could stand in a court of law then. The history of the world is replete with lands being conquered but to restore them to previous owners? How far back do you go? People are not forced to be employed by the owners of capital. They can start and run their own businesses and then allow the public to CHOOSE who gets their custom. And finally you fail to discuss how nationalisation of an industry or company would be achieved. For example, what if a company didn't want to be nationalised? Just sieze its assets, IP, machinery, tooling? For one, contract law would go out the window and no company would view Australia as a feasible place to do business again. Australia has a high cost in terms of doing business here as opposed to other countries. From a competitive standpoint we are already at a disadvantage compared to labour rates in other countries (see why ANZ is moving jobs offshore to SE Asia - which will improve the living standards of a lot of SE Asian people BTW). I fear that whilst you scream "NATIONALISE" as a catchy slogan, you don't have any real idea or plan as to how it would actually happen. I also feel that your argument of what constitutes "private property" reveals an thought process that justifies theft. Private property is just that - private, and for you to discuss how some private property is more private that other property is a frankly scary notion. Theft is theft, whether an individual does it or a state or government does it.
* "Private capital is no different from your bike or car or ..." Nobody is exploited by the private ownership of a car or bike, etc. Many people are exploited by the private ownership of mines, banks, factories, etc. Big difference. * "Give examples that could stand in a court of law then" Funnily enough, the people who wrote the laws, are by and large also the people who own the capital or their political representatives. However, it is not controversial that people who stole Aboriginal land went on to be some of the wealthiest people in Australia: * "People are not forced to be employed by the owners of capital" Everyone has the choice to starve, or live in poverty on unemployment benefits. * "They can start and run their own businesses..." Usually, it takes a lot of money to start up even a small business. This is a practical choice only for a few. And if you do, you're not playing on a level playing field in today's monopolised world. * "And finally you fail to discuss how nationalisation of an industry or company would be achieved." There are lots of ways to do it. Which way you choose depends on the circumstances. * "For example, what if a company didn't want to be nationalised? Just sieze its assets..." If necessary, yes. * "Theft is theft" That's why we should take the capital out of the hands of thieves and return it to the people so that it can be run democratically and in the public interest.
"Nobody is exploited by the private ownership of a car or bike, etc. Many people are exploited by the private ownership of mines, banks, factories, etc. Big difference." Yet you fail to state how they are being exploited? They choose to give their custom or labour to these entities. "Everyone has the choice to starve, or live in poverty on unemployment benefits." Oh woe is me. "Usually, it takes a lot of money to start up even a small business. This is a practical choice only for a few. And if you do, you're not playing on a level playing field in today's monopolised world." Yeah, its the same level of risk that private company owners have to take on. Get a loan from a bank and risk your own backside before you criticise those people who do. "There are lots of ways to do it. Which way you choose depends on the circumstances.......If necessary, yes." Good, at least you are honest about your intentions of theft. And that is why your policies will never fly with the Australian public. They can spot thieves and totalitarians from a mile. And that's why the Greens only have 14% of the vote, and that will be the high water mark after the public get jack (as they already are) of the minority government.
Alex Bainbridge is missing the point. Selfish greed does not a healthy society make. Co-operation not competition is the way to go. Is it right that a Capitalist should dig a hole in Australia, suck out all the goodness and keep the profits for himself just because he had the financial power in the first place? When the Capitalists have finished with Australia what will be left for the people? Anything more than lots of big holes in the ground? An international FREE landfill site? Remember how they squealed about the Mining Tax? Heaven forbid they should give anything back to the people! In the case of mining, profits should come out the ground and into society; education, health, housing, social welfare. The Capitalists have plenty of investment properties, expensive cars and planes. They really don't need any more, they just think they do. Is it a form of mental illness?
The nature of mining leases is that they a feudal rather than capitalist. Unfortunately the Government gives mining companies the right to mine under private land, but much mining is done on crown land (yes I know the whole idea of "crown" ownership is suspect). Mining companies might use finance capital (especially to trade) and other capitalists to provide machinery, but the basis of their "profit" is rent not capitalist profit. That is, they charge what they can, and do not mine if the price is not right. What is suprising is that governments give the ore away so cheaply, but as we have seen, e.g. WA, the government sees its role as benefiting the miner rather that the population at large.

You need 91̳, and we need you!

91̳ is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.