[MD] Quality decline

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Craig]
What's notable is (a) we could do so voluntarily, without force (much less
violent revolution) and (b) we could do so regardless of what other blocks do.

[Arlo]
I've had this exact conversation with neighbors, but regarding a snow-blower.
Since snow is often sparse, owning twenty snowblowers profits the snowblower
manufacturer, but hurts each family. For example, if rather than spend $600 on
my very own snowblower, I was able to spend $25 and garner all the benefits,
I'd have $575 more dollars to save, spend on needed commodities, take a
vacation, etc. So would each of the other families.

When I suggested this (this was years ago), the most common line I got was "I'd
rather just own my own", I asked "why?", and in every case the dialogue shifted
from "practicality" (which improves with communal ownership) to "its just the
way it should be". In other words, "owning" is so ingrained in the American
psyche, from years of bombast, consumerism, and advertiser driven fetishism,
that simply saying "people are free to make this choice" is somewhat narrow.

Indeed, one reason our economy is so robust is simply that American's don't
save. From makingmoneywork.us, "The average American saves less than 5%. People
in other industrialized nations such as Canada, France, and Japan save 11% to
15%."

Now, upfront I will say that I'd never argue that anyone should be forced into
such a decision, by any means. But I think we need to confront a dialogue that
is separatist, consumerist, acommunal and underscored by market propaganda that
encourages this behaviors. That is why I think any revolution begins bottom-up.
Only after people's visions have been swayed away from this self-imprisoning
dialogue will people make these voluntary choices, and then true Marxism may
finally one-day manifest itself.

By the way, although I think strides have been made away from the historical
evils of Industrialization under which Marx wrote, I think strides have also,
sadly, been made towards increasing isolation in life, an isolation that is
heralded as normal and desired by those enslaved by consumerist doctrine. We
participate less and less in shared social space, the Commons (as Keith
mention), accepting as normal a daily motion that takes us from one private
space to another. In Germany, I am reminded, often times at a restaurant people
will join you at your table (this may be a larger, European activity), and I
hear from my Persian friend that such sharing of space happens in Iranian and
Turkish cultures as well. In America, such an act would be attrocious, a
violation of personal (aka private) space and an encroachment on our desire to
restrict and control our interactions within a very narrow private sphere.

Interestingly, the Internet gave many a chance to re-experience a social space
that was obviously lacking from their lives. Chat groups, social rooms and
other shared spaces flourished in the early Internet. But the move has been
away from true shared spaces to participation in restricted spaces that are
safe, similar and non-threatening by virtue of walls that keep out any with
real divergent ideas. (Note that I am talking about published "trends").

Okay, this little tangent was brought to you by Folgers.

[Craig]
Which is freer: a society in which property can only be held in common or one
in which you can have private property, share property or do without property?

[Arlo]
Private property actually decreases our overall freedom. When the lake is
community owned, anyone can use it at any time. When you buy that lake, no one
can use it but you. 

We agree to this lessening of individual freedom because we hope, too, to one
day buy our own little "sphere of exclusion", our own little slice of land
where we can (legally by force of government) keep other people away. So we
move from unfettered mobility that by definition includes the social presence
of others, to restricted mobility that is seen as worthy precisely because of
the forced exclusion of others.