107
Nazi-looted painting must be returned to Jewish art dealer’s heir, Argentina court rules (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 days ago by to c/world@lemmy.world
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

I don’t disagree, but the concept of ownership is still a legal concept in most countries. Erodin git likely leads to more problems than ignoring it. We’ve moved more and more away from ownership, to renting what we need. That hasn’t been to the benefit of most people. The concept of ownership being eroded more doesn’t help that.

I certainly agree that there is something to be said for wealth redistribution over generations. There are also pieces of art or culture or history that are more important than others.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 child)

    I think you're missing this context for my comment.

    Personal Property is items meant for individual use and consumption that do not generate passive income. Your everyday goods such as clothes, phone, car, etc. They belong to you because you personally use them for their intended purpose.

    Private property refers to assets or "capital". Something that is owned by individuals or corporations to generate a profit. Their ownership is not intended for personal use beyond the goal of obtaining capital from them. Factories, rentals, etc. The owner makes money from the labor or payments of others because of their ownership of that private property.

    The art dealer may enjoy looking at the art and owning it. But, that is not the primary purpose of the ownership of that property. The art dealer owns art to extract a profit from it through sale.

    I agree with you. The inheritance of and ownership of personal property is definitely decreasing. But this is not what I am discussing. I'm referring to the inheritance of private property. Private property inheritance is becoming much more concentrated into the ruling capitalist class.

    And these things are connected too. The concentration of private property is becoming so bad that a lot of people don't even own their phone these days. It's private property owned by capital that is renting it to extract more profit than they would from selling it to them. The phone that was once sold as private property to an individual who purchases it as personal property; that phone is now a part of a contract that treats the phone as a rent to be extracted and the private property returned to the capitalist for further private property profit after.

    You touched on, without realizing it I think, a reason why many people fall for the propaganda against socialism. They get worried when they hear socialist want to "abolish private property". But our society doesn't make this distinction. It's on purpose. The belief that the ownership of private property is something that the average person has or can obtain. The average person does not own any private property and never will.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 hours ago (1 child)

    Where are you getting your definitions from?Do they have a basis in law? I've only ever seen private property refer to assets like land or buildings. Ivenever seen a distinction based on owner type. Also personal property is usually based on items that are not mobile, which would include art, irrespective of whether it's for personal enjoyment or as an investment, whether by a person or a company.

    Yee, my point about renting rather than ownership is often due to the ability for technology he tied to the owner and deactivated remotely. So, not transferrable nor true ownership.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago

    I'm defining the distinction of private and personal property as I (and leftist in general) use them. If you're looking for an original written distinction, it's French philosopher Pierre Joseph Proudhon in 1840. Expanded on, and more scientifically written about, by Karl Marx.

    Just as you'd use a word like "work" in your common language to mean one thing; and the same word "work" meaning a very specific (and different) thing in a Physics class.

    I'd just say. The distinction is not on owner alone. The distinction is primarily on its use value. How a commodity is used by its owner. Though the ownership of and specific use creates a class distinction between those that labor and own personal property; and those that own capital and own private property.

    We're entering the realm of where I'd have to use more terms in a similar means as one world use "work" to define a force over a distance in physics. That's not very helpful or possible in a comment thread. Unfortunately, I have to recommend a video essay or a book to help you understand more.

    We're talking about economic principles, and, unfortunately, it's difficult to avoid using the language of that field requiring a non Liberal background of it.

    I can recommend resources if you want. But I'm not gonna just paste links you won't ever click if you're not interested.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent