Matthew R. Berry
Critical Geographies
09/15/2020
Professor Simpson
Response Three: Life on the Market
1) My understanding from reading this text is that the author, through different means and examples, sets the stage for the final conclusion, in one big build-up. The author argues that any and all life, and the state of our planet, has been corrupted by the social construction of private property and the subsequent destructino of the common, or communal. The author argues that private property, has in a way, dumbed us down or in his words, "makes us stupid," because private property has monopolized so many different forms of wealth, from the immaterial to the material.
2) I felt that there were multiple connections between this paper and some of the papers we read last week regarding space and its capacity for social and political upheaval. I agreed with the author that the government's duty lies in protection of private property, or rather, the current capitalistic world we live in has thus dictated that private property is more important than lives. We have seen, time and time again, whenever it comes to social or racial upheaval in this country, a significant faction of the populace is more focused on the destruction of property through unlawful acts than the destruction of people through police brutality. From Rodney King, where the Korean community sat on their rooftops with long rifles, to a few weeks ago in Kenosha, Wisconsin, where a 17-year-old boy allegedly murdeered two protestors with his own long rifle after going up from Illinois to assist in police defense of private property. Yesterday, I read multiple news articles about illegal roadblocks and checkpoints being erected in Oregon by gun-toting individuals in defense against rumors of looting spread through social media. Private property is more important than the common good, I would argue large chunks of the country would agree with that statement, as well as police institutions. The connections I made in this paper correlate directly to current events through the emphasis on the protection of private property.
3) "Scientists are not generally driven to innovate by the potential of riches from patents, although the corporations and universities that employ them certainly are. The private ownership of knowledge and information is only an obstacle to the communicatino and cooperation at the base of social and scientific innovation." (P.184) I thought this passage interesting because it fell into a realm of what I think of as "Moral Scientific Inquiry". It is just my own principles that I feel science, through capitalism, has been hijacked in the pursuit of knowledge and utilized for the subsequent capital gain for the individuals who fund the pursuit of knowledge. I understand it isnt' realistic to do unfunded research and that funding must come from some means, however, I feel that much science is brough forward progressively to support underlying metanarratives and capitalistic agendas put forth by the corporations or univerisites that sponsor such scholar.
4) What other connections can we make to current day events? How can this paper highlight inequalities for BIPOC communities? How can we communicate this paper in layman's terms for our grandparents on Facebook to understand? Can we use this to break the system? Is it even possible to break the system as the author asks in the final paragraph? Will there be a post private property world? What would that look like?
I would disagree that private property makes us stupid. It has not taken away our intelligence but our resources. Those with power now also can control knowledge and life forms. We still have access to these reproducible end products but we do not have access to the process and therefore for every product that is patented, the innovation has ceased. The owner wants the innovation and forward movement to cease because has decided that his wealth is more important than the common good.
ReplyDeleteI find your question about a post property world interesting. I wonder what a world of post property would look like? I imagine that the system we have now will continue to change though based on observations that a lot of people are not happy with the current system.
ReplyDeleteHardt and Negri are interested in the what is lost and gained by private property as opposed to social property. On that last page, they are noting that we are limited or prevented from other ways of learning or being in the world, if everything from shoes to plants is reduced to private ownership. The activity of "the common" for them is also an educational practice. This issue absolutely connects back to what we saw Grasmci arguing, as well this week, in Foucault's sense of the relationship between knowledge and power.
ReplyDeleteIt is also important to keep in mind the role of government in the contemporary moment. Neoliberal policy of our current era is precisely one where governments introduce policy to support corporate practices (as opposed to support social and public resources and infrastructure as in earlier eras). This is what makes Hardt and Negri's point at the end about insisting on the social production of wealth--even in an era that saturates and celebrates private property-- as a way of rethinking our institutions, including science, technology, factories, etc., as a vital political practice. How can we express private property as a social property--for Marx we will remember, it is already that.