Words
- This topic has 6 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Pannekoek has an article on the differing intent of public ownership and common ownership.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1947/public-ownership.htm
But there are others – collective ownership, social ownership, community ownership. (I have come across a few 19th C writers using the term national ownership but not in the sense of nationalization or state-ownership)
Are we addicted to just the one expression?
Is there anything wrong in saying collective or social ownership, rather than always using common ownership?
Are there better alternatives?
Hi Alan,
“Is there anything wrong in saying collective or social ownership, rather than always using common ownership? Are there better alternatives?”
This question really caught me. In capital formations, okay, society, normalising judgements attach themselves to word use: deeming one expression legitimate over another. For example ‘collective’ is considered negative in its use- and ‘community’ is preferred over it. ‘Community’ becomes more legitimised in its usage as it fits with social/community as capital. The terms ‘collective or social ownership’ are the villains in capital thinking as any full on liberal associates them with communism, socialism; and so seeks to ‘abnormalise’ (I know that is a suspect spelling) their usage in popular political speech- subordinating them to impolite usage.
I for one use them proudly ‘collective and social’ ownership- my least preferred term that has taken traction is social capital: now who owns that, and do we have to pay to use it!
Regards
L.B
I suppose it is interesting in that ‘own’ and ownership implies some kind of exclusive control or access to wealth etc.
In fact own and thus ownership implies individual or personal , of one, control.
That would be a Stirner like interpretation.
Thus common ownership would be an oxymoron like; true lies.
Thus due to the evolution and standardisation of private property concepts over the last 500 years there isn’t a modern word for such an alien thing as useful stuff that doesn’t have an owner or ownership, collective or otherwise.
Thus with multinational companies they are commonly owned by the shareholders,
The old English word for it was ‘commons’ ; thus?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons
As I understand it that is all derived from , like communism , from the Greek word ‘communicate’ which is similar but begins with a K.
And sort of had ‘double’ meaning of to ‘talk etc’ and to share; as in share knowledge and information or whatever.
It crops up in early Christian literature translated into English.
Rightwing christian translators liked to obscure what was being said about sharing; by translating it as ‘communication’ and giving it an obscure theological take of ‘communion’ etc.
It looks to me as our friend Roman Montero with his little book; which he tested the ground on by going onto Libcom , with me and then here.
Has shifted the debate somewhat and had an impact given the change of content google searches.
Montero, Roman A. (2017). All Things in Common The Economic Practices of the Early Christians. Foster, Edgar G. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN 9781532607912. OCLC 994706026.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism
I have noticed the change as people know; I have been interested in that subject for sometime.
I think it has a like Ludwig Wittgenstein aspect to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
[He was interested in planes and flying and used to hangout in a favourite pub of mine in the peak district.]
I mean how can you think things through using language, which you have to, if you don’t have sensible clear cut words for ideas or concepts.
Or for that matter 1984 in which dangerous ideology was dealt with by deleting words from language that were subversive.
Socialism itself was a word originated by a French bod just as an antonym to egotism or selfishness.
I think the North American ‘Indians’ thought the colonist were insane when they offered to buy the ‘commons’ of Dakota or whatever.
“As I understand it that is all derived from , like communism , from the Greek word ‘communicate’ which is similar but begins with a K. And sort of had ‘double’ meaning of to ‘talk etc’ and to share; as in share knowledge and information or whatever.”
I think the word you are referring to will begin “koin”. “Koine” is in fact a word used in linguistics to describe a type of language.:
“Koine, also spelled koiné, originally, a contact variety of the Greek language that was spoken throughout the eastern Mediterranean region during the Hellenic and Roman empires. The term comes from the Greek koine (“common” or “shared”), ( …). In linguistics, the term koine is now applied to any modified language variety that has developed from contact between dialects of the same language or, in some cases, between languages that are genetically or typologically related.”
The christians’ “new testament” was in fact written in koine Greek.
Greek had and has no letter C but then it serves no purpose in English as it’s pronounced either as a K or as an S. On the other hand, Latin didn’t really have a K because that’s how C was pronounced.
“Non-ownership” society is perhaps more apt and a description I occasionally use particularly in debates over cooperatives
Looks like I was getting my latin derivation mixed up with the greek!
Origin of the word
The English term ‘Communication’ has been evolved from Latin language. ‘Communis and communicare’ are two Latin words related to the word communication. Communis is noun word, which means common, communiality or sharing.
Similarly, communicare is a verb, which means ‘make something common’. Some scholars relate the term communication with an English word community. Community members have something common to each other. communities are {supposed to be} formed with the tie of communication. It is the foundation of community. Hence, where there is no communication, there can’t be a community.
http://nepalicommunication.blogspot.com/2011/01/origin-of-word.html
The Epistle of Barnabas circa 130AD
CHAPTER XIX.–THE WAY OF LIGHT.
……..Thou shalt communicate in all things with thy neighbour; thou shalt not call things thine own; for if ye are partakers in common of things which are incorruptible, how much more [should you be] of those things which are corruptible!……….
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/barnabas-roberts.html
….with the dative of the thing which one shares with another, Galatians 6:6 (κοινωνησεις ἐν πᾶσι τῷ πλησίον σου καί οὐκ ἐρεῖς ἰδίᾳ εἶναι, Epistle of Barnabas 19, 8 ….
https://biblehub.com/greek/2841.htm
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.