The capitalist, as capitalist, as owner of capital, therefore, loses all historical significance, whilst the function of capitalist is if anything enhanced, as the need to organise and supervise this mammoth socialised capital becomes ever more imperative.
But, the landlord, who for centuries stood at the heart of production loses all significance, not just in terms of property ownership, but also in terms of function. From the standpoint of capitalist production, rent is an encumbrance. It would be better for all land to be owned by the capitalist state, the capitalist believes, because that way the rent collected by the state would defray its costs, and so reduce the taxes it must otherwise levy on capital. The idea of state ownership of land for that purpose, was advocated by Ricardians such as Mill, Spence and others.
So, on the one hand, the position of landlord can be better fulfilled by the state, whilst agricultural production has already fallen under the control of capital, and the central role in its organisation falls not to the landlord, but the capitalist farmer.
For the bourgeoisie, nationalisation of the land makes perfect sense, therefore, but it ultimately holds back from such action, because it fears that an attack on one form of property rights might spread to other forms of property. Besides, the bourgeoisie themselves become landowners, not just for productive purposes, or to obtain large-scale commercial rents, but also to satisfy their own rapidly growing needs for grotesque conspicuous consumption, in the form of their own country estates, private islands and so on.
No comments:
Post a Comment