In Reply to: Re: The essence of property? posted by Crystal Bourbeau on November 29, 2001 at 00:04:11:
I think there's a big difference between being attached to a place because of the memories associated with the place, just like we might love a movie that we watched with a close relative or friend because it also reminds us of that moment spent with someone close.
As for communism, it is a social system based on the people who do the work being able to decide on what to do with what they produced. I don't think that has anything to do with this topic, does it? Can you help me see the connection?
: : I think it has more to do with an attachment to place instead of property. I don't own Mt. Holyoke or my house back home, but I am attached to them. It is not so much ownership or possession, but the memories associated with a place.
: I guess what I am saying is that it is an interesting phenomenon to see people associate their identity and memories to land or material objects. Of course it sparks memories and their hardwork could lead them to cherish the land even more. But, where did that start? Why do people take that extra step to claim something as their own. We may have a deep attachment to the sea, but we don't claim it as our property and commodify it ( at least individuals don't do that). It is this attachment that Communism is fighting against.
Post a Followup