Logocracy - Chapter 10: Ownership of Property

Lobaczewski on property, and notes on federal populism and multiple intelligences

Uroš Predić, Happy Brothers, 1887

Before proceeding to my summary of Chapter 10, I want to bring attention to a recent series by Michael McConkey over at

The Circulation of Elites

on federal populism. Lobaczewski was an admirer of the Swiss system, and McConkey is devoting some attention to that particular brand of bottom-up federalism. See his latest post, for example (the previous installments are available here and here):

HAPPIER FEDERALIST STORIES

Lobaczewski includes Wolf Linder’s book, on which the above post relies, in the bibliography for Logocracy. In Chapter 18, for instance, Lobaczewski writes: “The Swiss system has proved to be the most reliable [as compared to the English and American systems] and this should be taken into account in our further considerations.” And as we’ve already seen in Chapter 5: “There is a special value in federalism that serves political reason. Therefore, some study of the working of the Swiss system preceded further consideration of a system better than democracy.”

And related to the discussion of intelligence and socio-occupational adjustment in Chapter 3, I recently listened to Jordan Peterson’s interview with Temple Grandin about her latest book Visual Thinking, one of the focuses of which was the notion of different intelligences. Grandin highlights the need to understand that there are different thinking styles: verbal thinkers, “object visualizers,” and “visual spatial pattern thinkers.” Object visualizers make great photographers and mechanics (Grandin herself is an object visualizer). Visual spatial thinkers are better at mathematics. Verbal thinkers are better managers. And all are necessary. Grandin sees all these thinking styles as complementary. But young visual thinkers today are losing the opportunities to gain the experience necessary to find appropriate occupations—sewing and shop classes, for instance, are disappearing. As a result, we are seeing skill loss, and Grandin worries about what this will mean in the next couple generations.

Now, on to Chapter 10.

In alignment with many religious perspectives (particularly Catholic Social Teaching), Lobaczewski does not see property as an end in itself, observing that this notion is relatively new to humanity. Rather, all property has some degree of social character and associated responsibilities and serves purposes in addition to mere self-interest. It is these natural attitudes that inspire, for example, the farmer’s commitment to sowing the land even under the threat of warfare and losing his farm, or the workers’ sense of connection to their factory (both in times of war and of radical economic change, as happened with the collapse of communism).

The task of logocracy is to bring the laws and norms of property ownership more in line with natural law. In some ways this will resemble ancient systems more than modern. For instance, such systems often “protected a certain minimum of possessions of the individual and of the human family better than contemporary European law or even more so American law.” Part of this will include paring down the countless regulations complicating matters, particularly in European law.

To this end, Lobaczewski presents a sketch of five classes of property, from the most individual to the most social in character. As he notes, perhaps the best opportunity for implementing this scheme would have been in countries where the system of property ownership had already been destroyed, presenting something of a blank slate from which to rebuild it. (That is, in the ex-communist countries during the 1990s.) In fact, Lobaczewski conceived of this structure for precisely this purpose. Unfortunately, this legal void created the opportunity for the imposition of “objectives alien to the national good.”

However, as logocracy is conceived as evolutionary and not revolutionary, he considers reforms in property law as secondary in importance, to be implemented only gradually as part of organic, nation-specific processes in nations not currently undergoing such a system void.

Class 5 includes those personal goods, the life span of which roughly matches that of a person, which are considered “natural property” and inviolable (e.g. savings, a small home or apartment, and other goods). That is, they belong to the individual and family, sufficient for their needs, and cannot be taxed by the state or otherwise infringed upon (e.g. seized or forfeited), except in extreme circumstances (in which case full monetary compensation and support will be required). This class of property is primarily geared towards the support of individuals and families.

Class 4 mostly matches current Western conceptions of private property, granting individuals full ownership of such goods and freedom to dispense with them as they choose (“but not to destroy [them] without the consent of the relevant authority”). Their lifespan will typically be greater than a human life. Such goods are created for the service of current and future generations. These goods may be taxed by the state, and their owners may be held materially liable for their value to creditors. Examples include some historic objects, industrial facilities and equipment, stocks and securities, joint-stock companies, and foreign-capital goods. Class 4 goods may grow in their lifetime so that they become Class 3 goods after their owners’ death.

Class 3, leased or rented property, has a permanent social character, such as land and forests, and large industrial and commercial facilities. While such goods may not be inherited, tenancy rights may be—“the privilege of the children of the possessors to succeed to the right arises in part from the laws of nature.” If such estates grow during their lifetime by the labor of tenants, they can revert to Class 4 property.

Class 2 social goods are to be managed by public organizations, never the state, and include large industrial, communications, energy, and other enterprises (such as those which were nationalized by the state in communist nations). “The most important property of Class II would be administered by a ‘directorate of community property,’ an organization in the nature of an independent authority, with an appropriate charter and its own council. As an independent authority it would have representation in the government and in the senate.” Lobaczewski envisions this classification as reducing the opportunity for “speculative extortion” on the part of private and state parties.

Class 1 will only include goods of “exceptional importance to national culture and historical identity,” means of defense, and perhaps others of similar importance. While state-owned, administration may be entrusted to certain institutions (e.g. museums).

In short, Lobaczewski is proposing is something like this: make a certain number of goods even more inviolably private than is common even in so-called capitalist countries; greatly reduce the number of state-owned and -controlled goods and enterprises; and increase the number of goods in the “in-between” categories, especially leased and social property.

While this scheme will lead to a perhaps more complex legal code, it will also result in a large elimination and simplification of current regulations, especially in European nations. In line with the evolutionary principle, the most important priorities for nations moving in this direction will be the introduction of Class 5 protections for individuals and families, and the creation of independent Class 2 authorities.

---

Ownership of Property

According to natural law, we understand that all possessions have some degree of social character, as modern legal theory also acknowledges. The relativity of possessions and the obligation to subordinate our relation to material goods to more general moral laws are proclaimed by all the great religions of the world. Ever since the time of the Cappadocian Fathers, Christianity has held the teaching that all goods are the property of God and that man must manage them for his own good and that of others. A morally mature attitude requires us to serve others with the goods we call “ours,” overcoming our egoism and pride of ownership.

History has known many social and legal systems, which in different ways regulated man’s relation to material objects. Old Testament law regulated the ownership of land, granting it for a fixed period and revising it every 25 years. The feudal system created forms of property tenure that even the sovereign could not call his property in the modern sense of the word. This applied not only to land, but also to larger structures erected by human hands. Like many nomadic peoples, the American Indian did not feel himself to be the owner of the land; on the contrary, he felt himself to be part of nature, and he had a developed philosophy in this area. European notions of ownership seemed to him difficult to understand and meaningless. The traditional relationship of the Polish farmer to the land turned out to be stronger than self-interest. The land had to be served, even if cannons were thundering, because it produced food for the nation. When, in the year of the 1944 disaster, we knew that we would not be able to harvest our fields because they would drive us from our homeland, all the winter crops were well fertilized and sown because people would eat bread from them. No one in the author’s family had any doubts that this was the right thing to do. Other landowners thought the same way.

To a certain extent, a similar attitude, but in relation to large industrial facilities, developed among the workers who saved their workplaces in times of war. In countries where private capitalism had been replaced by state capitalism, this attitude has perhaps become stronger. It is therefore not surprising that this area has become most fraught with tension when it comes to the takeover of these facilities by greedy private capitalism. Resolving this problem in the spirit of wielding goods more in accordance with natural law should be the primary task of logocracy in the former “communist” countries.

It should also be remembered that modern legal concepts, which emphasize private property as never before in history, were formed relatively recently, during the period of the enfranchisement of peasants and the development of capitalist industry in Europe. Thus, the transformation of legal concepts, while preserving the general philosophy and values of good practice in this area, will not be something unique in history. On the contrary, it will be a change in legal forms, which has already been prepared by the previous regime, has its own historical patterns, and corresponds to the spirit of the times and the general assumptions of logocracy.

It should also be noted that these ancient systems of property ownership were closer to natural law. They usually protected a certain minimum of possessions of the individual and of the human family better than contemporary European law or even more so American law. These historical patterns should be intellectually exploited in the shaping of modern logocratic law in order to arrive at principles sufficiently clear and responsive to human nature in the light of natural law.

Under present conditions, in countries coming out from under the rule of pathocracy, and in the process of restoring the system of normal man and building a better system, the adequate elaboration of legal principles and solutions which will regulate man’s relation to goods and objects seems to be a necessity. Such an improved law would be more complex than capitalist law, but it must not be too intricate. On the contrary, basing legal regulation on clearly formulated theoretical assumptions should simplify the numerous layers of rules and jurisprudence that have developed in European countries. The greater the good, the more dependent it is on people, the more permanent it is, and the greater its significance for existence, health, national culture, and identity—the more the social character of the good increases. The proportion of social and individual roles in the nature of various goods changes continuously, and examples of every possible proportion can be mentioned. The necessary legal regulation will require some classification depending on the nature of the good. Some goods would be permanently included in a particular class. With respect to most goods the appropriate classification will be made in connection with some legal proceeding, such as inheritance, sale, bankruptcy, or taking possession of the good.

The five-class method of distributing the quality of goods proposed below is conceived for a country in which the property structure, like the social structure, has already been demolished—a historical fact with hardly reversible consequences. In such a country a legal void is created, into which factors with objectives alien to the national good are squeezed. This deficit should be filled as soon as possible with a well-considered law corresponding to the existing conditions. In such a country, a new law would greatly expand the scope of the ownership of property by individuals and legal entities, making it easier for people to take economic initiative and to organize their own lives.

In countries where the social and property structure has been preserved, such a violent need does not exist, and revolutionary transformations are fundamentally contrary to the spirit of logocracy. For the evolution of social relations and law builds faster and better, because it uses the values developed by previous generations. However, the time is approaching when the excessive buildup of legal regulations will require a clear reconstruction of the whole. In this situation, models of logocratic law could play an inspiring role. In such countries, reforms of the social system should occur first, and transformations of the law of the ownership of goods could follow in the form of gradual evolution.

In a logocratic regime, a certain modest amount of possession by the individual and the human family will be considered natural property and will become inviolable. The individual and the family will not be materially liable in this respect either to the state or to private individuals. This stock of wealth will also not be taxable to the state treasury, but may give rise to certain levies, e.g., municipalities.

The extent of these goods, which we shall call “personal” and designate as Class V, will be regulated by appropriate legislation, depending on the quality of the good, the general welfare of the country, but also on the character of the individual or family. It would be morally and economically wrong, however, to grant too great a scope of inviolable property in this way. Since in these matters, as is to be expected, the various political groups will have different opinions, an adequate sense of fairness and boundaries should apply.

Class V should include only those goods whose practical life span does not exceed the average human life span, and which are necessary to ensure a minimum of subsistence and health, or are necessary for occupation and earning. This right should also protect against injurious legal proceedings against citizens, which bring disproportionate social harm. A small amount of savings could also be added to this class. A small house or a purchased apartment could still fall into this category, but not a villa or a work of art, which are intended to last beyond generations.

As a consequence of the above considerations, there arises an expanded notion of property more strongly associated with the human person or family than is the case in democratic law. The violation of such possession could only occur in the name of a higher social interest. Then the authority which decides this would be obliged not only to provide fair financial compensation, but also to act in a protective manner towards those deprived, in order to facilitate the amelioration of their situation. In spite of the close relationship of these goods to man, however, they retain their minimal and moral characteristic of a social good, which can acquire significance in exceptional circumstances.

The next class of possessions, referred to as Class IV, will be similar in nature to property under democratic law. The law should not restrict the ability of people to dispose of these possessions any more than it does in European legislation. However, the public interest should be taken into account here. In principle, however, the full value of the property will belong to the owners, as well as the ability to dispose of the whole, to inherit, but not to destroy without the consent of the relevant authority. Possession, use, inheritance, and transactions of such goods may be taxed to the state and local government treasuries. To the extent of the value of the goods, the owner is materially liable to creditors.

This class would include objects whose practical lifespan exceeds that of human life, or that were created with the intention that they could serve future generations. Lower class historic objects could be included here. This class of property would include industrial facilities and equipment grown out of the activities of an individual or family, although employing wage earners. Stocks and securities would also belong here, except for a small amount of savings, included in Class V. If an industrial property has grown, thereby acquiring the characteristics of a social good, the owner retains its value as a Class IV good, but in the succession proceedings it acquires in part the characteristics of Class III. Goods in the nature of joint-stock companies and goods of foreign capital would also be included in Class IV.

The next class of goods, termed Class III, would be rented goods. The permanent social characteristics of these goods would permit them to be rented by individuals. This class would permanently include land and forests, unless circumstances dictated that certain areas be transferred to a higher class, such as national parks. Also included would be larger industrial and commercial facilities currently owned by cooperatives or the state.

Such property could be permanently leased and multiplied by socio-economic organizations established for this purpose, where there is no question of inheritance. Property of this class leased by individuals would not, in principle, be subject to inheritance. Tenancy rights could be inherited, but with the consent of the relevant institution. Indeed, the privilege of the children of the possessors to succeed to the right arises in part from the laws of nature. However, the law may limit the inheritance to one person, for example, in order to avoid fragmentation of the land. If these estates were multiplied by the labor of the tenants, the assessed portion would inherit as a Class IV estate. No upper value limit should apply to such leased estates, including those held by individuals.

The upper class of goods, referred to as Class II, would be social goods managed by public economic organizations established for that purpose. This class would include large industrial, communications, energy, and other enterprises that had become state property under state capitalism and whose transfer to the lower class would be deemed inexpedient. The administration of these assets would be entrusted to the appropriate social welfare institutions, which, however, would not be part of the government. The power of the state and the administration of goods employing multitudes of workers could not remain in one hand. The government should exercise authority over these institutions on similar terms and to a similar extent as over the goods of the lower class. Taxation should also be similar. The most important property of Class II would be administered by a “directorate of community property,” an organization in the nature of an independent authority, with an appropriate charter and its own council. As an independent authority it would have representation in the government and in the senate. The operation of this authority will be discussed in Chapter 21.

The highest class of national property, known as Class I, would include only those of exceptional importance to national culture and historical identity, and possibly others of similar importance, as well as means of defense. The administration of these goods would be state-owned, but some of them could be entrusted, in accordance with historical tradition, to the custody of certain trustworthy institutions. It would not be in the economic interest of the state to expand the scope of these goods, since they would not incur taxes and may benefit from subsidies. Thus, the inclusion of a good in this class will be determined by higher social reasons expressed in a legislative act.

So we would have the following classes of goods:

• Class I. National goods

• Class II. Social goods

• Class III. Leased goods

• Class IV. Private goods

• Class V. Personal goods

It might seem that such a replacement of a uniform property right by a classification based on complex premises would lead to an excessive complication of legal relations. If, however, we take into consideration the enormous number of legal and administrative regulations which today regulate property relations and limit the rights of holders, especially in the densely populated countries of Europe, then we come to the conclusion that re-regulation of this, by means of a classification similar to the one proposed above, could bring about a simplification of the growing jungle of regulations.

The idea given above, however, would require a thorough reworking and cannot be introduced in a revolutionary way. In relation to the guiding principles of logocracy, the manner in which property is disposed of should be considered a matter of secondary importance. Only the protection of Class V property should be initiated by legislation. An independent authority for Class II property should also be established.

As an example, let us consider the consequences of the above solution for agrarian relations in Poland. The land tenancy relation, closer to the natural law, which would replace state and private ownership, would significantly facilitate restructuring processes, combinations, completion of some farms, and liquidation of others. A policy aimed at a gradual reduction in the number of farms and an increase in their acreage would make it possible to modernize agricultural production and improve its profitability. At the same time, the tradition of independent peasant and larger farms would be preserved. Since the larger farms could also be leased by private persons on the same principles, a social group of cultural rural intelligentsia with landowning traditions could be rebuilt. In keeping with our best tradition, it would be a patriotic factor inspiring the cultural and agricultural development of the countryside.

Every farmer, regardless of the size of his leased acreage, would feel obliged to farm skillfully in order not to lose his right to the land. If he wanted his children to be able to take over the farm, he would have to make sure that they were properly trained to be farmers. For the land yields crops, but income grows through the skills of the farmer.

In the area of industry, a clear regulation of the property ownership relation would open the way for the development of smaller, cooperative, and private enterprises. A certain emphasis on their social character and role would have an educational significance, but would also facilitate credit assistance for them and cooperation with industry, which is an asset of the upper class. Small industry, e.g., producing parts for large manufacturing plants, is an important link in modern technical and economic life.

The logocratic right to rule over goods will greatly reduce the range of goods under the direct administration of the state. It must be emphasized again that the government of such a country is a political executive, and as such will supervise within the bounds of justice all goods and all economic activity. The concentration of capital and the ability to employ a multitude of workers in the hands of political power must lead to a degeneration of power and an inefficient economic administration. It is therefore contrary to natural law. As a consequence of this, some of the goods which in the period between the wars belonged in Poland to the state would become social goods under the management of a directorate of social goods or another organization appointed for this purpose.

By introducing a substantial range of impersonal Class II social goods, managed as national assets, in an appropriate manner by the institution created for this purpose, discussed in Chapter 21, we will reduce the opportunities for speculative extortion of these goods by organizations of capital and power. We shall create a great syndicate which will have considerable opportunities for investment development, acting in harmony with the national interest. By loosening the relationship between man and property in terms of category III, we will achieve legitimate goals in both human education and economic development.

The general criterion for these solutions will be an understanding of human nature and the resulting natural laws. It should be noted, however, that these premises do not clearly delineate what should be considered the optimal solution. Therefore, within the framework of this right of possession, a wide range of specific solutions will be possible, depending on the international situation and the conditions of the country. Therefore, the best legal regulation will not be able to eliminate the role of individual moral and patriotic reflection from this field. It should, however, open its way as freely as possible.

The above conception of the solution to the question of ownership is a sketch, the realization of which would require working out both the principles of the whole and many detailed solutions. It would take time, and life must develop every day. Therefore, the gradual reconstruction of the system of property ownership should be thought out in such a way that it does not create uncertainties that hinder economic activity.

Logocratic law should be a human right and should contribute to the prominence of human values of mind and morality. It would be a perfect solution, difficult but not impossible to achieve, if people of good character and adequate abilities, or teams of them, representing some creative idea, could always obtain the capital and help necessary for its realization. Such a state should be aimed at.

Note: This work is a project of QFG/Red Pill Press and is planned to be published in book form.