Margaret Griesse

Feminist perspectives on property and the body

The liberal understanding of the relationship between property ownership and democracy are interrogated by using a feminist perspective on self-ownership. First, I will consider the Lockean concept of owning one's person and its ramifications. This is complemented by analyzing  current feminist scholars, such as Donna Dickenson, Anne Phillips, among others, who examine the interrelationship of bodily autonomy and democracy. Based on these considerations, this paper will attempt to address the following question: How does the condition of being an embodied gendered person relate to property ownership, the commodification or objectification of the body, the recognition of the acts of labor, and one's full participation within democratic processes?

Rutger Claassen

Property as Democratic Stewardship

Stewardship theories of property hold that ownership comes with a responsibility to be a good steward. They are a minority position in political and legal theory, being largely confined to religious property theories. This presentation defends a liberal-democratic stewardship theory. It first discusses Christian property theory; then sketches the reasons for the absence of stewardship theories in liberal political/legal theory. Finally, it presents the main outlines of a liberal-democratic stewardship theory.

Amos Nascimento

Metaphysical, epistemic, and discursive conceptions of property and their implications for deliberative democracy

This paper considers current philosophical discussions on the concept of “property” in general and criticizes the overemphasis on a particular naturalized political-economic definition of “private property” that justifies contemporary neoliberal policies. Against this narrow perspective, there are metaphysical, epistemic, and discursive interpretations which are often neglected and whose consideration would provide more clarity to this discussion. Traditional metaphysical perspectives offer a communitarian approach based not necessarily or exclusively on an objective possession of property, but rather on the common use and charitable sharing of natural goods available to all due to their divine origin. In the epistemic approach, the idea of property can be seen in a dual perspective: first, as related to logical predicates that define what is unique to particular natural kinds and how they are used to describe and appropriate objective reality; secondly, as the means to a transition from the metaphysical argument according to which all things belong to a divine being who created the world to the subjective assumption that humans are born free and capable of creating alternative realities – in science, art, and society – which can be properly claimed as their possession. Discursively, the analysis of language and communication has moved beyond these theories and yielded perspectives on intersubjectivity, shared meanings, and dialogical conceptions of science and discourse ethics, law, and politics. However, critical discourse theories have neglected the concept of “private property” and their impact on social and political practices. Based on this broader scenario, the author discusses the about the necessity and possibility of considering the general concept of “property” and the particular definition of “private property” in discursive terms, especially due to their possible impact on deliberative democratic developments in contemporary societies and the possibility of using the concept of “property” to claim the ownership of democratic processes.

Jason Burke Murphy

Communicative capabilities, basic income, and the capacity to begin. A different kind of property

Basic income should be seen as a tool for promoting democratic participation and should be included in the platform of emancipatory movements. Many supporters of basic income do not have democratic or emancipatory goals in mind. Many of them support basic income because it is less bureaucratic. Many support particular proposals that are less expensive (and sometimes less empowering) than current social provisions. Also, basic income is often explained in contrast to need-based or otherwise “targeted” entitlement programs. Rhetorically, that seems like basic income entails replacing important public work in health care, disability support, education, etc. What features of basic income make it a strong bet for supporters of democracy and supporters of emancipation?

First, the term “basic income” should be understood as a term that covers different proposals and can serve as a component of different projects. Second, a citizen guaranteed a basic income as a right has a source of income that provides for their livelihood and for their projects that is meaningfully distinct from a wage, from investment income, from targeted government provisions, and from charity or patronage. Communicative capabilities are cited as a way of showing this distinction. Lastly, support for a basic income has illocutionary and perlocutionary effects that benefit democratic and emancipatory organizations.

Basic income alone does not replace “capitalism”. Basic income alone will not secure public participation in democratic procedures. Basic income belongs in the list of measures that democrats can be expected to support, such as basic human right and the freedom to organize. Basic income belongs in the list of measures that emancipatory organizations can be expected to support, such as sustainably high minimum wages, limits in work weeks, vacation time, and the right to collective bargaining.

Tilo Wesche

Democracy and its property. Three accounts of economic democracy

In an economic democracy, as many citizens as possible are co-owners of economic enterprises, resources, and infrastructure. The talk explains three arguments in favor of this economic democratic distribution of property.

Ibrahim Orha

Workplace Democracy and Relational Equality

In my talk, I examine the justification for democratic equality in the workplace through the lens of relational egalitarianism. Building on Elizabeth Anderson’s concept of democratic equality, I argue that equality is a normative feature of social relationships, not merely a matter of distributive justice. I contend that workplaces significantly shape individuals’ social standing, political agency, and relations of status and respect. I address whether workplace democracy is justified instrumentally—as a means to social equality—or intrinsically, as a requirement of relational egalitarian principles. I defend the intrinsic justification, arguing that democratic structures within workplaces are necessary to constitute relations among equals and to foster the conditions for political and civic agency. Workplace democracy, I argue, is crucial for sustaining broader democratic equality across society. Finally, I argue for institutional models such as worker cooperatives and labor unions as practical realizations of relational equality within socioeconomic life.

Tim Wihl

Democratic common ownership: cases and conditions

What does democratic common ownership look like? Is there a typology of relevant cases? Is common ownership still property? Which conditions need to be fulfilled for Common ownership to count as democratic? Against the background of the German constitutional option of socialization, I will try to approach this complex web of problems in constitutional and political theory.

Eva Weiler

How to control a hierarchical structure? 

As a legal institution, property is characterized by defining and ranking legal powers and interests with regard to material and immaterial resources and assets and by determining the way in which superior rights will be validated vis-à-vis inferior claims. As such, it is indispensable: In a physical world, there will be different claims to – the use, control, etc. of – the same resources, and these claims will be ordered and their validity will be determined by specific institutions. 

Other than contractual settings agreed on by consenting parties, property rights and claims are directed at whoever may come into conflict with these rights and claims. They are, thus, a much more structural element than many other legal rules, which makes them so interesting for democratic theory: If, by determining and ordering property claims, we can determine the structure of the disposal over resources and assets in a democratic way and to democratic ends, we would have an extremely strong tool to build and secure democratic institutions overall. That would, however, presuppose a high level of control over the issuing of property rules and their structural effects by the democratic community. In this talk, I want to elaborate on the elements that complicate and hamper democratic control over property. By focusing on the role of intermediary actors, the concentration of legal powers and titles, and the public sphere, I will ask, firstly, in how far the elements that hinder control are specific to the institution of property as such, secondly, if and how these elements could be altered to allow for more democratic control, and, thirdly, what kind of democratic control that could be.

Jorge Zúñiga

Property and Democracy beyond the Dictatorship of Private Property

This paper will discuss the relationship between property and democracy from the Latin American critical theory and its articulation with the decolonial perspective. For this, the starting point will be Franz Hinkelammert's critique to capitalist private property presented in several of his works and how it has historically become the institution from which the development of human freedom in today's societies is judged. Capital in its neo phase brings this relationship to a confusion between democracy and property by confusing private property with freedom as such. This confusion and its defense is one of the hallmarks of neoliberal imperialism. After showing Hinkelammert's critique to the dictatorship of private property, I will address the Bolivian constitution's proposal as an alternative to understanding property more broadly to the mere capitalist form, and which helps different modes of property coexist in the same community, thus enabling a plural way of understanding property to strengthen a community's democratic ties.

Christian Neuhäuser

Against extreme wealth – the case for expropriation and the fight for democracy

In my talk I will defend five thesis. First, unlimited private property, especially in the means of production, and real democracy are incompatible. The economic power that comes with extreme wealth undermines the democratic distribution of political power. Second, the only way to stop the decline of democracy into a mixture of oligarchy and ochlocracy is the expropriation of extreme wealth. No one should be allowed to have more than one-hundred million Euros, which is already quite generous. Third, philosophically speaking there is no basic right to property, since liberal and libertarian defenses of such a right fail. Constitutions should be changed accordingly and a paragraph of limitarianism should be included. Fourth, how exactly secondary rights to property, especially in the means of production, is a question of lesser importance. It could be a property-owning democracy or market socialism. Different experiments are possible. What is crucial is the end of extreme wealth. Fifth, a limitarian political movement is the only way to save democracy. However, the prospects for such a political movement are dim.

Jonathan Warren

Capital Reform and Regulation: Reconsidering Republicanism

Given Marx's hold on leftist political economic thought during the past two centuries, his embrace and then rejection of republicanism in favor of communism were taken by many as the final word on the subject. As a result, countless socialists assumed private property to be the root of all evil and therefore it had to be abolished through state or collective usurpation. In practice, every society that pushed too radically in this direction not only weakened their economies but also became authoritarian. In my talk, I examine what I believe was Marx's deeply flawed understanding of pre- and post-industrial economies, which ultimately led him and his followers to reject republicanism. This, I believe, has proven to be a massive misstep of the global left. I will argue that our energies and focus should be instead on redistributing and better regulating private capital – not eliminating or disparaging it. To support the case for republicanism, I will offer empirical evidence from various parts of the world which suggest a powerful causal link between capital reform, economic prosperity, and democracy.