Are the forms of ownership a legitimate question for capital, but taboo for labour?
The exercise of a social, collective, citizens control over the conditions of the commercial exchanges between peoples, and over the organisation of work and the satisfaction of urgent social needs, implies that we no longer consider the forms of property of the means of production, communication and exchange as a taboo question, a question that the bankruptcy and the collapse of state property, collectivised in a bureaucratic or Stalinised way, has settled once and for all, to the detriment of the struggle for social emancipation and of the workers movement. The question cannot be considered as having become taboo. If the anti-globalisation movement wishes to avoid getting into an impasse and disappointing over the next few years the expectations of all those for whom Seattle was important, the militants in its ranks will have to attack or re-attack, theoretically and politically, the question of ownership. This is all the more so because the world bourgeoisie in its different nationa
