Forums of the Libertarian Left

[BillyWitchDr.]

So I am sure all non-propetarian anarchists have heard an argument along these lines.

"If everything is owned by all, what stops someone from breaking into my house, eating my food and sleeping in my bed? Aren't I depriving him of what is rightfully his as well, if I use force to evict this intruder?"

So are there any social-anarchists that actually believe this? I am sure (and hope) that even the most radical social-anarchists have some aspect of ownership.

[Zanthorus]

No I'm pretty sure I can state with confidence that there isn't a single fully rational human being on earth that actually believes that.

My view on property etc is sort of a rework of how I think Marx saw the problem.

Take a look at how he & engels present communism in the manifesto:

"The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

So far so clliche, and easily knocked down w/o resorting to strawmen by even the most straight thinking of vulgar libertarians. However observe how Marx & Engels describe property in the previous line:

"The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few."

While some may find Marx's tendencies to conflate the current conditions of certain things with their definite form frustrating it must be remembered that Marx's work is profoundly sociological in nature and when looking to answer the question of 'What is X' his instinct as a sociologist is to look at it's current function within society.

As an example of this take Marx's claim that capital does not merely, "consist in the fact that accumulated labor serves living labor as a means for new production. It consists in the fact that living labor serves accumulated labor as the means of preserving and multiplying its exchange value."

Marx clearly sees things from the sociologists point of view rather than the economists. In the case of property Marx sees it as being a form of perpetuating class antagonisms and exploitation as he does with many things. My own view is somewhat different but based in part on an analysis of societal relations.

My position is basically that the way property has been concieved by many is as some kind of 'natural right', and I personally find natural rights a difficult pill to swallow so I abandon what I would consider 'property' because in a sense I don't think it exists. But I also think property has a second form as a particular form of 'ownership' (That is a more general theory of 'property' based on societal relations instead of rights which every form of owning a thing in society comes under the banner of) that is concieved by society as a right even though it might not be.

Almost dialectical in nature actually I view property as both a non-existant construct and something to be abolished. Hegel would have been proud

But I digress, since I see ownership as inherently social I support the form of ownership I see as most conducive to the benefit of society, that is, occupancy and use. However I accept that not everyone takes this view and I also think my view can be reconciled with forms of property like lockeanism by reckognising those forms as the way society has chosen to express the instinct of ownership in those areas sort of mirroring Roderick Long's view about lockeans recognising communal property via collective homesteading.

That's about enough rambling from me for the moment.

[Ceapmann]

Och, I detest this sort of argument. First, the scenario doesn't present any context, or any reason why the guy is coming into your house and sleeping in your bed. He's just some Captain Planet villain who wants to be eeeevilllll and is going out of his way to be an asshole. That makes this scenario even more improbable and out-there than similar anti-propertarian scenario-arguments, such as "you're caught in a blizzard and there's a cabin over there" (not that I think those arguments amount to anything either.) If we can stick unrealistic Captain Planet assholes in non-propertarian societies, then we can do it with propertarian societies too - now he's a big strong Captain Planet asshole coming into your house with two guns strapped to his back so you can't force him out.

Second, it assumes that force is the only deterrent. If he's truly a Captain Planet asshole with no realistic motivation whatsoever, then it would be easy for you to get the community to ostracize him. So he got to sleep in someone else's house, but now everyone hates him, no one will cooperate with him, and five people are squatting in his house out of protest for what he has done. Yes, that's a weaker deterrent than shooting him, but it's still a deterrent, and we aren't statists obsessed with presenting the maximum deterrent possible against everything we don't like.

[BillyWitchDr.]

Check out this review of Proudhon's "What is Property?"

http://www.amazon.com/What-Property-Joh ... addOneStar

One of the basic concepts of Anarchism can be found within this tome, and that is the idea that "property is theft." In other words, the very act of ownership over a resource is a criminal action against the public.

I would venture to say that this book alone has killed more people than the Malleus Maleficarum. Proudhon's basic reasoning is that property depends upon the State, and the State is inherently coercive and tyrannical, therefore property must be abolished along with the State. Marx was influenced by Proudhon, and some of the ideas expressed in the Communist Manifesto are similar to what we see here.

Of course it does not logically follow that the act of ownership over an object is to deprive someone else of their ability to enjoy that object as well. That would mean that everyone is entitled to all the goods and resources the world has to offer. One could easily say "I am entitled to use your house tonight", break in and crawl into your bed. By stopping him, you would be exercising coercion and authority, which under Anarchist precepts, is forbidden.

The movement to abolish private property led to Lenin/Stalin's nationalization efforts. The confiscation of farms and property. Starvation, and even mass murder.

Read it is a curiosity peice, nothing more. It is disturbing that some young people still find Proudhon's theories desirable.

[shawnpwilbur]

That one's pretty straightforward to deal with: Dude's a moron. Seriously.

[Marja]

Wow, that's Chiggy's review! The guy used to troll Flag.

[Chaohinon]

Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but I think the depth to which people probe the questions of property and ownership has reached rather absurd levels. Bottom line, as I see it, is that people are largely incentive driven, and will go where their needs are met and they're most comfortable. Even if there were no legal penalty for doing so, who really wants to invade someone's property and have to deal with their harassment and anger?