Proudhon - Property Is Theft

Proudhon - Property Is Theft. It's a powerful statement. I've seen it misinterpreted a lot recently. What is usually missed is that Proudhon differentiated between property and possessions.
The people wanted the conditions of
OWNERSHIP to be alike for all; they thought that every one
should ENJOY AND FREELY DISPOSE OF HIS POSSESSIONS HIS INCOME
AND THE FRUIT OF HIS LABOR AND INDUSTRY. The people did
not invent property; but as they had not the same privileges in
regard to it, which the nobles and clergy possessed, they decreed
that the right should be exercised by all under the same
conditions. The more obnoxious forms of property--statute-labor,
mortmain, maitrise, and exclusion from public office--have
disappeared; the conditions of its enjoyment have been modified:
the principle still remains the same. There has been progress in
the regulation of the right; there has been no revolution.

Anarchists historically have made this distinction, between the things that a person uses and the things a person controls. This differentiation is one of the crucial distinctions that defines how an anarchist economy could work. People have a deep desire to have things. They want a home. They want their souvenirs, and books. Possessions are also the tools of trade of a craftsman, the fields of a farmer, the plane of a bushpilot.

What brought this on was a post on Infoshop that was questioning the utility of the middleman. Made me think of what an economic system under anarchism would look like. Unlike the author of that article, I appreciate the role of the middleman in the exchange of goods. I am a salesperson. I sell the goods produced by an artisan. The artisan is a very talented craftsperson who makes jewellery. Does it make sense to ask him to spend time with customers instead of making jewellery? Is it useful to make him do something that he doesn't enjoy? I don't think so.

How does this tie in with a discussion of property and possessions? It all reflects on personal control of how one lives ones life.

I love selling, which is another way of saying that I enjoy negotiating a trade of possessions where both people feel that they have come away with something that is more valuable to them. This is the basis for all exchanges that operate at a level higher than simple barter of foodstuffs.

I've always believed that anarchism can operate in a society more complex than a simple agrarian society. If we are to do that, we need to come up with a system that allows producers to produce, and not get involved in the mechanisms of trade that don't interest them. We also need to come up with a system that allows middlemen like myself to do what we do best. Now here's the tricky part; we also need to find a way of ensuring that the people like me don't get undue power or 'riches' from the producers and artisans, which is the way things are working now under a capitalist system, and also how they worked under the nominally communist systems of the USSR and China. The producers and artisans need to receive the fruits of their labours, but there also has to be recognition that there is value added through the services of middlemen, be it through aggregation, explanation of value, or through the simple process of connecting buyers and sellers.

Comments

[William Gillis]

I think the problem is one of basic economic assumptions.

To express control over any material object is to own it, whether in part or in whole. And, power, as we all know, is BAD.

But going to the bathroom is an act of asserting control over the natural world. And all but a few Buddhists would agree that controlling or forcibly changing the inert material world around us is a crucial aspect of individual existence.

Which, after all, is what Anarchy triumphs.

Now, ideally, after the inevitable progression of science and technology leaves us essentially demigods; workers who each, individually, control the means of all possible production... then either property will cease to have any reasonable meaning for us or we will destroy ourselves (having not reached universal anarchism in time and therefore being unready for the basic personal responsibility of each holding the keys to xenocide).

Ideally.

But you know, personally, I think we've got more than a few more years before we have to worry about all that.

In the meantime both “Communism” and “Capitalism” provide good, or at least, momentarily acceptable economic solutions. So long as we remember that Communism has nothing to do with Authoritarian Statism, and is simply the communal organization maintenance of material possessions. And so long as we remember that Capitalism has nothing to do with Imperialist Exploitation, but rather free association and trade.

Capitalism sucks when it is given control of those elements crucial to our survival: food, air, water, etc.

Communism sucks when it is given control of anything else.

Bam. Problem sorta solved. If you’re a really good middleman you may benefit from someone else’s misfortune in the market, but their misfortune will never prove such a setback that you can assert control over their life.

Mmm… proto-Anarchist economy. Smells good.

[Coralie]

"The people wanted the conditions of
OWNERSHIP to be alike for all; they thought that every one
should ENJOY AND FREELY DISPOSE OF HIS POSSESSIONS HIS INCOME
AND THE FRUIT OF HIS LABOR AND INDUSTRY. The people did
not invent property; but as they had not the same privileges in
regard to it, which the nobles and clergy possessed, they decreed
that the right should be exercised by all under the same
conditions. The more obnoxious forms of property--statute-labor,
mortmain, maitrise, and exclusion from public office--have
disappeared; the conditions of its enjoyment have been modified:
the principle still remains the same. There has been progress in
the regulation of the right; there has been no revolution."

Should be a quote, from Proudhon I believe. That's a little ambiguous.