Anarchists and Private Property

[PoliticalNightmare]

How exactly do you abolish private property? How do you deal with small businesses that don't want to be collectivised, etc. What happens if we have anarchism and then someone wants to start up his own business independent of communes and sell products for a profit?

[StalinFanboy]

How exactly do you abolish private property? Take it over and allow anyone to use it for whatever purpose.


How do you deal with small businesses that don't want to be collectivised, etc. What happens if we have anarchism and then someone wants to start up his own business independent of communes and sell products for a profit?

Kill them.

jk

Who would want to buy things in a (anarchist) communist society? Where would this person get the goods they are trying to sell?

[Ovi]

Property is not something that arises from the free will of people, but it's something that needs to be imposed with force. That's why we have a state. In anarchism there is no state, thus no property.

How exactly do you abolish private property? How do you deal with small businesses that don't want to be collectivised, etc. What happens if we have anarchism and then someone wants to start up his own business independent of communes and sell products for a profit?
It depends on what sort of anarchism you're talking about. The vast majority of anarchists are market abolitionists, and most of these, communists. In communism there is no money, thus no private businesses. However, even if we were to use remuneration for labor, there would be no private businesses, since wage slavery rests on the notion of property, which is no longer enforced.

[Magón]

How exactly do you abolish private property? How do you deal with small businesses that don't want to be collectivised, etc. What happens if we have anarchism and then someone wants to start up his own business independent of communes and sell products for a profit?

It depends, if you want to do it the movie way, you take them out back behind their shop in the alleyway, and beat them down until they give you what you want... but this isn't a mob movie, so that probably won't work bringing them under the Corleone Collective. :p

Seriously, depending on how much of an influence they are in the small area that they supply, and how many other small shops are around the area that aren't there to make a profit, the people could simply just not shop for their food and groceries at another place, since in an Anarchist Society, money would cease to exist and the food would be a waist. Or, you wouldn't have to do anything because the farming collectives that make the fruit, vegetables, etc. could cease working with the man/woman owner, seeing how their being counter-productive to the new system of sharing thing in great wealth, rather than profiting from some of the wealth. And of course, he'd be profiting from their hard work without giving anything back most likely, so they'd just forget doing business with him.

[Acostak3]

If small shop-owners didn't want to give up their property they could run their shop communisitically. They would probably have to if the rest of the society was communist. And if they started to exploit people it would be acceptable to use coercion (in the form of militias) against the shop-owners.

[syndicat]

the working class has not been liberated if some people are allowed to employ and boss others. in the Spanish revolution the rule of the anarcho-syndicalists was that individual private property would be respected if the individual could do all the work with his or her own labor. this might be a small shop selling magazines, a small farm, etc. in a number of industries they simply seized all the assets of the small businesses and merged them into a single worker managed organization. this happened in Barcelona with barber shops, cabinet making shops, bakeries.

from the fact there is no state, it would not follow there is no structure of popular governance over society.

abolition of money is a ridiculous idea, and in any event highly unlikely to occur in an actual revolutionary process. but the idea is to abolish markets eventually, tho this may take some time, because it depends on people seeing the importance of this, if, that is, it is done by the people themselves, not imposed by some authoritarian leftist dictatorship.

[PoliticalNightmare]

the working class has not been liberated if some people are allowed to employ and boss others. in the Spanish revolution the rule of the anarcho-syndicalists was that individual private property would be respected if the individual could do all the work with his or her own labor. this might be a small shop selling magazines, a small farm, etc. in a number of industries they simply seized all the assets of the small businesses and merged them into a single worker managed organization. this happened in Barcelona with barber shops, cabinet making shops, bakeries.

from the fact there is no state, it would not follow there is no structure of popular governance over society.

abolition of money is a ridiculous idea, and in any event highly unlikely to occur in an actual revolutionary process. but the idea is to abolish markets eventually, tho this may take some time, because it depends on people seeing the importance of this, if, that is, it is done by the people themselves, not imposed by some authoritarian leftist dictatorship.

What about if it is a small shop owned by a family or a group of friends for instance? Technically speaking the head of the family would be selling a portion of his family members' product for a profit. Or would you count such a business as each family member having equal ownership over the means of production?

[Sosa]

What about if it is a small shop owned by a family or a group of friends for instance? Technically speaking the head of the family would be selling a portion of his family members' product for a profit. Or would you count such a business as each family member having equal ownership over the means of production?

head of family? I don't think there would be such a thing as that. I would imagine that each member of the family owns the means of production equally.

[PoliticalNightmare]

head of family? I don't think there would be such a thing as that. I would imagine that each member of the family owns the means of production equally.

Where does one draw the line between small businesses owned by family units/close friends and big businesses where the boss exploits the labour of his employers?

[Sosa]

Where does one draw the line between small businesses owned by family units/close friends and big businesses where the boss exploits the labour of his employers?

if everyone in the "family business" own the means of production.

I was merely pointing out that the uselessness of the term "head of family". There would be no such thing in an anarchist society, I would imagine.

[Magón]

Where does one draw the line between small businesses owned by family units/close friends and big businesses where the boss exploits the labour of his employers?

Do you really see a family who's come together, and started a small business together, exploiting each other for personal gain? I mean, they'd have to be pretty trusting of one another in the first place to do such a thing, or a business could never get off the ground.

Same thing with a couple or group of friends who start a business. (Minus Bill Gates and Paul Allen since they were looking to make a big company. (Microsoft))

[Ovi]

Where does one draw the line between small businesses owned by family units/close friends and big businesses where the boss exploits the labour of his employers?
An interesting read is Ideas on social organization (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/guillaume/works/ideas.htm) by James Guillaume. It discusses for instance the difference between small family farms and collective farms; collectivization of land is not something that needs to be enforced by some authority, but, if it's useful, it will naturally arise once property relations vanish. It is much more economical to acquire the means to work the land in common since they are used more efficiently, some lands are better suited for certain crops etc. However, if small farms happen to be better suited somewhere else:

In a region which had been populated before the Revolution by peasants owning small farms, where the nature of the soil is not very suitable for extensive, large-scale cultivation, where agriculture has been conducted in the same way for ages, where machinery is unknown or rarely used – in such a region the peasants will naturally conserve the form of ownership to which they are accustomed. Each peasant will continue to cultivate the land as he did in the past, with this single difference: his former hired hands, if he had any, will become his partners and share with him the products which their common labor extracts from the land.
On the other hand, in large-scale agricultural operations, where a great number of workers are needed to farm vast areas, where coordination and cooperation are absolutely essential, collective labor will naturally lead to collective property. An agricultural collective may embrace an entire commune [autonomous regional unit] and, if economically necessary for efficiency and greater production, many communes.And about small businesses vs large business, it doesn't matter; there is no reason why workers would enslave themselves to someone unless they would be compelled to by an organization enforcing property rights. It is only natural that they will thus practice some sort of democratic decision making where people decide what needs to be done and how labor should be remunerated and which also gives everyone the chance to speak up the various issues.

[Thirsty Crow]

In a region which had been populated before the Revolution by peasants owning small farms, where the nature of the soil is not very suitable for extensive, large-scale cultivation, where agriculture has been conducted in the same way for ages, where machinery is unknown or rarely used – in such a region the peasants will naturally conserve the form of ownership to which they are accustomed. Each peasant will continue to cultivate the land as he did in the past, with this single difference: his former hired hands, if he had any, will become his partners and share with him the products which their common labor extracts from the land.
There are some problems with this set of propositions.

First of all, it is not clear exactly why will peasants "naturrally conserve the form of ownership to which they are accustomed". In fact, it seems to me that this conclusion rests upon the notion of an inherently conservative character of peasants living and producing in acertain set of conditions. Needless to say (I hope), this is idealism which cannot account for concrete minutiae of social relations in their geographical, national and historical divergence. In other words, this generalization is so abstract that itz cannot hold for the reason of concrete variations.

Connected with this idealism is the fact that the author does not recognize the antagonism which may arise from former hands becoming equal partners. This, in fact, denies the previous statement of conserving the previous form of ownership, and it does not recognize the potential for social disturbance.

[vader]

How do you deal with small businesses that don't want to be collectivised, etc.

What do you mean? You mean situation where only the capitalist don't want to share his property? Or situation where the workers also don't want changes in their workplace?

[Ovi]

There are some problems with this set of propositions.

First of all, it is not clear exactly why will peasants "naturrally conserve the form of ownership to which they are accustomed". In fact, it seems to me that this conclusion rests upon the notion of an inherently conservative character of peasants living and producing in acertain set of conditions. Needless to say (I hope), this is idealism which cannot account for concrete minutiae of social relations in their geographical, national and historical divergence. In other words, this generalization is so abstract that itz cannot hold for the reason of concrete variations.

Connected with this idealism is the fact that the author does not recognize the antagonism which may arise from former hands becoming equal partners. This, in fact, denies the previous statement of conserving the previous form of ownership, and it does not recognize the potential for social disturbance.
It was written over a century ago; agriculture was probably somewhat different back then. The idea still applies though. Collectivization should be brought upon by people for real reasons, there are plenty of them. Trying to impose collectivization of land immediately after the revolution in a hamlet of 50 people is something different.

[Thirsty Crow]

Collectivization should be brought upon by people for real reasons, there are plenty of them. Trying to impose collectivization of land immediately after the revolution in a hamlet of 50 people is something different.Of course, it is something different.
But the issue of seasonal workers, or "hired hands", remains. How exactly will peasants will conserve their form of ownershi if their relation to the hired hzands is to be changed? And how does a change in this relation to hired labour does not in fact alter the form of ownership which is to be conserved?

If we assume that such a change should in fact occur, then it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this conservative peasants of ours will not be content and living like they used to (I suppose that this is the goal of that propositions; not to alienate these people).

Note here that I do not propose absolute and immediate collectivization. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency in this argument.

[syndicat]

Peasant agriculture doesn't survive in the developed capitalist countries and is under siege and declining in much of the 3rd world as well.

but this issue shouldn't be discussed without looking at the class structure in rural areas and in agricultural production.

as peasant farmers are drawn into the market economy, to gain cash income to buy things, they end up in debt to merchants, moneylenders, etc. land ownership tends to become concentrated in capitalist agriculture for similar reasons to growing concentration of capital.

in the USA there are still tens of thousands of growers. they are usually descendants of family farmers. but nowadays land ownership among farmers is extremely concentrated.

most production is from a small percentage, a few tens of thousands. they operate on a huge scale. they usually operate farms in many different places and do different crops. in other words, they diversify to reduce their risk.

they also tend to rely on highly repressive forms of labor control, such as hiring labor contractors or coyotes, who may engage in illegal practices should as virtual enslavement, especially of undocumented immigrants, who are a majority of field hands in the USA. agricultural laborers in the USA have the fewest rights, the worst conditions and the lowest life expectancy of any workers. this can be considered a continuation of the earlier history of slavery. how so? because in the '30s, when most African Americans still worked in southern agriculture, the racist Dixiecrats were able to restrict the legal rights of farm laborers.

talking about individual family farm ownership in the USA is anachronistic. the program here should be for all the workers on large agricultural operations to gain control as a worker collective.

[ckaihatsu]

I'd like to respectfully address a few points from this thread. The disclaimer is that I am not, nor have ever been, an anarchist, though I am a revolutionary leftist and I know that anarchists are, too.





abolition of money is a ridiculous idea, and in any event highly unlikely to occur in an actual revolutionary process. but the idea is to abolish markets eventually, tho this may take some time, because it depends on people seeing the importance of this, if, that is, it is done by the people themselves, not imposed by some authoritarian leftist dictatorship.


I'd be *very* interested to hear more about the transition from the use of money during a revolutionary process, through to its abolition towards the *end* of that same transition.

(I'll note here that the control of the *money supply* is a key point with this -- as a part of the whole political struggle -- because those who control its issue and circulation have a large influence over its arteries of flow, the banking around it, its provision, its terms for repayment, etc. The call for retaining the use of money for any length of time during a revolutionary transition is on par with calling for seizing control of the state in order to control it in the interests of the working class so that it may wither away.)





And about small businesses vs large business, it doesn't matter; there is no reason why workers would enslave themselves to someone unless they would be compelled to by an organization enforcing property rights. It is only natural that they will thus practice some sort of democratic decision making where people decide what needs to be done and how labor should be remunerated and which also gives everyone the chance to speak up the various issues.


The idea of labor being "remunerated" also speaks to the point of use of a formal money supply and the issue of its source of abstract valuations.





Collectivization should be brought upon by people for real reasons, there are plenty of them. Trying to impose collectivization of land immediately after the revolution in a hamlet of 50 people is something different.


Collectivization brings with it a *different* realm of political concern -- namely that, in a fully collectivized, political economy the issue of each individual's *own labor* would become a valid political issue, across-the-board. If there were dire human needs outstanding, anywhere in the world, *no* person could justifiably excuse themselves to work in some detached, small-scale, traditional way just for the heck of it. The politics of the day would come to inquire about everyone's ongoing role in revolutionary activity.

[PoliticalNightmare]

What do you mean? You mean situation where only the capitalist don't want to share his property? Or situation where the workers also don't want changes in their workplace?

Both, although technically speaking a capitalist must own large quantities of capital to be a capitalist (not just a small shop or bar, etc.) but I am interested to know how anarchists would "deal" with the cappies. I am also interested in how one would go about distinguishing between "large" and "small" businesses.

[Thirsty Crow]

Both, although technically speaking a capitalist must own large quantities of capital to be a capitalist (not just a small shop or bar, etc.) but I am interested to know how anarchists would "deal" with the cappies.
Um, a capitalist is someone who commands others' labour by means of capital investment and ownership of the emans of production, so I fail to see how the issue of quantity here applies.

[Amphictyonis]

How exactly do you abolish private property? How do you deal with small businesses that don't want to be collectivised, etc. Tricky tricky. How do you facilitate expropriation across the USA without a monopoly on coercion (the state). Good question.



What happens if we have anarchism and then someone wants to start up his own business independent of communes and sell products for a profit?

The answer to this question is here

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/expropriation.html

I agree only crazy people would work for a capitalist if they didn't have to but the question of abolishing capital/private property is where I tend to differ from anarchists.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Tricky tricky. How do you facilitate expropriation across the USA without a monopoly on coercion (the state). Good question.

Or without using force at all?

[Magón]

Or without using force at all?

What type of force? Like violent force, or a show of force in the sense of a non-violent protest? (Black Bloc for example.)

[PoliticalNightmare]

What type of force? Like violent force, or a show of force in the sense of a non-violent protest? (Black Bloc for example.)

Violent force - how do the workers seize private property (e.g. their factories they work at) / boot the rich out of their mansions without using violent force?

[Thirsty Crow]

Violent force - how do the workers seize private property (e.g. their factories they work at) / boot the rich out of their mansions without using violent force?

And the problem with violent force directed against our common apropriators of value and means to a decent life is...?

[PoliticalNightmare]

And the problem with violent force directed against our common apropriators of value and means to a decent life is...?

For me? None. I'm just trying to avoid any logical contradictions in pursuing my ideology.

[Magón]

Violent force - how do the workers seize private property (e.g. their factories they work at) / boot the rich out of their mansions without using violent force?

Well as an example, there was a factory in the mid-western US, I think in Michigan or something? Can't recall now exactly where, but the workers there just locked themselves in and refused to leave until their demands were met. Which their demands were to keep their jobs and the factory going, while the bosses, etc. wanted to shut it down and take it over seas.

That's one way of successfully seizing private property without violent force, but I don't see how workers have much of a choice to not use violence, or at least have the means to act in a violent fashion if the bosses threaten to do so, and act on their violent threats.

You can't just have a bunch of workers shot or something. (though I doubt such a thing as dramatic as that would happen.)

[ckaihatsu]

Workers occupy Chicago factory for fifth day

By Tom Eley
10 December 2008

The occupation of the Republic Windows and Doors factory in Chicago by some 250 workers entered its fifth day on Tuesday. On December 2, workers were informed the plant would permanently close in three days and that they would be laid off. Workers are demanding severance and vacation pay as restitution for Republic’s violation of federal law, which stipulates that workers must be given 60 days notice prior to layoffs arising from plant closures. Republic claims that it cannot pay workers because Bank of America, one of its major lenders, had cut off its line of credit.

The struggle of the Republic workers has attracted widespread support. In the days since the occupation began, workers and students from Chicago and beyond have visited the plant, expressing their solidarity with messages of support and with donations.

[...]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/dec2008/chic-d10.shtml