What is the Difference Between Private Property and Possessive Property?

[Sdela12]

I specifically want to understand the distinction made by Pierre Joseph Proudhon in his What is Property?

[Q]

Moved from /intro to /learning.

[Collective Reasons]

I specifically want to understand the distinction made by Pierre Joseph Proudhon in his What is Property?

Proudhon distinguished "property" (private property, domain) as a matter of right from "possession" as a matter of fact. Property was given the Roman definition of "the right to use and abuse one's own within the limits of the law." Possession is a little harder to pin down within What is Property? Proudhon even later claimed (in The Theory of Property) that he had not defined it in the earlier work. In his last works, he actually treated "possession" as synonymous with fief (and thus undesirable), but in 1840 it seems that possession was essentially the theory that everyone can have their place, which he cites from Cicero:

The theatre, says Cicero, is common to all; nevertheless, the place that each one occupies is called HIS OWN; that is, it is a place POSSESSED, not a place APPROPRIATED. This comparison annihilates property; moreover, it implies equality. Can I, in a theatre, occupy at the same time one place in the pit, another in the boxes, and a third in the gallery?
The arguments in What is Property? establish that none of the existing justifications for property are sufficient, and in the absence of any defensible theory of property possession is what is left. Again, the discussion of Cicero is helpful:

...each one may take what place he will, may beautify and adorn it, if he can; it is allowable: but he must never allow himself to overstep the limit which separates him from another. The doctrine of Cicero leads directly to equality; for, occupation being pure toleration, if the toleration is mutual (and it cannot be otherwise) the possessions are equal.
By 1842, Proudhon had begun to pursue a more positive conception of just property relations, in large part because simple possession provided few protections or guarantees for freedom. By 1846 he was convinced that there was something positive in the *aims* of property, but couldn't see his way around the obviously negative aspects of property in practice. It was only in the early 1860s that he really began to explore the possibilities of neutralizing the negative aspects of property by balancing it against other institutions, in the theory that was eventually published in The Theory of Property.

[Црвена]

From what I understand, private property is property that can be used to exploit others (e.g. the means of production and distribution) while personal property can't. An owner of private property claims the right to own this property even though they don't use it themself and, in the case of means of production, employ others to create wealth from it and profit from their exploitation. Anarchism aims not to "make people share toothbrushes," but to do away with the type of ownership that prevents workers from having control over and access to the fruits of their labour. In an anarchist society, workers collectively own and operate would-be private property, but the things that only they use and that they cannot use for exploitation of anyone else belong to them alone.

[ckaihatsu]

"make people share toothbrushes,"


http://s6.postimg.org/gyjbxqei9/2493067750046342459_JArka_P_fs.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/o1r7dcjxp/full/)

[Blake's Baby]

What is it about toothbrushes?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/possession-communism-t190531/index.html?t=190531&highlight=toothbrush - post 3

http://www.revleft.com/vb/reasons-why-left-t189043/index.html?t=189043&highlight=toothbrush - post 4

http://www.revleft.com/vb/abolishing-private-propertyi-t179249/index.html?t=179249&highlight=toothbrush - post 5

http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-and-personal-t187068/index.html?highlight=toothbrush - post 6 (one of mine this one)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/selfishness-t185769/index.html?t=185769&highlight=toothbrush - post 7

Odd, these threads are arranged going back in time over posts dealing with property. The more time progresses to the present, the sooner toothbrushes are mentioned. I wonder why that is. And what happens when post-number and mention of toothbrushes both reach 1? Or even, when the mention of toothbrushes comes before the start of the thread? Mathematically, it must happen soon...

[Црвена]

What is it about toothbrushes?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/possession-communism-t190531/index.html?t=190531&highlight=toothbrush - post 3

http://www.revleft.com/vb/reasons-why-left-t189043/index.html?t=189043&highlight=toothbrush - post 4

http://www.revleft.com/vb/abolishing-private-propertyi-t179249/index.html?t=179249&highlight=toothbrush - post 5

http://www.revleft.com/vb/communism-and-personal-t187068/index.html?highlight=toothbrush - post 6 (one of mine this one)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/selfishness-t185769/index.html?t=185769&highlight=toothbrush - post 7

Odd, these threads are arranged going back in time over posts dealing with property. The more time progresses to the present, the sooner toothbrushes are mentioned. I wonder why that is. And what happens when post-number and mention of toothbrushes both reach 1? Or even, when the mention of toothbrushes comes before the start of the thread? Mathematically, it must happen soon...

I just used the example because I had been arguing about private property with a friend recently and he thought he needed to remind me that sharing a toothbrush is unhygienic - I had no idea toothbrushes came up so often!

I guess bringing up hygiene is a nice way for the right wing to call us filthy scroungers.

[PhoenixAsh]

What is it about toothbrushes?

hahaha :D Yes...I was just about to post one of these links too :D

[ckaihatsu]

I just used the example because I had been arguing about private property with a friend recently and he thought he needed to remind me that sharing a toothbrush is unhygienic - I had no idea toothbrushes came up so often!

I guess bringing up hygiene is a nice way for the right wing to call us filthy scroungers.


It's a red-herring, or strawman, like the specter of totalitarianism, that's invoked to smear the very premise of a (revolutionary) leftism -- 'Brave New World' and 'The Giver' come to mind immediately as examples.

So what's implied is "You don't want to get rid of the hegemonic market system and try your hand at collective hands-on control because then you'd all have to share *toothbrushes* with each other as the logical conclusion of your extremist-equality agenda."

I had to remind someone just recently here at RevLeft that the point of a revolutionary politics and liberated mass production is to *eliminate scarcity* -- *not* to enforce a maddeningly-precise idea of 'equality of material ownership'.

[Blake's Baby]

I completely agree with all of that ckaihatsu - and not an info-graphic in sight! Maybe some people fin them useful, but I can never make out what they're supposed to be about. Words are better, in my opinion.

[ckaihatsu]

I completely agree with all of that ckaihatsu - and not an info-graphic in sight!


Somehow you're able to make that sound like a *good* thing....





Maybe some people fin them useful, but I can never make out what they're supposed to be about.


Just ignore them, then -- they won't hurt you.





Words are better, in my opinion.


Consider *this*, then, if you would:





Maybe some people [find] them useful,


So:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_styles

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah... I did say


... Maybe some people find them useful, but I can never make out what they're supposed to be about. Words are better, in my opinion.

I thought that made it clear it was a personal preference, but maybe I should have drawn you a picture.

[ckaihatsu]

Yeah... I did say



I thought that made it clear it was a personal preference, but maybe I should have drawn you a picture.


(Funny!)

(grin)