Property and Possession... - the difference between the two.

[Fabi]

there has been some confusion about property and possession in some other thread.
i have to stress, before someone mentions it again, that (today's) dictionaries might not see a difference between the two. this is not about dictionaries, however, but about misunderstandings and misconceptions about the 'abolishment of private property' in communism and anarchism...

please of course feel free to correct me... or my source... ;)


"1 What is the difference between private property and possession?
Anarchists define "private property" (or just "property," for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to exploit others. "Possession," on the other hand, is ownership of things that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things can be considered as either property or possessions depending on how they are used. For example, a house that one lives in is a possession, whereas if one rents it to someone else at a profit it becomes property. Similarly, if one uses a saw to make a living as a self-employed carpenter, the saw is a possession; whereas if one employs others at wages to use the saw for one's own profit, it is property.

While it may initially be confusing to make this distinction, it is very useful to understand the nature of capitalist society. Capitalists tend to use the word "property" to mean anything from a toothbrush to a transnational corporation -- two very different things, with very different impacts upon society. Hence Proudhon:


"Originally the word property was synonymous with proper or individual possession. . . But when this right of use . . . became active and paramount - that is, when the usufructuary converted his right to personally use the thing into the right to use it by his neighbour's labour - then property changed its nature and this idea became complex." [What is Property, pp. 395-6]
As Alexander Berkman frames this distinction, anarchism "abolishes private ownership of the means of production and distribution, and with it goes capitalistic business. Personal possession remains only in the things you use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people. Land, machinery, and all other public utilities will be collective property, neither to be bought nor sold. Actual use will be considered the only title -- not to ownership but to possession." [The ABC of Anarchism, p. 68] (For more on the anarchist theory of property, see P.-J. Proudhon, What is Property?. William Godwin, in Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, makes the same point concerning the difference between property and possession -- which indicates its central place in anarchist thought). Proudhon graphically illustrated the distinction by comparing a lover as a possessor, and a husband as a proprietor! "

source: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB3.html


i hope this will be read and accepted in the discussions in this forum since it ALWAYS leads to misunderstandings... again and again...

[Guest]

Continuation of our previous argument:

The idea that men use property to oppress and exploit the labor of other people is a ludicrous charge. This can only be done through the use of the whip or gun, not the jobs that men are employed by. I know. Why should Bill Gates have so much while others have so little? His entrepreneurial nature and vision made it possible for him to create an industrial juggernaut. The man employs tens of thousands of Americans. Are they being exploited by receiving a paycheck? I think not. This is yet another advantage of the capitalist model. Instead of being solely responsible for my own resources, I can work to receive monetary gifts. Money, a wonderful means of exchange, enables me to be free of dragging a wheelbarrow around with the goods that I produce to trade for the goods of another man's. Capitalism is the next logical step to the barter system, an inefficient, prehistoric method of trade. Trade is necessary for men to be free from a slave state.
All property is an extension of a person. The Magna Carta is one of the first documents, which affirms the sanctity of private property. What do anarchists propose then, that everyone has an equal claim to all property? Since they do not believe in the powers of a state, how can collective ownership of industrial property be upheld? Wouldn't the most powerful man eventually seize control over the means of production and use it as a way of subjugating the rest of the population?
You point to the corporation as the main offenders, who use property to exploit other men. I submit to you, that a corporation is the closest thing to your ideal that you will find. An anarchist wants to remove hierarical structures and have men collectively cooperate for the advancement of mankind. You have been brainwashed into thinking that the only way this can be accomplished is through socialistic means. That is a fallacy, which you should recognize. By making this claim you are refuting your own argument.
Corporate ownership allows any man a piece of whatever company they deems fit. Of course, someone is not prevented from owning a large percentage of a companies stock, as there is no law preventing this. But when this happens, the corporation tends to lose perspective by refusing diversity of ideas. These companies will tend to get stale and lose their value. Eventually, this stagnation will drive the company out of business and allow a competitor who has a fresh perspective into the market. Twenty years ago no one would have predicted that K-Mart would undergo self-destruction. Today people claim that Wal-Mart is invincible and accuse them of driving out competition. Do you not agree that the customer service and general product quality is declining due to corporate drag and poor decision making? I think that some smaller company will exploit Wal-Mart's weakness and be able to compete. Why don't these mom and pop stores start a Coop in order to bring their own costs down, and allow them to offer competitive prices? The answer this, you can look to the fact that they are too busy whining about being driven from the market, instead of organizing to fight for their business. Didn't the mom and pop store depend on a monopoly in their local in order to charge ridiculously high prices?
The best form of democracy in the market is through your purchasing decisions. If you find the ethics and general business practices of a company to be abhorrent, do what I do, vote with your money. No one forces you to buy Nike or shop at Wal-Mart. If a company screws you, tell your friends and encourage them not to conduct business with them. It seems to me that the market mechanism allows more free choice than a communist system where I am guaranteed to have exactly what my neighbor has no more no less.
It seems to me that your distinction between property and possession depends only on amount or quality. A personal posession is property that is insignificant enough that no one would have cause to steal it. When another man acquires enough to be considered ostentatious then it becomes property that must have been purchased with money made by underhanded methods. 'No honest man can have that much money'. Maybe, he received a payoff for revolutionary ideas that fundamentally changed the nature of humanity, maybe he invented the automobile assembly line, and maybe he is a worthless brat who inherited his wealth. What is the difference, property is property and should remain sacred, in order to guarantee men freedom.