Is Anarchy-a world without property-even remotely feasible or plausible?

[IcarusAngel]

Anarchism on property:

"In consequence of his unconditional rejection of law, Godwin necessarily has to rject property also without any limitation. Nay, property, or, as he expresses himself, "the present system of property," that is, the distribution of wealth at present established by law, -- appears to him to be a legal institution that is peculiarly injurious to the general welfare." Dr. Paul Eltzbacher, summarizing Godwin's beliefs, Anarchism, Stanford University Press.

"Since Proudhon sanctions only the one legal norm that contracts must be kept, he can approve only one legal relation, that between contracting parties. Hence he must necessarily reject property as well as the State, since it is established by particular legal norms, and, as an involuntary legal relation, binds even such as have in no way entered into a contract. And he does reject property absolutely... nay, it appears to him to be a legal relation which is particularly repugnant to justice."
-Dr. Paul Eltzbacher, summarizing Proudhon's beliefs, Anarchism Stanford University Press.

I don't know what "and, as involuntary legal relation, binds even such as have in no way entered into a contract" means exactly, but I'm pretty sure he means that when a bunch of idiots decide one guy can own a vast amount of property (democratically, through capitalism, however), it automatically affects a large part of the population, even though they had no say in it in the first place.

This is because capitalist property rights, like many evil things, are absolutist in nature (take it or leave it).

However, some of these anarchists' views on property are so extreme they make me look like a property sympathizer by comparison.

A world without proprety seems even less imanginable than one without religion, or money. It would put an enormous amount of faith in the individual, and you must have individuals with high IQs to exist in such a society.

Although anarchists do seem to have some plausible concepts on how to maintain social order without government, it seems totally implausible to me how this system could work without a society consisting only of geniuses. Has there been anything close to this in history?

Anyhow, it may thus be necessary to have a system like democratic-socialism, or what have you, where some property is allowed and there remains some form of governance. Am I wrong in this assertion?

What say the capitalists? Why is your system and notations of property better than everybody else's?

[Bud Struggle]

I don't see a world without property rights. As far as I can see--right now it's a psychological necessity for most people in the world (at least the first and second world,) to have ownership of their things.

For Communists to convince everyone to give up everything they've worked for (their home, car, etc.) and give it all over to the government, and I understand the government under Communism isn't quite the government we have in place today (but how are yyou going to explain that to the masses,) is far fetched.

Ownership is engrained in our learning process from the day we are born. I grant you one could make a case for taking away billionaire's posessions, but no one would want to have their property taken away or see their neighbors property taken away. You just aren't going to get the Subway owners, or the nail salon owners or all the owners of all the small or medium sized businesses to give all that up.

And then where do you draw the line? Having employees? So if i have a Subway, I have to do everything or my store will be taken away? Or maybe two employees? This all gets pretty complicated pretty quickly.

Collective property is just too messy to work.

[Robert]

I don't know that "our system" ("Our?" Don't you own any property yourself? None at all?) is any better than anyone else's. I wouldn't be here if I didn't think the system could be improved.

Property to me is not just "stuff." It's also the right to possess, use and dispose of things that you acquire, either by purchase, gift, inheritance (I know, I know), negotiation, or maybe your own creation. It's not just a sweatshop in Vietnam or a big hacienda in Honduras. It's also your nail clippers and guitar strings and your right to control them unmolested by your grasping, acquisitive neighbors.

With no property rights, there's no theft. Sound good? I can then presumably help myself to your guitar or nail clippers whenever you turn your back or fall asleep. That's no good. Property is an admittedly contrived mechanism to establish material security and order. Obviously there's little fairness in the way goods and services are distributed, globally anyway.

The answer to abuse (always a subjective call) of property rights in my opinion lies in regulation, progressive taxation, and a doctrine called "abuse of rights," which I admit hasn't been systematically implemented anywhere.

The concept of anarchy is absurd to me, but who knows? Maybe it can work. There's one really bright anarchist here whom I respect, that Alaskan fisherman ... Agora77, I think. He could convince me if anybody could.

So, man, since you're not using the People's guitar right this second, I think I'll just ....

[Dean]

Collective property is just too messy to work.

Not really. Feudalism was basically a primitive, collectivised social organization where people put their faith in a family until it stopped working for them. It was hardly ideal, but it was much better than it is portrayed in our education. And I wonder how looney the concept of private property - where all people fight over the same things and somehow achieve the greater good - must have sounded. It really sounds laughable from an objective standpoint. And without the view of property rights that comes with capitalism, I cannot see any reason why communism would be considered inviable.

[pusher robot]

Not really. Feudalism was basically a primitive, collectivised social organization where people put their faith in a family until it stopped working for them. It was hardly ideal, but it was much better than it is portrayed in our education.That's as may be, but it doesn't follow that their methods would be feasible in modern political economy.

I think that property rights are necessary for the foreseeable future if one wants to maintain the forward progress provided by capitalism. Property rights are a convenient and efficient means for diverse and even antagonistic people participate in exchanges that mutually benefit each other. They provide the clarity that is necessary for agreements to be mutually understood.

[Dean]

That's as may be, but it doesn't follow that their methods would be feasible in modern political economy.

I think that property rights are necessary for the foreseeable future if one wants to maintain the forward progress provided by capitalism. Property rights are a convenient and efficient means for diverse and even antagonistic people participate in exchanges that mutually benefit each other. They provide the clarity that is necessary for agreements to be mutually understood.

Yes yes, pricing and value judgment coordination. I believe I made a long post about this in the last thread on this topic refuting its supposed virtues.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Property, understood to mean something one possesses, derives only from social constructs. Nothing more, nothing less. Socialists merely indicate the ridiculousness in someone claiming upfront ownership over the land for whatever purposes they want, especially when this ownership (won by theft in the first place) forces others to act in a way they wouldn't have otherwise done if the same resources were available to them. It's the same principle applied whenever someone laughs at the mention of owning air, seas, or planets. Property acquired after this fact is not a target of scorn by communists, socialists, or even most anarchists. Truly "abolish all ownership" sounds like something a yuppie would spew.



Clear. Concise. Blows holes into the shit Baconator and company produce.

[The Feral Underclass]

This thread makes me want to vomit.

[Unicorn]

I don't see a world without property rights. As far as I can see--right now it's a psychological necessity for most people in the world (at least the first and second world,) to have ownership of their things.

For Communists to convince everyone to give up everything they've worked for (their home, car, etc.) and give it all over to the government, and I understand the government under Communism isn't quite the government we have in place today (but how are yyou going to explain that to the masses,) is far fetched.
Socialist want to abolish private property, not personal property. People will still keep their homes and cars as they aren't means of production. Under socialism workers will also make much more money because they are compensated the full value of their labor.

[IcarusAngel]

It's important to note that neither of the anarchists above were "collectivist" anarchists, like so many anarchists have been. Godwin was a Utilitarian and Proudhon an individual anarchist.

If anything, some of the individualist anarchists were actually MORE anti-property, because they believed nobody, not even communities, could own any property.

Proudhon even wrote a book noting that all property gained in a capitalist backed state system is "theft."

I'm saying that it does seem that there's an inherent contradiction built into that system and that it is difficult to imagine working, and that even precivilized man (the closest man has ever come to anarchism with the possible exception of the early Kibbutzim) had formed some systems that are governments according to these anarchists.


Property, understood to mean something one possesses, derives only from social constructs. Nothing more, nothing less. Socialists merely indicate the ridiculousness in someone claiming upfront ownership over the land for whatever purposes they want, especially when this ownership (won by theft in the first place) forces others to act in a way they wouldn't have otherwise done if the same resources were available to them. It's the same principle applied whenever someone laughs at the mention of owning air, seas, or planets. Property acquired after this fact is not a target of scorn by communists, socialists, or even most anarchists. Truly "abolish all ownership" sounds like something a yuppie would spew.



Clear. Concise. Blows holes into the shit Baconator and company produce.



I agree. This is a good summation of what the landlord system of property really is. What Baconator advocates obviously is nothing more than a system of numerous "private" tyrannies.

But, what is the exact distinction between "possessions" and "private property." It seems hard to understand. And by determining such a distinction, or any such distinction, would be a government by their own definitions.

I agree that telling people they cannot own a vast amount of land so as to gain a monopoly on the use of force is very anarchistic, and anarchists would prevent such communities from existing through the methods of production (social order).

But, inevitably, some people would be barred from many communities areas, and many others would naturally be thrown into to the wolves. The Kibbutzim was very free, but was racist and excluded certain people from joining, and in anarchism nothing would preven them from doing that since they were just small communities.

So, in a way, anarchism can be seen as a "might makes right" system, with the most successful communities determining the rules. And this all assumes that anarchy would even work in the first place.

That is why I think Marx wanted ALL people to receive according to their need, which is why he rebuked the anarchists on many things.

[IcarusAngel]

I don't know that "our system" ("Our?" Don't you own any property yourself? None at all?) is any better than anyone else's. I wouldn't be here if I didn't think the system could be improved.

Yes, but you openly advocate strenthening property rights, which is obviously not the right way to go. We need to weaken this tyranny, not strengthen it, and the failure of capitalism to provide anything even close to living for a majority of people is fairly obviously.

Not only that, people are suffering for things they don't participate in, such as the daily grind of industrialization.

Still today, ever 3 billion people live in dire poverty, even though the world is continually becoming more and more capitalistic. This is outrageous.


Property to me is not just "stuff." It's also the right to possess, use and dispose of things that you acquire, either by purchase, gift, inheritance (I know, I know), negotiation, or maybe your own creation. It's not just a sweatshop in Vietnam or a big hacienda in Honduras. It's also your nail clippers and guitar strings and your right to control them unmolested by your grasping, acquisitive neighbors.

How does any of this prove it's in anyway justified or inevitable? I could come up with better arguments of property rights, which is part of the reason I created this thread.

Anyway, those things (the guitar and nail clippers) could be seen merely as personal possessions.


With no property rights, there's no theft. Sound good? I can then presumably help myself to your guitar or nail clippers whenever you turn your back or fall asleep. That's no good. Property is an admittedly contrived mechanism to establish material security and order. Obviously there's little fairness in the way goods and services are distributed, globally anyway.

That's what I'm getting at. My objections to anarchism are these:

1. It would be unanarchistic to tell people they couldn't take other people's personal possessions, or even to prevent a gang of thugs from going around taking things.

This, coupled with other obvious examples, would mean that anarchism could descend into social chaos (even though it tries to prevent it).

2. Because of this, it is more like a might makes right system, in much the same way capitalism or tyrannies are. And thus, it simply places an incredible amount of faith into the idea that individuals will do the right thing.

I think these are the two biggest objections people have to anarchism.



The answer to abuse (always a subjective call) of property rights in my opinion lies in regulation, progressive taxation, and a doctrine called "abuse of rights," which I admit hasn't been systematically implemented anywhere.

I would agree. Technically, an anarchist society, even with social chaos, would be far more free in the "do what you want" sense.

But could a technologically advanced world exist in anarchy? No one knows.


So, man, since you're not using the People's guitar right this second, I think I'll just ....

This is a funny criticism of anarchism because I was not coming from a communal anarchist standpoint. Technically, there is no reason why an anarchist community couldn't establish protection of possessions as long as they are non-hierarchical (although, again, this seems like a contradiction in that it sounds like government, which is where I'm having trouble).

Anyway, who do you think is protecting your so-called "property" but the collective government that is simply agreed to by most citizens to the point where they will not overthrow it.

Thus, in a sense, all "individualist" property in capitalism is collective property, and the institutions of corporations come to power through a collective sense, much like the mob, by appealing to the greatest number of people in certain sectors for which they offer their "services." At one point in America, corporations were run exactly like the mob with private armies even.

Furthermore, by even telling people what they can and can't own, you've established a government that you want protected absolutely, and that most capitalists don't even want people to participate in democratically, establishing something closer to tyranny or fascism.

So while I may be confused about property and how it would be handled in anarchism, which you're trying to take advantage of, I'm not confused of the fact that capitalist property rights is hierarchical and tyrannical and can easily be argued against, such as patents (monopolies) and corporations (more monopolies).

Criticism of property and its abuses started far before Anarchists, and even Marx. For ages, people have been criticizing property and its absues, and not necessarily from a communal sense, either. A lot of people have understood property is tyrannical in many ways. The problem is the great religions of the world and most political economies have simply tended to favor property.

The problem is, the antithesis of capitalism, anarchism, might fail as well, so I'd agree with you that a counterbalance to extreme property ownership, government (all about the same thing), and anarchism, is needed.

However, I simply lean more to the "left" than you do, and believe socialism or communism would be more applicable.

[IcarusAngel]

Socialist want to abolish private property, not personal property. People will still keep their homes and cars as they aren't means of production. Under socialism workers will also make much more money because they are compensated the full value of their labor.

Yes. And socialists also will note how they hope to achieve their goals. And if there's anything that most people here can agree on it's that these means were abused by the likes of Stalin et al. to achieve their own ends which were very uncommunist, and anti-leftist.

Whereas Marx and Marxists spent most of their time explaining how socialism would be achieved and the flaws of capitalism, anarchists spend most of their time noting what they oppose and how their system will work, but not how it will be achieved.

Anyhow, with anarchism, it's less clear how the system will come into fruition. And a system of pure freedom might not necessarily lead to more choices -- maybe it'll plunge into precivilization. At least even a Stalin was able to industrialize his country.

These are simply my objections to anarchism. I generally agree with it over other leftist systems. Since most right-wingers are such idiots it's generally easier to think up your own rebuttals, and then try and answer them, rather than having capitalists do it, as they always use the "people will steal your stuff" argument over and over again.

But, as already shown, this argument is weak because an anarchist would claim that most property is a type of theft and tyranny in the first place.

[pusher robot]

Criticism of property and its abuses started far before Anarchists, and even Marx. For ages, people have been criticizing property and its absues, and not necessarily from a communal sense, either. A lot of people have understood property is tyrannical in many ways. The problem is the great religions of the world and most political economies have simply tended to favor property.


Come again? The concept of property arose because of religion? What is your reasoning for this? I think it's more evident that property came about for two main reasons: desire for control, and economic expediency.

[IcarusAngel]

Come again? The concept of property arose because of religion? What is your reasoning for this? I think it's more evident that property came about for two main reasons: desire for control, and economic expediency.

I didn't implicate religion as being the creator of property. I don't know how or when exactly the concept of property arose. Modern property is somewhat different from the type of property that existed in Greece, although Lenin put it best when he said "Freedom in a capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for the slave owners."

Most of the world's major religions, including Christianity and Islam, have some pieces in their "Holy Books" that give a protection of property. Columbus and the Spanish regularly cited the Bible as the justification for slaughtering the Indians as the Indians had no concept of true land ownership according to the Spanish.

For centuries, Christianity was essentially on the pro-property side of humanity, justifying monarchies, kingdoms, and so on.

Most of human history is a dreadful display of property, tyranny, "ownership" and slavery, and nothing this is a good criticism of property.

[Robert]

Socialist want to abolish private property, not personal property. People will still keep their homes and cars as they aren't means of production. Well, somebody is going to be very busy drawing lines. Didn't Bill Gates start Microsoft in his garage? I think Michael Dell started at home, too. Who wil draw these lines? How will they be enforced?

You guys had better leave well enough alone.

Hey, you know what's another tool (besides regulation & taxation)
you already have under our beautiful system? Expropriation, aka eminent domain.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation. Of course we still have to fuss about what constitutes "public use" and what constitutes "just compensation," but at least there is recognition in the existing system that some things can be taken away for the benefit of the People (quackk... did I really just say that? I'm a crypto-commie!) and can be taken away from private owners. Usually it's land for levees and highways, but if you really want to take over Microsoft, but not Bill Gates' house (have you seen that house?), why not run for political office under, say, an "Eminent Domain Party" and start expropriating democratically. It frankly seems more realistic and less dangerous.

[nuisance]

Well, somebody is going to be very busy drawing lines. Didn't Bill Gates start Microsoft in his garage? I think Michael Dell started at home, too. Who wil draw these lines? How will they be enforced?
Who spoke out against invention and individual initiative? When an individual comes up with some new interesting item or tool, then they can give it to the community. If the invention is enjoyed then a syndicate could be established to provide the service for all.

[Unicorn]

Yes. And socialists also will note how they hope to achieve their goals. And if there's anything that most people here can agree on it's that these means were abused by the likes of Stalin et al. to achieve their own ends which were very uncommunist, and anti-leftist.
The Soviet Union industrialized faster and more efficiently than any capitalist countries. The phenomenal GDP growth and improvements of living conditions in the Soviet Union prove that socialism as practiced in the USSR works in practice.

[RGacky3]

For Communists to convince everyone to give up everything they've worked for (their home, car, etc.) and give it all over to the government, and I understand the government under Communism isn't quite the government we have in place today (but how are yyou going to explain that to the masses,) is far fetched.

give up everyting they'ved worked for? IF anything communist would give people what they've worked for at least for 95% of the population, because righted now, they don't get anything theyv'ed worked for, also I doubt peoples houses and cars are going to be taken (unless of coarse they own homes they are renting out to people, and they don't live in.). People tend to forget this, most people don't get what they work for ANYWAY, Communism is giving them what they worked for, the fruits of their labor. Only people loosing out is the Capitalists ability to exploit for profit, and I'm pretty sure most of us can do without that.


Ownership is engrained in our learning process from the day we are born.

Not by nature, by the system.


You just aren't going to get the Subway owners, or the nail salon owners or all the owners of all the small or medium sized businesses to give all that up.

And then where do you draw the line? Having employees? So if i have a Subway, I have to do everything or my store will be taken away? Or maybe two employees? This all gets pretty complicated pretty quickly.


I'm pretty sure it will be gradual, the important big stuff first, and the smaller stuff following. Maybe business owners won't like giving up their businesses, but niether would kings like to give up their kingdoms, but I guarantee you the workers would like to get the fruits of teir labor.

[F9]

yes there wont be any property in Anarchism.Why will there be one?It just wont work and it would have no matter.Your house of course is yours,no one can enter it if you dont let him,is a personal think,but it isnt the house your property.From there to go if you want to hold your little piece of land or your small business you can do it but you will finally understand that it doesnt offer to you,and you would propably join the commune and they way they act (ex.communism).It wont offer to you because if you have your own land and you take care of it you wont get the advantage to exchange things with other people and have a variety of things,you will just have what you can take from the land and some times maybe it will be less than what you need,but if you would join the commune in Anarchism yes you wont have any property you wont own any part of land but you will be free to plant one,you will be free to find a work that suits you and you will have a variety of products and in your needs.
In a small bussiness as i said you can hold it and keep it but thats almost certainly that you wont be able to take care of it,why would people in a free society that they can have whatever job they wish come and work for you in your bussiness and how are you going to pay them?money?they wont count nothing!if you give him/her part of what you get it maybe dont get you enough and you will again have the no-trade option.So own something wouldnt get you to nothing!

Fuserg9:star:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Of course, by technical descriptions applied to the state, at any moment the current government could grab your [house, car, nuclear-powered microwave]. Yet thus far I have met very, very, very few people who would even think about tapping into someone's acquisition of personal possessions - unless, of course, it's a fifty-million dollar house bought after investments. Maybe capitalists should be placated like the royals were when liberalism first won out in Europe. Here's the last bit of your money - now go and be irrelevant.

My take on anarchism - or, at the very least, libertarian socialism, is this:

- Consensus and participatory democracy will overtake the representative model.
- All land that is currently used by the state through public corporations will otherwise be turned over to the workers. This would fuel the gift or participatory economy.
- Corporate protectionism in the form of subsidies and personhood would be abolished.
- Small businesses would be left alone so they don't screw shit up and turn into little fascists. At first people can freely choose to participate in either type of economy (hey, more choice. Isn't that what apologists want?), but in any likely event the gift and/or participatory economy will take over.
- From this socialist economy, free associations abiding by communist principles will develop.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I don't know what "and, as involuntary legal relation, binds even such as have in no way entered into a contract" means exactly...
Basically, suppose you own a plot of land. That means I am not allowed to walk on that land without your permission. But wait - I never signed any document saying that I agree not to walk on that land without your permission. I never negotiated a contract with you saying that I recognize your claim to own that land. Your property rights on land limit my freedom of movement without any kind of input or consent on my part.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well, somebody is going to be very busy drawing lines. Didn't Bill Gates start Microsoft in his garage? I think Michael Dell started at home, too. Who wil draw these lines? How will they be enforced?
Bill Gates and Michael Dell might have started at home, but at some point they had to buy office buildings and factories. If all the office buildings and factories are owned by the state, and the state isn't selling, that's the end of that.

There is no need to take any physical action against would-be capitalists; the only thing that is required is for the socialist state to refuse to sell them the things they need to run a business.

[RGacky3]

But wait - I never signed any document saying that I agree not to walk on that land without your permission. I never negotiated a contract with you saying that I recognize your claim to own that land. Your property rights on land limit my freedom of movement without any kind of input or consent on my part.

Thats a great point, and that bleads over to other forms of Capital. For property rights to exist, would require the explicit consent of anyone that would be affected, that consent could be taken away at any time, which negates property rights, which is why, property rights and Capitalism require a powerful state.

[Robert]

If all the office buildings and factories are owned by the state, and the state isn't selling, that's the end of that.

B-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-!

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Thats a great point, and that bleads over to other forms of Capital. For property rights to exist, would require the explicit consent of anyone that would be affected, that consent could be taken away at any time, which negates property rights, which is why, property rights and Capitalism require a powerful state.

The celestial cookie worshiped by millions crumbles under the weight of logic. :)

[IcarusAngel]

I agree that it is a very good point, and a very poignant point made by Proudhon. I think I had the general idea correct but Kwisatz Haerach summarized it a lot more clearly.

It's actual fairly obvious, at least as obvious as the fact that the state exists to protect the capitalists' interests in modern capitalist democracies. I understood it far before I ever knew that Proudhon wrote about the same thing.

When a capitalist tells everybody how land is to be "owned," he's determining who can and can't use force in a "nation-state" (state), and he requires the government (which will be powerful, the US is the most powerful government in history) to do his bidding for him. Thus, from a social science standpoint it's quite obvious that shifting power into private hands is increasing the rule both of tyranny and oppressive government, in much the same way early America protected the slave owners when the system was basically colonial slavery.




My take on anarchism - or, at the very least, libertarian socialism, is this:

- Consensus and participatory democracy will overtake the representative model.
- All land that is currently used by the state through public corporations will otherwise be turned over to the workers. This would fuel the gift or participatory economy.
- Corporate protectionism in the form of subsidies and personhood would be abolished.
- Small businesses would be left alone so they don't screw shit up and turn into little fascists. At first people can freely choose to participate in either type of economy (hey, more choice. Isn't that what apologists want?), but in any likely event the gift and/or participatory economy will take over.
- From this socialist economy, free associations abiding by communist principles will develop.



Good points. The analogy to liberalism is particularly apt because Anarchism was also born out of the enlightenment as well and simply wants to replace liberalism with an even freer system.

I guess I can see now how having small amounts of personal possessions isn't really a government or private tyranny because no such "hierarchy" etc. is every established.

I still think there would be a fine line in determining when they get out of hand, though.