Private property and workers rights

[The Feral Underclass]

Yes, which is the correct one, and I don't say that out of arrogance or smugness, but frustration at these pluralistic frameworks of understanding that belie the exclusive nature of truth.

I do not agree with you. You are going to have to come to terms with that.

The first one, I suppose.

You can just Google Hegel. His book The Phenomenology of Mind isn't online, but there are online texts that address his concept of desire, although I think you will require academic credentials to be able to access some of them.

That's not to say that Hegel's view is the same as mine, but his discussions on self-consciousness and desire are helpful to me in understanding my own views.

If I told you that "me gusta" means "I want" in Spanish, and you ask me how I know this, I can only tell you that those series of sounds happens to be associated with that meaning because of its usage, reflected in dictionaries. The same is true of all words, including desire.

I no longer understand the function of your intervention. You have presented your views, I do not share them, as I have explained. There really is no need to repeat yourself.

[ThatGuy]

Me neither, but that is something a lot of people seem to want. Why is it wrong to extract surplus labor from people, without the idea of ethics or rights? If it just comes down to power, then we are back with one of Plato's shill characters who proclaimed, "Why, Justice is simply the might of the stronger, Socrates." I don't believe that.

Well, that is how the world actually works, but it doesn't exclude the possibility of rights. As long as people have empathy and want to do well by themselves without anyone else getting hurt in the process, they are going to support social constructs that guarantee there are limits to what is acceptable behavior and what isn't. Rights seem to be the perfect way to formalize those concepts.

[Alan OldStudent]

This is something, that has puzzled me since always. If workers have the right to the full fruit of their labour, doesn't that entail private property?

For example if I produce a field, isn't that field now exclusively mine forever, since somebody else growing something on my field means I can't use the whole field I've produced and am thus unable to enjoy part of the fruits of my labour?

Another pretty similar example is if I build a machine and somebody uses it while I'm asleep to produce goods for himself. Machines are worn down by use, so that means that if someone else is using my machine, I'll be left with less operating time for the machine than if he didn't. Doesn't that mean that person is robbing me of my labour?

The way I see it, people owning the full product of their labour means they have the right to exclude everybody else from what they have created, and that is basically what private property does.

Hello Citizen ThatGuy,

You ask some interesting and provocative questions. I just discovered this thread so I’m posting a few days after you ask them.

Let’s look at a few basic concepts here:

• LABOR: This is the application of brain and/or muscle power to something to create something else of value. That “something else” could be either a material item or a service. For example, if I use wood, glue, nails, rattan, and leather to make a chair, that chair has a value that the original materials did not have. I have applied brain and muscle power to raw materials to create the chair which has a new use value. If I am a barber and I cut your hair, I have performed a service using brain and muscle power to create a new value.
• PROPERTY: This is a social relationship between individuals that defines ownership. If you own something, you may use it, consume it, or even destroy it, and you may bar others from using, consuming, or destroying it. You can transfer this right of ownership to someone else under law. Note the property is above all a social relationship between individuals that determines who may or may not use a particular item.

Please note that this explanation of property is somewhat different than the conception of property that your question seems to imply. Your conception of property more closely resembles that of John Locke, an important philosopher of the Scottish Enlightenment who had a great influence on the ideology of the founders of the United States. John Locke thought of an individual as owning himself or herself and therefore, any product of labor from an individual belongs to the individual himself or herself.

This interesting insight lacks in certain fundamental respects. For one thing, as other posters have said, labor is never a strictly individual activity. Labor has a profoundly social character. All the things in your life which labor produces comes from the efforts of tens of thousands and probably millions of people over the course of many centuries in the most ultimate sense. No one’s labor produces anything without the involvement of many other individuals. One of the most salient features of labor is its social character. This is one of Marx’s most brilliant insights.



In light of what is above, let’s look into your questions a little more carefully. You ask that if people have a right to the full product of their labor, wouldn’t that entail private property?

But what exactly do you mean by having the right to the full product of your labor? Is that really self-evident? It is impossible for you to produce something solely by your own labor. For example, let’s use your apple example. The labor involved is in the growing and harvesting of the apple. Presumably, you watered the tree. You probably didn’t schlep the water from the stream. It came in a pipe or other irrigation system, likely made by others. You wore shoes when you went out to your tree. You probably didn’t make them. Others made them. You probably bought fertilizer, another product of others’ labor. You probably used tools like a hoe. Those tools were manufactured. Not only that, but those tools were most likely not made from entirely raw materials. Somebody processed the steel. Someone harvested and milled the wood, using manufactured tools from which the hoe was made.

I could go on and on, but you strike me as a reasonably bright person, and I’m sure you can get the picture. Our species, homo sapiens, require social effort to exist. That’s how humans have evolved to survive over millions of years. We are social beings. Nobody can live completely independently.

You ask, “[F]or example, if I produce a field, isn’t that field now exclusively mine forever…?”

Nothing is forever, including property. When the human race becomes extinct, property goes with it, even if the things owned survive for a while.

Moreover, you did not produce the field. The field is not the product of you applying your muscle and/or brainpower to something. The field exists in nature. The field is useless unless human labor is involved in doing something with it, like growing apples on it, building houses on it, and so on.

You also use the example of a machine. You ask that if you build a machine and someone else uses it, aren’t you deprived of the wear and tear on that machine? You ask if that person is robbing you of the usefulness of the machine because of that wear and tear.

The answer depends on the circumstance. Did the person use the machine without your permission? Then yes, if you hold legal title to the machine, somebody robbed you of part of the use of the machine. But if you agreed to let that person use the machine, either as a favor or as the consequence of it business deal, no, you were not robbed of the usefulness of that machine.

Being robbed means being deprived of something you own in a manner contrary to law. That ties into the idea of property, which (remember) is a social relationship between individuals that regulates who gets use of something of value.

Further on, you state "The way I see it, people owning the full product of their labour means they have the right to exclude everybody else from what they have created, and that is basically what private property does."

Once again, one must ask the question what do you mean by "the full product" of labor? Remember, labor is the application of brain and/or muscle power to something to create something else of new value. But what was the original substance that you applied your brain and muscle power to? Most likely the raw materials were not "raw" in the sense that you personally gathered those materials from nature.

But even if you had personally gathered those raw materials, that was only possible because you are able to wear clothes and shoes, figure out a way of transporting them back, and then building whatever it was from the raw materials that you had gathered.

Property is not some unchanging force in the universe. The institution of property evolves as society evolves and as technology evolves. For example, at one point, owning a slave was common. The slave was a form of property. Now, slavery is illegal. Until several hundred years ago, much land in Europe was held in common. Now, very little land in Europe is held in common.

This explanation is getting kind of long. So I’ll stop here, and I may add more later on in another contribution. Thank you for challenging me to put on my thinking cap. I quite enjoyed attempting to respond to your questions.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates
Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto—Violeta Parra

[argeiphontes]

Once again, one must ask the question what do you mean by "the full product" of labor? Remember, labor is the application of brain and/or muscle power to something to create something else of new value. But what was the original substance that you applied your brain and muscle power to? Most likely the raw materials were not "raw" in the sense that you personally gathered those materials from nature.

But even if you had personally gathered those raw materials, that was only possible because you are able to wear clothes and shoes, figure out a way of transporting them back, and then building whatever it was from the raw materials that you had gathered.

Does the fact that all labor is social somehow negate property rights, though? If the chain of custody is legitimate, then why is it problematic? I know how to make rope. If I go to the flax farm next door, and agree to help the farmer harvest the crop in exchange for a few sheaves of flax, then is the rope I make somehow not 'mine'? He got his seeds and tools by voluntary, legitimate means, too. (Let's assume we're in an anarchist collective and not capitalism, where objects really are produced illegitimately via organized theft of surplus labor.)

Personally I agree with the anarchist idea of 'usufruct rights' to possessions posted from the Anarchist FAQ above. I don't think it comes from not being able say exactly who made something, though. There has to be another principle at work, and I think the difference between possessions and capital holds the key. You can use possessions yourself, but capital requires a social relationship. If that social relationship is coercive, then the property is theft.

[Alan OldStudent]

Does the fact that all labor is social somehow negate property rights, though? If the chain of custody is legitimate, then why is it problematic? I know how to make rope. If I go to the flax farm next door, and agree to help the farmer harvest the crop in exchange for a few sheaves of flax, then is the rope I make somehow not 'mine'? He got his seeds and tools by voluntary, legitimate means, too. (Let's assume we're in an anarchist collective and not capitalism, where objects really are produced illegitimately via organized theft of surplus labor.)

Personally I agree with the anarchist idea of 'usufruct rights' to possessions posted from the Anarchist FAQ above. I don't think it comes from not being able say exactly who made something, though. There has to be another principle at work, and I think the difference between possessions and capital holds the key. You can use possessions yourself, but capital requires a social relationship. If that social relationship is coercive, then the property is theft.

Hello Comrade Argeiphontes

You ask "Does the fact that all labor is social somehow negate property rights, though? If the chain of custody is legitimate, then why is it problematic?"

Once again, to answer that question, we have to ask "What are property rights?" In reality, a right is nothing more-or-less than a limitation on the power of someone else to control your actions or even your existence. For example, the right of free speech defines the limits that authorities have to determine what you can or cannot say.

Property implies ownership. If you own the flax rope, then you have the right to use it as you see fit, limit others from using it. You can transfer that right. The coercive power of the social authorities will guarantee that right.

Your post posits that the neighbor gets your help in harvesting his/her flax and gives you a percentage of it in exchange. You further posit that this deal occurs in an "anarchist" society. But you imply that this neighbor owns a piece of real estate. Could that happen in a truly anarchist society?

I think in a truly anarchist society, that flax would be grown on a commons, no?

I'm no expert on anarchism and haven't read the anarchist FAQ, and so you probably know more about it than I. I didn't see the link to the FAQ you referenced, and if you provided it, I'd be happy to read it and welcome the opportunity to see what I can learn.

So let's assume for a moment that this property did, indeed, belong to the neighbor and was his/her property, that he/she did the labor of planting, cultivating, weeding, fertilizing, and watering this flax. We can also assume he/she gives you a percentage of this harvest for your help.

In that case, I would imagine that the social character of your labor may well not negate your property right to the rope. The rules of that society would determine the legitimacy of your claim. Whatever those rules are, they would not be based on some kind of divine or transcendent definition of property. The property relations would grow organically out of the way that society evolved, came in to existence.

Remember this interesting fact: Our present species of the human race has been in existence for around 180,000 years. We entered the new stone age about 10,000 years ago. Before the new stone age (Neolithic revolution), we were hunters and gatherers, and nobody owned land. We moved around in small bands, relying on what we could capture or find for food, built fires to heat us and keep the hungry predators at bay. When the food ran out or if it became too dangerous, we moved on. We slept rough or in caves or temporary shelters. There was no real estate, no title deeds, no fences, no concept of "my land," or "my property."

That describes the state of affairs until about 10,000 years ago. Then, quite suddenly, we started farming, creating settlements, the urban lifestyle. Instead of mainly hunting game, we domesticated and raised animals. Instead of mainly relying on gathering nuts, berries, fruits, insects, grubs, we started growing crops. Instead of huddling around fires in caves, we built more permanent shelters.

This means that for an astonishing 94% of our existence, we did not have property, and we did not have property rights. These came about only when we stopped being nomads, started raising crops, put up fences to keep the animals in and keep out those unenlightened old-stone-age miscreants who did not appreciate the newfangled notions of property. That's also when we started having a military and a police force to enforce respect for these institutions when the power of ideology and religion weren't sufficient to keep the "barbarians" at bay.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates
Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto—Violeta Parra

[argeiphontes]

Your post posits that the neighbor gets your help in harvesting his/her flax and gives you a percentage of it in exchange. You further posit that this deal occurs in an "anarchist" society. But you imply that this neighbor owns a piece of real estate. Could that happen in a truly anarchist society?

I think in a truly anarchist society, that flax would be grown on a commons, no?

Sorry, it was the first example that came to mind. Maybe he has a personal space that's allowed him because nobody else wants flax

Here's a link to the relevant section of the FAQ: Why Are Anarchists Against Private Property (B.3). There's a lot of reading on the FAQ and I'm embarassed to admit that that's one of the few sections I've read. I think it makes sense.

Anyway, I have no disagreement with your historical view of property 'rights'. I just think that if we separate "property" as it's usually conceived (i.e. capital) vs. "possessions" then during all of that history, people probably felt entitled to possessions they were using. I'm against private property in the means of production, obviously, else I wouldn't be on this site I don't think there's any such right. I was more interested in tracing a reasonable argument to sustain that belief. (That is, my questions were rhetorical not argumentative.)

Peace, Alan.

[Alan OldStudent]

Sorry, it was the first example that came to mind. Maybe he has a personal space that's allowed him because nobody else wants flax

Here's a link to the relevant section of the FAQ: Why Are Anarchists Against Private Property (B.3). There's a lot of reading on the FAQ and I'm embarassed to admit that that's one of the few sections I've read. I think it makes sense.

Anyway, I have no disagreement with your historical view of property 'rights'. I just think that if we separate "property" as it's usually conceived (i.e. capital) vs. "possessions" then during all of that history, people probably felt entitled to possessions they were using. I'm against private property in the means of production, obviously, else I wouldn't be on this site I don't think there's any such right. I was more interested in tracing a reasonable argument to sustain that belief. (That is, my questions were rhetorical not argumentative.)

Peace, Alan.

Hi Comrade Argeiphontes,

Thanks for the link. I'll be perusing it to see what I can learn. Unfortunately, I don't know a lot about anarchism, just a few basics. I happen to be a Marxist and have some difference of opinion with anarchism as I understand it. Nevertheless, we are on the same side of the barricades. That's more important than our differences.

Please don't be embarrassed about not having read the entire FAQ. At least you have obviously thought deeply and critically about the part you did read. That's much more important than reading the whole bloody thing but not absorbing its meaning or using your critical facilities.

I see from your profile that you have a very busy life and lots of responsibilities. You'll get around to reading more of it as time goes by. You probably have read a lot of other anarchist literature.

Besides reading anarchist classics, it's good to read things that have a different point of view. In my case, reading stuff from a different point of view might be Proudhon, Henry George, and for you, that might be Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Bordiga, Croce, etc.



By the way, your handle Argeiphontes is interesting. Are you into Greek mythology? Why did you choose it? As you probably know, Argeiphontes was the nickname of Hermes, son of Zeus, who in certain respects somewhat resembles the god of the Abrahamic religions, God, Yahwe, or Allah. The nickname Argeiphontes means "slayer of Argus," who was an all-seeing monster god, possessing 100 eyes. While some eyes slept, others stayed awake.

Zeus, Hermes father, assigned Argus to guard over a certain young female cow. This cow had been a nymph, but Argeiphontes father (Zeus) seduced her and then turned her into a young cow to hide his misdeed. That's why Zeus assigned Argus, the all-seeing, 100-eyed monster, the task of guarding this cow. Eventually, Argeiphontes killed Argus. I'm not sure what happened to the nymph afterwards. Maybe you do.

I'm kind of curious why you chose this name for your handle. I bet there's an interesting story behind it.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates
Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto—Violeta Parra

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Fixed

What did you really fix?
All you did is strike the word "inhereted".

From the point of expropriation you might look real noble now, but "just jewelry" might just as well be private property, so why not strike that too?

Or might i've been talking about jewelry which has been passed on by my great grandmother to my grandmother to my mother to me?
How would you call that then?

We are not talking about capital-by-inheretence here. Just some family-pieces.