Yes. Why? Because only the state can protect private property rights in general. So yes, it is true.
Results 1 to 13 of 13
Is the state required for private property to exist?
And if so, why? I would like to learn more about the functions of the state both pre and post-revolution and I've heard a lot of people saying that a state is a requirement for capitalism, is this true?
Yes. Why? Because only the state can protect private property rights in general. So yes, it is true.
☭ “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.” - Karl Marx ☭
Any private property that a person doesn't have direct control over and doesn't directly use requires the authority of a state to maintain its quality of "private-ness", yes. You can't claim to "own" a bunch of land that you don't use if you don't have a state to back you up, otherwise people would just laugh at you and camp on "your" land anyway.
Dragging Marxists into the modern age, kicking and screaming, one pointless argument at a time.
Engels already made a first attempt at describing the answer in his book The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, but of course much research has been done since. In particular I find the summary made by Jack Conrad titled When all the crap began (part 1 and part 2) very helpful indeed.
I think, thus I disagree. | Chairperson of a Socialist Party branchMarxist Internet Archive | Communistisch Platform
Working class independence - Internationalism - Democracy
Educate - Agitate - Organise
Proudhon, the anarchist, made the argument 44 years earlier than Engels in his 1840 book "What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government." He's also the guy that coined the term "property is theft."
http://www.marxists.org/reference/su...dhon/property/
Dragging Marxists into the modern age, kicking and screaming, one pointless argument at a time.
Eh, the analysis put forth by Proudhon in that text is not at all the same as Engels line of argumentation in 'the origins of the family, private property, and the state.'
---
OP, I'd suggest Lenin's 'state & revolution,' although the Engels work Q linked to is also a great place to start.
Hey, it's not Proudhon's fault that Engels got it so wrong...
(I'm kidding.)
Seriously though, anarchists developed the basis of this argument long before the Marxists came along, and I don't think it's fair to ignore Proudhon just because other writings expand on the foundation he set.
As you said, Engel's argument against property is set on a much different scale than Proudhon's argument. Honestly, I think Proudhon's argument is more relevant than Engels, in this specific context, because it analyzes property on a more structural, power-based scale, rather than simply looking at the origin and nature of property in relation to the family.
Last edited by The Disillusionist; 7th December 2014 at 06:04. Reason: Tuned down the confrontation.
Dragging Marxists into the modern age, kicking and screaming, one pointless argument at a time.
What if instead of having the state back up my claim to property, I were to just simply defend it by any means?
Do I really need the state then to claim ownership?
And likewise, the state requires private property!
In all seriousness though, to imagine the relationship of the state and private property as two independent forces is too simplistic. They arise together not only in a temporal sense, but in the sense of being intertwined; I'd go so far as to say inseparable.
The state is, in a sense, the organization of private property - sovereignty itself can to be understood in terms of the establishment of a division between individuals and their labour (i.e. the process by which the individual as an object of power becomes real).
The life we have conferred upon these objects confronts us as something hostile and alien.
Formerly Virgin Molotov Cocktail (11/10/2004 - 21/08/2013)
I don't think its impossible to defend ones property without a state. A state being defined as a monopoly on force. All you need is the Capital to employ more armed men that the opposition. In a world without a state Rupert Murdoch still has vasts amounts of capital to draw upon (theoretically) and could use it to employ a personal army. The question whether over time RM would become a defacto state is another matter entirely.
- To Vanguard or not to Vanguard, that is the question.
Well, in my opinion, private property leads to a state. It has to be protected by laws, which need a police to be applied. You now have a police and laws, who need to be supervised by a state. So, private property inevitably will lead to the creation of a state.
I don't think it's worth much to look at any specific billionaire. Murdoch is worth something like $13 billion USD. The US's military budget is $526 billion per year. Worldwide, we spend about $1.7 trillion on military per year (all nations that we have figures for, combined.) Murdoch's wealth is nothing to spit at, but that's a whack military, assuming he even spends that much.
The capitalist class as a whole, if they all went in with all their fortunes to fund a military, collectively, that'd be a bigger, though still limited, problem. It'd be "cost effective" to just make states do it; because 1.) the state still has the benefit of an economic structure and an apparatus that makes the money still worth something, 2.) the state can use that structure to still enforce property law, including with the immense amount of police in their employ. Without a state, capitalists could "defend" their property, but it'd be a losing game. They'd end up spending all their fortunes within a year or a few to defend it and end up pennyless anyway. The only way that works is if they convince all of humanity to go in with them in the hellacious Robocop scenario that would eventually come up.
The situation I was describing is a society without class-consciousness, so the Capitalist is not under siege. I think it would be possible to defend your property if you had sufficient capital as long as the oppressed weren't organised. Class consciousness is a game changer.
- To Vanguard or not to Vanguard, that is the question.
