Defending the usage conception of property

[apathy maybe]

I am both an anarchist and a believer in environmentalism. While I can meld these two concepts in my own mind, and convince (potentially) others who are already leaning in that direction, I have trouble with others.

It comes down to my conception of usage as the sole defining characteristic of property. In any anarchist society (communist or not), if you are not using something, then it isn't yours. If you are, then generally people will not bother you about it.

However, my ideas have been attacked, there are a number of people who own (in the present system) large swathes of rainforest (such as Steve "bloody stupid" Irwin) for the purpose of preventing it from being developed. In an anarchist system however, there is nothing to stop someone from logging that rainforest (as it is not being "used" by anyone).

So, how can a usage conception of property be melded with conservation?

[Messiah]

Sensible people should/would agree that clear cutting a rain forest for the sake of wood is idiotic when we consider that potential gain is greatly outweighed by the almost certain loss. If we want lumber, we can have tree farms. There's really no need to cut old growth forests or rain forests or anything of the sort. It's simply a matter of making people aware of the reasons for preservation (what we stand to learn about our own biology, medical advances etc).

Thus, while an individual would technically be free to take an ax to the Amazon, he would be risking the wrath of his community. And it's doubtful they would bother with this if serious harm could come to them as a result.

[Janus]

In an anarchist system however, there is nothing to stop someone from logging that rainforest (as it is not being "used" by anyone).

Logging that forest may harm someone who lives in there or depends on it. It really depends on the situtation of course but it's generally up to the society to be more environmentally conscious and aware.

if you are not using something, then it isn't yours. If you are, then generally people will not bother you about it.

No one owns property period. So if you wanted to use a certain area of land, you're most likely going to have to gain community assent and get their help in doing it.

[rouchambeau]

Maybe there are some things that people shouldn't use.

[Floyce White]

I already discussed this exact issue in my article Whose Class Struggle? In that article I said:

Some anarchists respond by quoting authority figures such as Proudhon, and cite his 1840 essay What Is Property? This bourgeois social reformer approved of claims of ownership of things of personal use, while he condemned claims of ownership of things used by others. His semantics exaggerated subtle differences between the meanings of the words “possession” and “property.” Nonsense! Personal possession is just as odious as any other form of property. A “claim” is something you make to other people; property is a method of interacting with others. In the hypothetical absence of any conflict, to say that “I own my shirt,” “you own your shirt,” and “we own our shirts” is not interaction, therefore it is the trivial case--as in mathematics when all variables are set to zero. The claim to own some things used by only you and your kin would be entirely unnecessary--and the implied threat of violence to enforce that claim would be anti-social--if not for the need to put up a passive defense against the system of accumulation of wealth and its encroaching dispossession that does not distinguish between things used by one or by many. Personal property is a method of struggle on terms set by the oppressors. Bourgeois radicals such as Proudhon are like college students who become professors without any experience in their fields. They are unaware of this way of putting the question because the point of view of the lower class is not in the books they read. Proudhon saw only an abstract “people” who throughout history all tried to get personal property, so he deduced the false conclusion that personal property must be a cornerstone of every society. In the language of the capitalist, anti-feudal revolution, ownership was a “right” or a “natural law” of which violation was “theft.” The production and distribution of goods and services were not envisioned as sharing, but as “exchange of personal possessions.” In this way, Proudhon created a legalistic loophole for “personal” business properties as well as their association as limited partnerships, co-ops, syndicates, and “employee ownership.”

Proudhon opposed big business and the vast state-owned properties because these are not forms of personal property. Proudhon also opposed the state because police protect claims of non-personal property. Hah! Do a little semantical struggle here. Replace the idea of “exchange of personal possessions” with the phrase “small business,” and it is clear that Proudhon’s interpretation of “anarchism” is a political movement in the interests of petty capitalists. Since almost all capitalists are small capitalists, his words were not rebellion but apologetics. In the years to follow, the many contradicting definitions of “anarchism” by upper-class authorities mirrored the many competing property interests.

[angus_mor]

It's interesting that you bring this up, as I've been wondering similar things, I understand what you're getting at. My band mates and I feel that we're a living, breathing example of communism in action, as we work collectively with freedom of creativity and expression, share the equipment we use, and have a strong DIY ethic. We don't even have predetermined positions in the band, exchanging from one instrument or focus to another in the sound we present. We work together so much that we uphold principles of associative property within the group; I often forget that it's Alec's guitar the Casey's using.

As far as the forestry thing goes, I'd have to say that logging trees couldn't be justified by the fact that nobody's using them, because we ALL use the trees; they give us oxygen! Furthermore, you can't argue that it's ok to take a homeless persons life because they aren't using it anyways, so how is it fair to say the trees don't have a right to exist in their own right?

Further still, those that wish to harvest timber or any other resource produced by massive deforestation could find land to use to cultivate trees for these purposes, protecting the world's remaining 5% of oldgrowth trees and rainforests and etc. Many people already do this, the Gibson Guitar Co. planted groves of Swamp Ash trees for ecofreaks and find alternate conservation methods.

[LoneRed]

I can see the pickle you're in, it's hard to test your theory to different aspects of life, especially when there isnt one coherent theory, in that it differs from area to area, and people to people. Marxists use Marx's theories and historical materialism. I would guess anarchists fall in the traditions of the anarchists of late, but who was right? each said different things.

[red team]

Nonsense! Personal possession is just as odious as any other form of property. A “claim” is something you make to other people; property is a method of interacting with others. In the hypothetical absence of any conflict, to say that “I own my shirt,” “you own your shirt,” and “we own our shirts” is not interaction, therefore it is the trivial case

No, personal possessions mean I claim something that I can practically use and therefore occupy in a measureable amount of time where it cannot be used by somebody else. If I'm personally using my computer to type out this message then somebody else cannot be using it. If I use it on a daily basis for personal purposes as I am currently doing then it makes no practical sense to have it shared with everybody else in my block, however, I still leave it idle in the times that I am not personally using it.

If I leave things idle while claiming ownership over it then I am introducing artificial scarcity over something which could be used by somebody else in that measureable amount of time that it was left idle. The only way this artificial scarcity can be made acceptable is through legally sanctioned coercion and officially accepted ideology or in other words, entirely subjective "rules of the game" which the dominant culture of society recognize as justifiably punishable if those rules were to be broken.

But taken objectively, the amount of time in which I prevent the use of a resource to others is like any other physical process of the material universe in which it is quantifiable. If I prevent the use of my computer to you for 5 hours then I have introduce a measurable scarcity on that specific resource (the computer) in which you cannot use for that 5 hours, therefore, a scarcity fee imposed on me is justified for me hoarding a resource that was left idle for that amount of time when I am not using it. The scarcity fee being the opposite rent in which scarce resources are artificially kept scarce by the renter from the sole legal justification of private ownership and not personal utility. In fact the scarcity fee cancels out rent so that rent in an entirely consumer utility driven society where maximum consumer utility is sought becomes impossible from the penalization of hoarding.

In other words, the best policy is: use it, or lose it

[apathy maybe]

I think I have worked out how to solve the problem! I did think this before, but I seem to have forgotten it in my discussion. Here it is again, ultimately everything belongs to the community no matter the sort of anarchism you have. This is how in Individualist anarchism resources beyond those that can be used are removed from the individual. And inheritance would be prevented and so on.

So in the case of land, the community would allocate land. Thus if the community felt that there were values more important then getting the logs (or whatever), then they would prevent the rainforest from being logged.

Yay!


I'll say it again, this time rephrased. In anarchism everything belongs to the community. While something is in use, then it is not practical for that to be used by someone else at the same time. In the case of land or factories, the people using them would "own" them for the duration (for farming or for producing manufactured goods or whatever). However, they cannot sell the land, they can only stop occupying it.

If someone wishes to use unoccupied land, generally there would not be a problem. In cases where the community felt that the conservation values were higher then would be gain by using the land, then simple the land is not to be used.

[Floyce White]

The world is full of examples of things used by people who do not own them. "Use is ownership" is a false statement. Those famous armed bodies will rapidly come to apply violence to those who do not understand the practical workings of the property system.

The idea of property is the ideological justification for actions of violence between people with regards to things, places, ideas, and people. Property is the word, violence is the deed. People used things long before people invented the idea of property, and people used things while the property system was in place. "People using things" is not the definition of "property" (or "possession," "ownership," or any other synonym).

red team: "If I leave things idle while claiming ownership over it then I am introducing artificial scarcity over something which could be used by somebody else in that measureable amount of time that it was left idle."

"Could have been used" is an error of substituting a hypothetical event for a real one. If no one but you and your kin actually use the material--such as a computer--it is not social interaction. You are not imposing anything--scarcity or abundance--if others don't actually ever use it. Your subsequent economic manipulations are based on a false premise. You end up with the false assertion that others begrude you living in a house with a computer, or running water, or food--when the vast working-class majority do not take violent action to defend any claims of ownership of things used by you or anyone else. Peace carries no grudge.

apathy maybe: "In anarchism everything belongs to the community."

Whether collections of small holdings in "collectives," or whether nationalized big holdings, the idea of "everybody owns everything" is pro-property. Instead, we must advocate the idea that "nobody owns anything."

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Floyce White+--> (Floyce White)The world is full of examples of things used by people who do not own them. "Use is ownership" is a false statement. Those famous armed bodies will rapidly come to apply violence to those who do not understand the practical workings of the property system.

The idea of property is the ideological justification for actions of violence between people with regards to things, places, ideas, and people. Property is the word, violence is the deed. People used things long before people invented the idea of property, and people used things while the property system was in place. "People using things" is not the definition of "property" (or "possession," "ownership," or any other synonym).[/b]

You are thinking of the old use of the word. We can redefine words to mean what we want, and in an anarchist society, "property" will be defined as "usage" (with certain strings attached). Yes using the old conception of property what you say is true, but forget that for a moment. Concentrate on the new ideas.

Originally posted by Floyce White@
red team: "If I leave things idle while claiming ownership over it then I am introducing artificial scarcity over something which could be used by somebody else in that measureable amount of time that it was left idle."

"Could have been used" is an error of substituting a hypothetical event for a real one. If no one but you and your kin actually use the material--such as a computer--it is not social interaction. You are not imposing anything--scarcity or abundance--if others don't actually ever use it. Your subsequent economic manipulations are based on a false premise. You end up with the false assertion that others begrude you living in a house with a computer, or running water, or food--when the vast working-class majority do not take violent action to defend any claims of ownership of things used by you or anyone else. Peace carries no grudge.

I give an example that I like using. The washing machine. Currently most houses (in the rich parts of the world) have one (or more). This machine is only used for less then a day a week (spread out over the week and assuming the average household). Now, by leaving that machine idle when not using it, scarcity is being introduced. More washing machines have to be produced to service other house holds, when at least 1/4 that number would be sufficient.

Floyce White

apathy maybe: "In anarchism everything belongs to the community."

Whether collections of small holdings in "collectives," or whether nationalized big holdings, the idea of "everybody owns everything" is pro-property. Instead, we must advocate the idea that "nobody owns anything."

Depends on what you mean by property.
If you say that "nobody owns anything", then anyone can use anything, do what they will with it. In the original case, they can destroy the rainforest and, well nobody owned it.
However, if you say that the community owns the rainforest, then wanton destruction will be opposed by the community. "Ownership" could more properly be meant as "guardianship" or similar; the community looks after the objects and land ("property") and allocates them on a as needs basis.

Yes it might be confusing to use old terms ("property" and "ownership") to mean new concepts, but that is the way it is in so many fields (much of philosophy for example).

[Seafire]

Originally posted by apathy maybe@Sep 24 2006, 09:21 AM
So, how can a usage conception of property be melded with conservation?

Why are rain forests clear cut? Greed and profit. Why is the atmosphere polluted? Or fisheries depleted? Greed and profit.

Remove profit, and greed, and society is inherently environmentally friendly. Couple that with an ethic of "do no harm" .......

Seafire

[Floyce White]

apathy maybe: "We can redefine words to mean what we want..."

You're doing semantical struggle in favor of a new definition. I suggest that your discussion would be better served with the word "use-value."

apathy maybe: "Currently most houses (in the rich parts of the world) have one (or more). This machine is only used for less then a day a week (spread out over the week and assuming the average household)."

Yes, I understand what you mean. There are plenty of other computers and washing machines in developed parts of the world. It is not necessary for your family to move all of the useful items in the house to some other location so that others can use these machines. Many apartment buildings have shared laundry rooms already, and there are many Laundromats.

apathy maybe: "Now, by leaving that machine idle when not using it, scarcity is being introduced. More washing machines have to be produced to service other house holds, when at least 1/4 that number would be sufficient."

If 1/4 as many durable goods were produced, they would wear out four times faster. If you drive a car in Southern California, you wear it out by mileage, and not by calendar age.

apathy maybe: "...anyone can use anything..."

You have it just backwards. Under capitalism today, anyone with enough money can use and abuse working-class people, the things made by workers, and the natural environment used by all. After the revolution, people will say "no." And nobody will ever again "allocate" me, my efforts, or the things around me. I will physically prevent anyone from doing it. That's what the revolution is for.

[KC]

This is a bit off topic, but Floyce I was wondering why you don't use the quote option?

[Floyce White]

Brief reply because it is off topic: because I know how to correctly make quotes.