Private Property

[Spasiba]

In a communist, socialist, or anarchic society, would there be private property? And if so, how much? If not, what happens to property exactly?
My point is, would everything be mutually owned? Because, in that respect, it seems anyone can come in "my" house whenever, something I definitely wouldn't want. To have your own area I think is important, to get away from the world can help out a lot, and I sure as hell don't want the government to just come in whenever they feel like it, nor do I want to come home and see the local kids have raided the fridge (not that more food wouldn't be provided&#33. Cars, glasses, computers, showers, a PS3, would anything belong to me? How do these systems work in this respect, and how do these systems differ from each other?
On this note, family: I know some people feel the need for its abolition, and others do not, but how do the communist, socialist, and anarchist systems (or lack thereof) plan to deal with this? I don't feel having a mother or son as a threat to myself or anyone else, and I understand the idea of having the community help raise kids, but how far do we go? I have heard a communist say that family makes people weaker and thus not capable of serving society, and that idea horrifies me (granted, this was a Stalinist-Maoist who, I'm pretty sure, has no true grasp of any inkling of leftist thinking)

[Faux Real]

Private property is the means of creating commodities through which workers sell their labor with.

Personal property is things like your car, toothpaste, etc. Stuff that doesn't require labor.

You're getting private property mixed up with personal property, as personal property will be solely yours.

[redcannon]

Originally posted by Spasiba@October 04, 2007 10:06 pm
In a communist, socialist, or anarchic society, would there be private property? And if so, how much? If not, what happens to property exactly?
My point is, would everything be mutually owned? Because, in that respect, it seems anyone can come in "my" house whenever, something I definitely wouldn't want.

In a commie society, there is private property, but its differnet then like it is here. Proudhon had quite a bit to say about property, most of it very confusing. However, it works out like what is yours is yours. obviously, no one can come up and take your stuff. The only thing that wouldn't happen would be an unequal distribution of private property, and private property gained at the expense of worker exploitation, as it is so often today.

as for the family thing, i think marx was outlining how family ties under capitalism is, which was basically marriage for money and familys for property, which was something he was against. at least i think thats what is was, i could be wrong, someone correct me if so.

Spasiba, i think you'll have a lot of fun on this forum, you seem to have some great questions.

[midnight marauder]

This is a pretty common problem people run into. As the left has a habit of doing, terms like "private property" convey different meanings than they do in common use.

The definitions communists and anarchists tend to use makes the distinction, as redcannon and rev0lt have suggested, between personal property and private property. In this context, whereas personal property refers to what you own and what you derive utility from, private property refers specifically to the private, individual ownership of that which can be used to exploit others, be it the means of production or anything else which could be used to grant illegitimate authority and privilege to an private entity.

To quote the Anarchist FAQ,

Anarchists define "private property" (or just "property," for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to control and 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.

To summarise, anarchists are in favour of the kind of property which "cannot be used to exploit another -- those kinds of personal possessions which we accumulate from childhood and which become part of our lives." We are opposed to the kind of property "which can be used only to exploit people -- land and buildings, instruments of production and distribution, raw materials and manufactured articles, money and capital." [Nicholas Walter, About Anarchism, p. 40] As a rule of thumb, anarchists oppose those forms of property which are owned by a few people but which are used by others. This leads to the former controlling the latter and using them to produce a surplus for them (either directly, as in the case of a employee, or indirectly, in the case of a tenant).

The key is that "possession" is rooted in the concept of "use rights" or "usufruct" while "private property" is rooted in a divorce between the users and ownership. 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. Needless to say, a capitalist workplace, where the workers are ordered about by a boss, is an example of "property" while a co-operative, where the workers manage their own work, is an example of "possession." To quote Proudhon:

"The proprietor is a man who, having absolute control of an instrument of production, claims the right to enjoy the product of the instrument without using it himself. To this end he lends it." [Op. Cit., p. 293]

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. It designated each individual's special right to the use of a thing. 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." [Op. Cit., pp. 395-6]

Proudhon graphically illustrated the distinction by comparing a lover as a possessor, and a husband as a proprietor! As he stressed, the "double definition of property -- domain and possession -- is of highest importance; and must be clearly understood, in order to comprehend" what anarchism is really about. So while some may question why we make this distinction, the reason is clear. As Proudhon argued, "it is proper to call different things by different names, if we keep the name 'property' for the former [possession], we must call the latter [the domain of property] robbery, repine, brigandage. If, on the contrary, we reserve the name 'property' for the latter, we must designate the former by the term possession or some other equivalent; otherwise we should be troubled with an unpleasant synonym." [Op. Cit., p. 65 and p. 373]

The difference between property and possession can be seen from the types of authority relations each generates. Taking the example of a capitalist workplace, its clear that those who own the workplace determine how it is used, not those who do the actual work. This leads to an almost totalitarian system. As Noam Chomsky points out, "the term 'totalitarian' is quite accurate. There is no human institution that approaches totalitarianism as closely as a business corporation. I mean, power is completely top-down. You can be inside it somewhere and you take orders from above and hand 'em down. Ultimately, it's in the hands of owners and investors." Thus the actual producer does not control their own activity, the product of their labour nor the means of production they use. In modern class societies, the producer is in a position of subordination to those who actually do own or manage the productive process.

In an anarchist society, as noted, actual use is considered the only title. This means that a workplace is organised and run by those who work within it, thus reducing hierarchy and increasing freedom and equality within society. Hence anarchist opposition to private property and capitalism flows naturally from anarchism's basic principles and ideas. Hence all anarchists agree with Proudhon:

"Possession is a right; property is against right. Suppress property while maintaining possession." [Op. Cit., p. 271]

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." [What is Anarchism?, p. 217]

This analysis of different forms of property is at the heart of both social and individualist anarchism. This means that all anarchists seek to change people's opinions on what is to be considered as valid forms of property, aiming to see that "the Anarchistic view that occupancy and use should condition and limit landholding becomes the prevailing view" and so ensure that "individuals should no longer be protected by their fellows in anything but personal occupation and cultivation [i.e. use] of land." [Benjamin Tucker, The Individualist Anarchists, p. 159 and p. 85] The key differences, as we noted in section A.3.1, is how they apply this principle.

This anarchist support for possession does not imply the break up of large scale organisations such as factories or other workplaces which require large numbers of people to operate. Far from it. Anarchists argue for association as the complement of possession. This means applying "occupancy and use" to property which is worked by more than one person results in associated labour, i.e. those who collectively work together (i.e. use a given property) manage it and their own labour as a self-governing, directly democratic, association of equals (usually called "self-management" for short).

This logically flows from the theory of possession, of "occupancy and use." For if production is carried on in groups who is the legal occupier of the land? The employer or their manager? Obviously not, as they are by definition occupying more than they can use by themselves. Clearly, the association of those engaged in the work can be the only rational answer. Hence Proudhon's comment that "all accumulated capital being social property, no one can be its exclusive proprietor." "In order to destroy despotism and inequality of conditions, men must . . . become associates" and this implies workers' self-management -- "leaders, instructors, superintendents . . . must be chosen from the labourers by the labourers themselves." [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 130, p. 372 and p. 137]

In this way, anarchists seek, in Proudhon's words, "abolition of the proletariat" and consider a key idea of our ideas that "Industrial Democracy must. . . succeed Industrial Feudalism." [Proudhon, Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, p. 179 and p. 167] Thus an anarchist society would be based on possession, with workers' self-management being practised at all levels from the smallest one person workplace or farm to large scale industry (see section I.3 for more discussion).

Clearly, then, all anarchists seek to transform and limit property rights. Capitalist property rights would be ended and a new system introduced rooted in the concept of possession and use. While the exact nature of that new system differs between schools of anarchist thought, the basic principles are the same as they flow from the same anarchist theory of property to be found in Proudhon's, What is Property?.

Significantly, William Godwin in his Enquiry Concerning Political Justice makes the same point concerning the difference between property and possession (although not in the same language) fifty years before Proudhon, which indicates its central place in anarchist thought. For Godwin, there were different kinds of property. One kind was "the empire to which every [person] is entitled over the produce of his [or her] own industry." However, another kind was "a system, in whatever manner established, by which one man enters into the faculty of disposing of the produce of another man's industry." This "species of property is in direct contradiction" to the former kind (he similarities with subsequent anarchist ideas is striking). For Godwin, inequality produces a "servile" spirit in the poor and, moreover, a person who "is born to poverty, may be said, under a another name, to be born a slave." [The Anarchist Writings of William Godwin, p. 133, p. 134, p. 125 and p. 126]

Needless to say, anarchists have not be totally consistent in using this terminology. Some, for example, have referred to the capitalist and landlord classes as being the "possessing classes." Others prefer to use the term "personal property" rather than "possession" or "capital" rather than "private property." Some, like many individualist anarchists, use the term "property" in a general sense and qualify it with "occupancy and use" in the case of land, housing and workplaces. However, no matter the specific words used, the key idea is the same.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I like to simplify what the others have said above with commerce breaks the rule of thumb which is "I can do what I want it X so long as it doesn't affect you or your property."

The question of how land would be distributed is an interesting one, though. How would the size of houses be determined for a family of 5 as opposed to 2? What if two people want the same spot. What if someone moved out of the house and someone wanted a smaller house in that spot? All interesting questions.

[RGacky3]

It won't even be an issue, because of the nature of the Society, property won't be an issue, because no one really wants your toothbrush :P, and since everyone has what they need, and has basic access to what they want, they won't have the need to have things for themselves and call it 'their property'.

[Die Neue Zeit]

rev0lt, while I'm thankfully far from being an anarchist, I don't make distinctions between "personal" and "private" property. I do, however, make distinctions between property and "possessions." This whole notion of "personal property" really needs to be dumped and replaced with greater emphasis on said notion relating to "possessions."

[I once read an anarchist site during my Trotskyist days, and it introduced the differences between property and possesions, thus providing the structural support needed for Proudhon's "property is theft" remark.]

[RbG]

[QUOTE]I don't make distinctions between "personal" and "private" property. I do, however, make distinctions between property and "possessions." This whole notion of "personal property" really needs to be dumped and replaced with greater emphasis on said notion relating to "possessions."
Hammer has a point with this. It really needs to be refered to "possessions"

[RbG]

Since it would be a communist, or a socialist country, no one would want to have any of your possessions. Why? Because they would have their own possessions, and they would'nt have the need to take things from you.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

That would be the rule of thumb, but there would be fringe elements who would want to take the items you have that aren't mass produced, like a hand-weaved basket. Let's try to avoid absolutes.

[syndicat]

The distinction is between productive property -- things that are used by us to make things for each other -- land, buildings where work takes place, equipment -- versus personal property, your private possessions, which are things for your own use such as your shoes, your car if you have one. Of course there can also be collective possessions -- say you own a fishing boat with a club. That's not productive property, unless you all are in the commercial fishing business and you use it to catch fish to market. Productive property are the things that are used in social production, that is, to make things for others. So the distinction is between personal property -- your personal possessions -- and productive property. The idea of a socialized economy is that the productive property ends up being owned by the entire society, by everyone, in common. That's because productive property does not consist of things for your own private use, which you should be able to control the use of on your own.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by Spasiba@October 05, 2007 05:06 am
In a communist, socialist, or anarchic society, would there be private property? And if so, how much? If not, what happens to property exactly?
My point is, would everything be mutually owned? Because, in that respect, it seems anyone can come in "my" house whenever, something I definitely wouldn't want. To have your own area I think is important, to get away from the world can help out a lot, and I sure as hell don't want the government to just come in whenever they feel like it, nor do I want to come home and see the local kids have raided the fridge (not that more food wouldn't be provided&#33. Cars, glasses, computers, showers, a PS3, would anything belong to me? How do these systems work in this respect, and how do these systems differ from each other?
On this note, family: I know some people feel the need for its abolition, and others do not, but how do the communist, socialist, and anarchist systems (or lack thereof) plan to deal with this? I don't feel having a mother or son as a threat to myself or anyone else, and I understand the idea of having the community help raise kids, but how far do we go? I have heard a communist say that family makes people weaker and thus not capable of serving society, and that idea horrifies me (granted, this was a Stalinist-Maoist who, I'm pretty sure, has no true grasp of any inkling of leftist thinking)

The "abolition of private property" that communists so strongly advocate does NOT mean the abolition of personal property at large, or property earned by one's own labor. This is an oft-cited bourgeosie lie. What we want is the abolition of property to the extent that it makes it impossible for one man to exploit another. In other words, such things as land or means of production cannot be privately owned. When we stress doing away with private property, what we really mean in the initial stages is the abolition of BOURGEOSIE property.

Anyway, even it did mean that we would do away with all property period, how would it be any different than now? In existing society, most property is not truly owned by nine-tenths of the population, but rather is extremely, and unfairly conditional.

[Spasiba]

wow, this is actually some awesome news, all my life I've been told that private property was personal property, or thats what I inferred and was never told otherwise, but I still have questions. If you can't own land, how exactly do you own a home, and GeneCosta brought up some questions about housing as well. Also, how would commercial endeavors pan out in these societies?
@ redcannon, thanks, and expect many, many questions as I try to make my philosophy more concrete.