What is property? by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Chapter 1/5 p1/7

Chapter 1 source http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/index.htm

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• What
• is
• property?
• by
• Pierre-Joseph
• Proudhon
• poperty
• socialism
• capitalism
• communism
• free
• market
• anarchism
• anarchy

[BRYAN351]

This guy should take out his butt-plug before he recites collectivist nonsense.

[LibertarianSocialism]

Last time i checked Proudhon was a individualist anarchist, not a collectivist anarchist.

[machination2]

All this talk is fine but i'm interested by something else:

I realized that the audio is created through a Text to Speech engine, and the voice is incredible. I really want this at all costs !

Can the author tell me where he found it ? The software and the voice ?

[LibertarianSocialism]

Sorry for late reply its called NaturalReader, it and the voice can be got from w w w naturalreaders com

[evilmick66]

Still, serving your self-interest makes you an individualist or egoist. But when I use the term "selfish prick," I don't mean anything behind that, I'm just trying to sound uncivilised and blue-collar. :)

Also, your confusing "property" with "possession". We need to differentiate the terms: "Property" is land and rivers, "Possession" is a watch or TV set. Under Proudhon's beleifs, one can keep the right of possession but not property. Stirner concurs, as possession can be defended by might.

[pureaggression]

@evilmick66 Ok, please explain why money would be obsolete without government. I don't see any reason to think that. Money is a tool of commerce, a tool for more effective trade. All modern governments restrict and control money, so just because there wouldn't be that monopoly doesn't mean it wouldn't exist or have no use. If workers AGREE to build a mansion for a pay, what is wrong with that? If they both didn't gain from the transaction it would never take place unless coercion was invovled.

[evilmick66]

@evilmick66 Hunter-gatherer societies have this same mindset as a natural way of life. Land belongs to no one, and all a man possesses is what he can keep in his hut. No one enforces this as a law, it's just a way of life. This can be fine-tuned and applied to industrialised societies.

[evilmick66]

@evilmick66 Mansions and Castle were built by workers who had their product of labour alienated from them. With the absence of government money would be obsolete and sensible workers would only build structures that they or their community can make use of. Those that already own mansions and such would have no choice but to give them up because they no longer have a way of paying for the upkeep.

cont'd

[evilmick66]

@pureaggression The whole idea of owning large tracts of land and mansions falls apart with the absence of government. No one can make a legitimate claim to something they haven't built themselves. I can come along and claim some land for a golf course, but people had walked through and made use of that land for years; the only way I can prevent them from continuing with their lives is through nonpeaceful means.

cont'd

[pureaggression]

@pureaggression Both the golfcourse owner and mansion owner are covering "property" that could be potentially used for more people and more so called productive purposes. So are people justified in inhabitating these places against the will of the owner? I just don't see the difference between someone hopping my fence into my yard and him climbing through one of my windows into my bedroom.

[pureaggression]

@evilmick66 I don't see how a golf course qualifies as shelter. How about actual unused shelter? Imagine how many homeless people we could ACTUALLY house if we forced people with castle like mansions with hundreds of rooms to take in the homeless. That man who constructed that golf course came to that property by peacful means, why should we initiate force and say no this isn't a golfcourse, this is now a homeless shelter? Whats the difference between that and the small family in the mansion?

[tonygmilan7]

@evilmick66 ya and i agree with proudhon in his later "laissez faire" individualist stage.

[evilmick66]

@tonygmilan7 Okay, so it was a work that he wrote towards the end of his life. If we're able to take no heed of Proudhon's racism, then we should be able to choose which stage of his thoughts we find most agreeable. There are Marxists who choose to focus more on Marx's early writings than his later. Why can't we do the same with Proudhon?

[evilmick66]

@evilmick66 "Defense through might" is ethically acceptable when one is having force used upon them. So yes, breaking into one's house is using force upon another, in which case that other's use of violence is commendable. However, hording more land than what is workable by a single person and violently warding others off is use of force against others. All those private golf courses can shelter the homeless, but a single hobo is arrested once he steps foot there: That is unethical use of force.

[evilmick66]

@pureaggression Techincally, there's nothing arbitrary about it: as I stated continously in these long threads, "property" (in Proudhonian theory) constitutes elements alien to the individual's capability of production and/or conveyance (i.e., land, large bodies of water, etc.), whereas "possessions" are produceable objects that can or can't carried on one's person (clothes, jewelry, automotives, and dwellings). Under Proudhonian theory, a house constitutes as a possession.

cont'd