Leaving aside the tricky question of how much property a man must have before his personal property becomes private property, the essence of the argument is the class struggle. This is a dangerous argument bc it ignores the governing class which is always violent and usually corrupt. And in the matter of property rights, the governing class considers the entire country to be its property. This is as true of western democracies as of oriental empires and the Russian patrimonial system.
Anyone familiar with the French attitude towards the family home knows that in this exemplar of socialistic thinking the distinction of private and personal is specious, as it was in Russia under the Bolsheviks.
Private property rights, beginning with property in oneself, is a benefit to each citizen who desires to be protected against his government (Proudhon is emphatic in his denunciation of government). That which is not private property is government property, which in the western democracies means that the greatest concentration of economic power is in the hands of the small minority whose peculiarity is the skillful manipulation of the electorate.
Property in oneself is part of the philosophical debate. Until recently ordinary people would have used the word liberty, and would have been understood equally well by their opponents as by their supporters. Liberty now has an archaic ring to it. Itself a significant development.
Proudhon and Bakunin were both opposed by Marx and politically Marx has carried the day. Godwin was fading into obscurity even during his lifetime. Syndicalism and guild socialism are forgotten. So it is accurate to say that the coercive aspect of socialism has triumphed politically. Entirely predictable, given the nature of political ambition.
From what you say I assume you are a cooperative socialist rather than as coercive socialist. Perhaps in the Owenite tradition. If so you are certainly at odds with the socialist mainstream.
If we have a point of contention it is probably psychological. Those successful in the collectivist state are of necessity motivated by the power impulse. So distinctions of personal property and private property and so on are otiose bc the natural result of the collectivist state is no property at all,except that controlled by the political elite in the name of public property. This is the gist of my original response.
Property: I did not, of course, say that people are property. To have property in oneself is not to be a chattel slave, a conscript soldier, a fiat money and tax subject, a child incarcerated in a classroom- all legal categories instituted by government. In the best of human relations, such as the family, property is unimportant. In a society of strangers organised by state violence, it is an essential principle of self defence.
It is a modern conceit to underestimate the medieval peasant and to overestimate the nobility. The medieval peasant was mentally and physically far more formidable than any modern wage serf. The record of armed rebellion is evidence of this. Following the 13 th century plagues he was also increasingly prosperous and in a country like England living standards only exceeded the late medieval period with industrialisation in the 19th century.
Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Sorel were men in the socialist tradition who detested the state. They lost and the collectivists won, establishing the collectivist state which has centralised power to an unprecedented degree. The result, in Europe at least, is a corrupt and ruthless elite ruling 500 million people who have no rights except those their rulers are prepared to allow them.
Psychology: the idea of the totalitarian state has entranced the European mind since the eighteenth century. Socialism, promising a benevolent state which demands in return only passive acquiescence has proved irresistible. But the price is high. There is no personal property or any other property as a right; that’s the historical record. I’ve given the examples of Bolshevik Russia and present day France.
Capitalists. This is a side show and a distraction , one version of the class struggle which has been so successful in diverting attention from the accumulation of power by political gangsters. The gangsters having obtained power are open to collaboration: Bill Gates at the G7 is emblematic.
You said: ‘I did not, of course, say that people are property.’
I appreciate the distinction, although I’m not sure I see the value in the concept of us having ‘property in oneself’ - perhaps it is useful figuratively if you view the property relationship as a positive and relating it to people as a way to express how a given system handles rights and powers, but I’m still not sure of its value, especially when it comes to self defence as I believe we have value and deserve safety apart from any concepts of property. (I am aware of Locke's arguments in this respect and reject them for reasons I'll elaborate upon in my next article)
Although I speak of personal property rights in the sense that I believe that people are entitled to what they legitimately have and need to live and enjoy life for as long as they are alive, it might be more accurate to say that it is usage rights I believe in. I’m not sure of the need for their to ultimately (in my ideal world) to be a concept of property anything like we have currently at all.
You said: ‘It is a modern conceit to underestimate the medieval peasant and to overestimate the nobility.’
I agree that at times the peasant had more collective and bargaining power, especially after the black death, within guilds, and when certain kinds of craftsman, but the extension of enclosure, the advent of chattel slavery and mercantilism, and ultimately capitalism diminished their power, such as it was, greatly.
You said: ‘Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Sorel were men in the socialist tradition who detested the state. They lost and the collectivists won’
I suppose it depends on what you mean by ‘lost’, I think history showed that they were right to criticise hierarchy and that they were vindicated when their predictions came true. I also think their insights still have tremendous value, not just in a historical or theoretical sense, but in practical application (certain in my life and the communities I’m involved in).
You said: ‘Socialism, promising a benevolent state which demands in return only passive acquiescence’
I’m not a believer in state Socialism. It seems we agree with the outcome of such authoritarian systems under that guise. Of course, I admit that people have tried it, and turned it into ‘state Capitalism’ with much of the same negative outcomes as neoliberal Capitalist states as far as I’m concerned. I am, however, a Socialist in the sense of believing in worker ownership and decommodification of needs.
You said: ‘Capitalists. This is a side show and a distraction’
I’m not sure what you are getting at here. Do you have anything you can point me to that explains in greater detail your personal perspective. You seem to share some of the same criticisms of the current systems as I have, but I’m still not sure if we are differing mostly in our word usage, or in something more fundamental (which on the subject of property we may very well be). However, comment threads are too unwieldy a place to discuss this in great deal.
I agree with you that the governing (hierarchal) class is ultimately the problem, but their ownership of property enables this - not just within the state apparatus, but within the private property legal system and enforcement system - the one (private property beyond personal or communal ownership) will always inevitably lead to the other (hierarchy, commodification, artificial scarcity, artificial borders, and violent enforcement). I'll cover this more in my next article.
I agree that in our current system there is primarily government and private property, but it was not always so, and need not always be this way. There are other kinds of property than state or private property - it is possible to have personal property that isn't private (privatised) property, public commons, or collective and communal property, and for most of human history these kinds of property existed (and I would argue still do outside of legal and state frameworks).
However, I believe there are fundamental ethical problems with the idea of classing people as property - as I recall there was a civil war in America fought over the question of whether people should be treated as property, and I believe that the idea is on the wrong side of history and human rights - https://peacefulrevolutionary.substack.com/p/are-we-property
Under Feudalism we had 'the greatest concentration of economic power [was] in the hands of the small minority' of owners 'whose peculiarity is the skilful manipulation of' their disempowered peasants. Under Capitalism the 'the greatest concentration of economic power is in the hands of the small minority' of ultra-wealthy Capitalists 'whose peculiarity is the skilful manipulation of' their disempowered workers, and it would still be thus under a version of Capitalism without a state.
Others may come to different conclusions, but I have yet to find anything I've read from them compelling or convincing. Perhaps you could write a post convincing me otherwise.
This is a brilliant explanation of the difference between personal and private property and why socialism is no threat to the typical American homeowner like me.
Personal property is private property. The problem is that it has no limits and the state can arbitrarily take it. What is need is a clearly defined boundary between public and private property. From a socialist perspective only small business should be allowed for private property. All other sizes and scales should be public.
Private sometimes does mean personal - as in private diary, but it also often means commercial / for profit - as in private school / privatisation.
When it comes to personal property and private property they are usually seen as distinct in political theory because - you personally use your personal property, you don’t (usually) make a private profit from it, you don’t (usually) use it as commodity, and a private business entity doesn’t own it.
But I sometimes use the phrase privatised property to make distinction more clear. In next Friday’s article I explore these concepts from another angle.
Thank you for explaining all of this. I have asked libertarians to explain their position and have been told that no one decides for them, and I said that sounds like anarchy. I thought I found common ground with their answer and I only pissed them off. Now I understand it a little better.
(As I've pointed out elsewhere) people use the word ‘rights’ in different ways - each of which are valid within their context.
Some people speak of rights as things which we should have the natural or moral ‘right’ (ability) to be able to choose to do without interference - those things which we should be free to have the choice to do - no matter what anyone else decides.
Others speak of rights as those customary or legal ‘rights’ (permissions) granted (or honoured) by and protected by a state and / or law (& thus could potentially be forbidden by such a state).
Sometimes these conceptions of rights overlap, sometimes they conflict, but the dictionary allows for both kinds:
Chambers Dictionary: right adj 18 socially acceptable • know all the right people. noun 1 (often rights) a power, privilege, title, etc that someone may claim legally or that is morally due to them. 2 (often rights) a just or legal claim to something. 3 fairness; truth; justice. 4 that which is correct, good or just • the rights and wrongs of the case.
You had me at charts.
Ownership is certainty of access and control, and legal, ethical, and actual ownership must be understood separately.
bonus: #UniversalTaxonomy
distinctive areas of ownership and responsibility
personal space ( movement, breathing, feeling physically secure, privacy )
personal tools ( shampoo, razors, underwear, socks, washcloths )
personal property ( clothing, cologne, jewelry, photos, messages, gifted or created art )
private property ( furniture, purchased art, kitchen supplies )
private tools ( car, cooking equipment, books )
private space ( living areas, car, office )
stewardship ( pets, livestock, children )
I do love charts and diagrams - especially ones that illustrate or summarise information in an easy to understand way.
Leaving aside the tricky question of how much property a man must have before his personal property becomes private property, the essence of the argument is the class struggle. This is a dangerous argument bc it ignores the governing class which is always violent and usually corrupt. And in the matter of property rights, the governing class considers the entire country to be its property. This is as true of western democracies as of oriental empires and the Russian patrimonial system.
Anyone familiar with the French attitude towards the family home knows that in this exemplar of socialistic thinking the distinction of private and personal is specious, as it was in Russia under the Bolsheviks.
Private property rights, beginning with property in oneself, is a benefit to each citizen who desires to be protected against his government (Proudhon is emphatic in his denunciation of government). That which is not private property is government property, which in the western democracies means that the greatest concentration of economic power is in the hands of the small minority whose peculiarity is the skillful manipulation of the electorate.
Property in oneself is part of the philosophical debate. Until recently ordinary people would have used the word liberty, and would have been understood equally well by their opponents as by their supporters. Liberty now has an archaic ring to it. Itself a significant development.
Proudhon and Bakunin were both opposed by Marx and politically Marx has carried the day. Godwin was fading into obscurity even during his lifetime. Syndicalism and guild socialism are forgotten. So it is accurate to say that the coercive aspect of socialism has triumphed politically. Entirely predictable, given the nature of political ambition.
From what you say I assume you are a cooperative socialist rather than as coercive socialist. Perhaps in the Owenite tradition. If so you are certainly at odds with the socialist mainstream.
If we have a point of contention it is probably psychological. Those successful in the collectivist state are of necessity motivated by the power impulse. So distinctions of personal property and private property and so on are otiose bc the natural result of the collectivist state is no property at all,except that controlled by the political elite in the name of public property. This is the gist of my original response.
Thanks. A few points for your consideration:
Property: I did not, of course, say that people are property. To have property in oneself is not to be a chattel slave, a conscript soldier, a fiat money and tax subject, a child incarcerated in a classroom- all legal categories instituted by government. In the best of human relations, such as the family, property is unimportant. In a society of strangers organised by state violence, it is an essential principle of self defence.
It is a modern conceit to underestimate the medieval peasant and to overestimate the nobility. The medieval peasant was mentally and physically far more formidable than any modern wage serf. The record of armed rebellion is evidence of this. Following the 13 th century plagues he was also increasingly prosperous and in a country like England living standards only exceeded the late medieval period with industrialisation in the 19th century.
Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Sorel were men in the socialist tradition who detested the state. They lost and the collectivists won, establishing the collectivist state which has centralised power to an unprecedented degree. The result, in Europe at least, is a corrupt and ruthless elite ruling 500 million people who have no rights except those their rulers are prepared to allow them.
Psychology: the idea of the totalitarian state has entranced the European mind since the eighteenth century. Socialism, promising a benevolent state which demands in return only passive acquiescence has proved irresistible. But the price is high. There is no personal property or any other property as a right; that’s the historical record. I’ve given the examples of Bolshevik Russia and present day France.
Capitalists. This is a side show and a distraction , one version of the class struggle which has been so successful in diverting attention from the accumulation of power by political gangsters. The gangsters having obtained power are open to collaboration: Bill Gates at the G7 is emblematic.
You said: ‘I did not, of course, say that people are property.’
I appreciate the distinction, although I’m not sure I see the value in the concept of us having ‘property in oneself’ - perhaps it is useful figuratively if you view the property relationship as a positive and relating it to people as a way to express how a given system handles rights and powers, but I’m still not sure of its value, especially when it comes to self defence as I believe we have value and deserve safety apart from any concepts of property. (I am aware of Locke's arguments in this respect and reject them for reasons I'll elaborate upon in my next article)
Although I speak of personal property rights in the sense that I believe that people are entitled to what they legitimately have and need to live and enjoy life for as long as they are alive, it might be more accurate to say that it is usage rights I believe in. I’m not sure of the need for their to ultimately (in my ideal world) to be a concept of property anything like we have currently at all.
You said: ‘It is a modern conceit to underestimate the medieval peasant and to overestimate the nobility.’
I agree that at times the peasant had more collective and bargaining power, especially after the black death, within guilds, and when certain kinds of craftsman, but the extension of enclosure, the advent of chattel slavery and mercantilism, and ultimately capitalism diminished their power, such as it was, greatly.
You said: ‘Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Sorel were men in the socialist tradition who detested the state. They lost and the collectivists won’
I suppose it depends on what you mean by ‘lost’, I think history showed that they were right to criticise hierarchy and that they were vindicated when their predictions came true. I also think their insights still have tremendous value, not just in a historical or theoretical sense, but in practical application (certain in my life and the communities I’m involved in).
You said: ‘Socialism, promising a benevolent state which demands in return only passive acquiescence’
I’m not a believer in state Socialism. It seems we agree with the outcome of such authoritarian systems under that guise. Of course, I admit that people have tried it, and turned it into ‘state Capitalism’ with much of the same negative outcomes as neoliberal Capitalist states as far as I’m concerned. I am, however, a Socialist in the sense of believing in worker ownership and decommodification of needs.
You said: ‘Capitalists. This is a side show and a distraction’
I’m not sure what you are getting at here. Do you have anything you can point me to that explains in greater detail your personal perspective. You seem to share some of the same criticisms of the current systems as I have, but I’m still not sure if we are differing mostly in our word usage, or in something more fundamental (which on the subject of property we may very well be). However, comment threads are too unwieldy a place to discuss this in great deal.
I agree with you that the governing (hierarchal) class is ultimately the problem, but their ownership of property enables this - not just within the state apparatus, but within the private property legal system and enforcement system - the one (private property beyond personal or communal ownership) will always inevitably lead to the other (hierarchy, commodification, artificial scarcity, artificial borders, and violent enforcement). I'll cover this more in my next article.
I agree that in our current system there is primarily government and private property, but it was not always so, and need not always be this way. There are other kinds of property than state or private property - it is possible to have personal property that isn't private (privatised) property, public commons, or collective and communal property, and for most of human history these kinds of property existed (and I would argue still do outside of legal and state frameworks).
However, I believe there are fundamental ethical problems with the idea of classing people as property - as I recall there was a civil war in America fought over the question of whether people should be treated as property, and I believe that the idea is on the wrong side of history and human rights - https://peacefulrevolutionary.substack.com/p/are-we-property
Under Feudalism we had 'the greatest concentration of economic power [was] in the hands of the small minority' of owners 'whose peculiarity is the skilful manipulation of' their disempowered peasants. Under Capitalism the 'the greatest concentration of economic power is in the hands of the small minority' of ultra-wealthy Capitalists 'whose peculiarity is the skilful manipulation of' their disempowered workers, and it would still be thus under a version of Capitalism without a state.
Others may come to different conclusions, but I have yet to find anything I've read from them compelling or convincing. Perhaps you could write a post convincing me otherwise.
Property rights don't extend to being exempt from property tax. This makes some property owners furious.
This is a brilliant explanation of the difference between personal and private property and why socialism is no threat to the typical American homeowner like me.
I hope you do more of these.
Personal property is private property. The problem is that it has no limits and the state can arbitrarily take it. What is need is a clearly defined boundary between public and private property. From a socialist perspective only small business should be allowed for private property. All other sizes and scales should be public.
Private sometimes does mean personal - as in private diary, but it also often means commercial / for profit - as in private school / privatisation.
When it comes to personal property and private property they are usually seen as distinct in political theory because - you personally use your personal property, you don’t (usually) make a private profit from it, you don’t (usually) use it as commodity, and a private business entity doesn’t own it.
But I sometimes use the phrase privatised property to make distinction more clear. In next Friday’s article I explore these concepts from another angle.
Thanks for this useful clarification, especially around personal and private property. And about Libertarian thinking.
Thank you for explaining all of this. I have asked libertarians to explain their position and have been told that no one decides for them, and I said that sounds like anarchy. I thought I found common ground with their answer and I only pissed them off. Now I understand it a little better.
(As I've pointed out elsewhere) people use the word ‘rights’ in different ways - each of which are valid within their context.
Some people speak of rights as things which we should have the natural or moral ‘right’ (ability) to be able to choose to do without interference - those things which we should be free to have the choice to do - no matter what anyone else decides.
Others speak of rights as those customary or legal ‘rights’ (permissions) granted (or honoured) by and protected by a state and / or law (& thus could potentially be forbidden by such a state).
Sometimes these conceptions of rights overlap, sometimes they conflict, but the dictionary allows for both kinds:
Chambers Dictionary: right adj 18 socially acceptable • know all the right people. noun 1 (often rights) a power, privilege, title, etc that someone may claim legally or that is morally due to them. 2 (often rights) a just or legal claim to something. 3 fairness; truth; justice. 4 that which is correct, good or just • the rights and wrongs of the case.