I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Proudon's famed, inflammatory, misinterpreted quote to start off. 
So let's debate: you already know where I stand.
So let's debate: you already know where I stand.
APP - Property is Theft
- Thread starter I'm Watermark
- Start date
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
So, we're supposed to debate a slogan?
Question for Rose: Are you guilty for all of the stolen goods you possess?
Question for Rose: Are you guilty for all of the stolen goods you possess?
Maybe you can explain what you think of it and define the terms as you and Proudhon would understand them.
You say that it was misinterpreted and I am not to familiar with it. I wanted to research it a bit and found that my initial thoughts were the same as Marx's and, now, Billy's. Theft is the usurpation of an item from the rightful owner who has a property right in the item. There can be no theft without property.
You say that it was misinterpreted and I am not to familiar with it. I wanted to research it a bit and found that my initial thoughts were the same as Marx's and, now, Billy's. Theft is the usurpation of an item from the rightful owner who has a property right in the item. There can be no theft without property.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Alrighty - I do not "believe that workers should be better compensated for their labor". Workers shouldn't be compensated for their labor, but instead by it. I, it should be noted, am against the use of wage labor.
And Billy's first line is a false premise for two reasons: a.) property isn't naturally private. b.) the labor of an individual and its value belong to that individual. This also property addresses Professor Baxter.
"Property is theft" means that private property with the social capability to generate capital is a form of theft. The Theory of Surplus Value, and the idea of the commons are generally used to defend this.
I see nothing in Billy's statement or mine that asserts that property is necessarily private. Proudhon's slogan seems to imply that, as I assume he does not mean to say an item owned by the collective is theft but that creating property by taking private ownership of it is "theft." But that still implies that someone or some group had a right to it, which implies property. I don't believe you have addressed the problem. Without property how can there be a theft?
If he meant something else then Marx's criticism that he is unnecessarily confusing is apt.
If a worker owns a piece of equipment that he uses to generate more capital is he engaging in theft?
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
I'll explain what Proudhon meant in full (But I suspect this should be a review for 3d, as we discussed this at some point.)
Proudhon was a kind of left-wing anarchist. He, like the left of today, recognized the inequity of holding a piece of land, a factory, or something of the like - which is called private property. While his opposition was due to a historical account of property - which mapped out what he considered the theft of property from the commons -, there's another element to this little aforementioned phrase. That being, the distinction between private and personal property.
Private property is property controlled by folks designated by capitalists. It carries the social and material value that enables the capitalist to appropriate value from the laborer, thus stealing.
Personal property is property that doesn't carry that value.
So, to answer your two questions:
1. There is property: the farmland, for example. And the use of property (along with social tools, such as the impact of firm size on competitiveness) to extract value (and thus capital) from the labors of proletarians, is theft. Property isn't the only thing that can be stolen.
2. If he uses it independently, no. If he pays someone else to do so, he's not a worker, and is engaging in theft.
Well, the use of property in this specific way is not property and so the slogan is confusing.
In a legal sense, it is.
So, then you are not arguing that "property is theft," but that employing someone is theft.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
I reject the distinction between private and personal property. They are always the same thing, 100% of the time. Even if you privately share property with others, each share, stake, or claim is personal. You privately own the entire sum of that which is your personal share.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Public property enjoys the same protection against theft that private property does. No one may attempt to steal it. The decisions are made collectively by the people of the municipality, district, county, state/province, region, or nation that holds ownership over it.
I also reject the distinction. But maybe not for the same reason. Rose, says that the distinction is that private property carries the social and material value that allows the capitalist to extract value from the laborer. This distinction is nonsensical and it is unclear what it means, if anything, in practice.
If I own a car is it personal or private property? If I start renting it out does that change it from personal to private or vice versa? What if I hire someone to rent it out for me?
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
So the employment of workers robs from them? How so? The contract between a worker and whom they work for is voluntary. If I have a CNC machine but no knowledge of G&M code, how is wrong for me to get someone else to do it for me? Its mutually beneficial to us both. You might argue that it benefits me more, but I also have more to risk, therefore it is entirely fair that I receive greater benefits from the still entirely voluntary and mutually beneficial arrangement.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
No, they're not. Can't you generate capital when you own a plot of land, employing farmers to work it? And, inversely, can you extract surplus value using a teacup, or a TV set?
Saying "they are the same thing, 100% of the time", is like saying WWII 100% didn't happen.
No, they're not. Can't you generate capital when you own a plot of land, employing farmers to work it? And, inversely, can you extract surplus value using a teacup, or a TV set?
Saying "they are the same thing, 100% of the time", is like saying WWII 100% didn't happen.
I could serve tea in my teacup and have a tv playing for customers to watch.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
If you hire somebody as a "taxi" driver, its private, if you don't, its not. What's important is whiter or not a capitalist exists to appropriate a share of the wealth produced by a given activity - which, in this case, is driving folks around.
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Is it "fair" that you own the machine, while the worker (who is more capable of using it than you are) does not? And further, in this relationship, is the worker being paid the full fruits of their labor?
I'm Watermark
Diabetic
Which is not something I stand in opposition to. Property ought to be controlled democratically.
This distinction is absurd. It has nothing to do with the nature of the item, the method of acquisition or the property rights one holds in the item. It is meaningful in the jargon of communists but not in any significant way to others.
Again, what you are arguing is that employment is theft. Your argument seemingly has nothing to do with property.
To highlight this further, if I hire an actor to play a role in a play or performance piece I am doing, is that theft?
Last edited:
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Its entirely fair,I bought it. If he had his own, then why would he work for me? Unless of course he did not have access to a market, or credit for a factory, or knowledge of sales. In such case he is equally unable to use the machine to his benefit. As for being paid, he's getting an agreed upon sum, as well as benefits.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Rose, you are simply inventing a definition with the intent of having your own way with it. There is no legal history or common tradition of making such a distinction. Marxists may have invented the distinctions in their own minds, but they have never had any basis in reality.