[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 241 KB, 1200x1560, Portrait_of_Pierre_Joseph_Proudhon_1865.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15505634 No.15505634 [Reply] [Original]

>Property is theft
What did he mean by this?

>> No.15505655

>>15505634
He means private property.

>> No.15505696

>>15505634
you're omitting
>property is freedom
>property is impossible

>> No.15505699

>>15505655
how can you steal from yourself?

>> No.15505706

>>15505699
The concept “private property”. Not your personal property *stuff*

>> No.15505738

>>15505634
It was just his will-to-power

>> No.15505748

>>15505634
State imposition and enforcement of so-called property "rights" is literally just theft from the commonweal.

>> No.15505770

>>15505634
It's a self-defeating phrase if you really think about it.

>> No.15505776
File: 76 KB, 702x810, 4DCE14FB-F0D0-4344-B570-91E6456F4156.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15505776

>>15505770
No.

>> No.15505883

>>15505634
He represented socialism in its undeveloped form before it has managed to advance from the necessary stage of basing itself on bourgeois metaphysical categories. He accepted concepts such as justice (hence theft) as absolute and transhistorical and then attempted to apply them to a society from which they arose in the first place. The outcome was retarded, which the phrase "property is theft" perfectly illustrates.

>> No.15507014

>>15505699
By owning something, you are stealing it from everyone else.

>> No.15507021

>>15505634
He was a moron

>> No.15507067

>>15505776
Theft implies it is stolen property. Literally "property is stolen property."

>> No.15507120

>>15505634

Proudhon was not against the entire institution of property. In 'What is Property?', Proudhon says, "With me who, as a laborer, have a right to the possession of the products of Nature and my own industry, - and who, as a proletaire, enjoy none of them, - it is by virtue of the jus ad rem that I demand admittance to the jus in re.” (pp. 44) Property is okay as long as it is not used to facilitate the gross exploitation of labourers. 'Property is theft' has to be put into the context of 19th century France, where through the creation of the Napoleonic Code, Property was established and treated as an absolute right. Proudhon said that it was fine for property to exist as a legal structure in society, as long as limitations were placed on its mass appropriation.

>> No.15507126

>>15505699
You're not stealing from yourself, you're stealing from everyone else who needs a place to live or work. You own an apartment complex and 100 houses, so people who need a place to live need to pay you or become homeless - and you literally don't need to do anything to make money if you own housing, you can just sit on your hands until you die and rake in the cash. You own a big company, so you're allowed to dock people's labor and use it to pay yourself more, which you then use to buy more private property.

>> No.15507142

>>15507067
He is talking about the specific right to property, which is very different from law's governing property. People frequently misunderstand Proudhon... He is literally saying: Property as a right allows for massive wealth disparity, and it essentially has no positives. The French government is still allowed to expropriate our land, charge unequal taxes (marginal tax) and provide unequal security, etc. If people could simply appropriate land within reasonable limits, their natural rights to liberty, equality, and security could be protected. So again, he is arguing the right to property (not laws on property) only served the purpose of reifying massive wealth inequality in 19th century France

>> No.15507166
File: 74 KB, 480x480, 1573596597309.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15507166

>>15505634
No idea

>> No.15507199

>>15505634
amongst anarchodweebs there's a tendency to play clever with legalese and attack institutions for breaking some sort of "natural" law or whatever
this is even stronger amongst righttards like Rothbard e.g. libeling 17th century london bankers of engaging in "illegal" activity and such
of course all this is scoffed at by actual scholars and these idiots end up getting cucked in any real court of law