Misplaced Pages

Property is theft!: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:12, 15 November 2005 editLulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,790 edits rm "scribble in margin"← Previous edit Revision as of 03:13, 19 December 2005 edit undoRenamed user 82lfy1a93y96wr3p (talk | contribs)3,551 editsm spNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Property is theft!''' is a slogan coined by the ] ] ] in his book '']''. '''Property is theft!''' is a slogan coined by the ] ] ] in his book '']''.


Taken at face value, "Property is theft!" appears to be an ], because theft, by definition, means depriving someone of his property. However, what Proudhon meant with the slogan was that (private) property is ''illegitimate'' - that there is no moral justification for the existence of private property, and that private property therefore represents a sort of "theft" from the common property of all mankind. Taken at face value, "Property is theft!" appears to be an ], because theft, by definition, means depriving someone of his property. However, what Proudhon meant with the slogan was that (private) property is ''illegitimate'' - that there is no moral justification for the existence of private property, and that private property therefore represents a sort of "theft" from the common property of all mankind.


In his analysis of property Proudhon distinguished two forms. One, which was based in title and confered absolute dominion, he believed was detrimental to society, "Property is impossible, because, if it exists, Society devours itself." Thus Proudhon objected to such institutions as the charging of interest, rent, or any profit generated on the part of a proprietor who did not directly labor with the property in question. The other, which he commonly refered to as possession, was based instead on labor and occupation, which Proudhon felt in turn would obstruct and destroy property if such rights were consistently applied. In his analysis of property Proudhon distinguished two forms. One, which was based in title and confered absolute dominion, he believed was detrimental to society, "Property is impossible, because, if it exists, Society devours itself." Thus Proudhon objected to such institutions as the charging of interest, rent, or any profit generated on the part of a proprietor who did not directly labor with the property in question. The other, which he commonly referred to as possession, was based instead on labor and occupation, which Proudhon felt in turn would obstruct and destroy property if such rights were consistently applied.


Proudhon used the term ] to describe his vision of a society where individuals and democratic workers associations could trade their produce on the market. In this system, he supposes exchange value to be determined by the amount of labor required to produce a commodity, in line with the ]. Proudhon used the term ] to describe his vision of a society where individuals and democratic workers associations could trade their produce on the market. In this system, he supposes exchange value to be determined by the amount of labor required to produce a commodity, in line with the ].

Revision as of 03:13, 19 December 2005

Property is theft! is a slogan coined by the French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in his book What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right of Government.

Taken at face value, "Property is theft!" appears to be an oxymoron, because theft, by definition, means depriving someone of his property. However, what Proudhon meant with the slogan was that (private) property is illegitimate - that there is no moral justification for the existence of private property, and that private property therefore represents a sort of "theft" from the common property of all mankind.

In his analysis of property Proudhon distinguished two forms. One, which was based in title and confered absolute dominion, he believed was detrimental to society, "Property is impossible, because, if it exists, Society devours itself." Thus Proudhon objected to such institutions as the charging of interest, rent, or any profit generated on the part of a proprietor who did not directly labor with the property in question. The other, which he commonly referred to as possession, was based instead on labor and occupation, which Proudhon felt in turn would obstruct and destroy property if such rights were consistently applied.

Proudhon used the term mutualism to describe his vision of a society where individuals and democratic workers associations could trade their produce on the market. In this system, he supposes exchange value to be determined by the amount of labor required to produce a commodity, in line with the labor theory of value.

See also

Category:
Property is theft!: Difference between revisions Add topic