Property is theft!: Difference between revisions
Jemmy Button (talk | contribs) rv Undid revision 228041918 by SteveWolfer (talk) |
SteveWolfer (talk | contribs) rv - see talk page. Contrary to Jemmy's edit comments, I have been extensive in my discussions and his deletions violate multiple WP policies. |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__NOTOC__ |
|||
{{anarchism}} |
{{anarchism}} |
||
'''Property is theft!''' ([[French language|French]]: ''La propriété, c'est le vol!'') is a slogan coined by [[Anarchism in France|French anarchist]] [[Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]] in his 1840 book ''[[What Is Property?|What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government]]''. |
'''Property is theft!''' ([[French language|French]]: ''La propriété, c'est le vol!'') is a slogan coined by [[Anarchism in France|French anarchist]] [[Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]] in his 1840 book ''[[What Is Property?|What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government]]''. |
||
| Line 7: | Line 5: | ||
By "property," Proudhon referred to the [[Roman law]] concept of the ''[[sovereignty|sovereign right]] of property'' — the right of the proprietor to do with his [[property]] as he pleases, "to use and abuse," so long as in the end he submits to state-sanctioned title, and he contrasted the supposed [[property right|right of property]] with the rights (which he considered valid) of [[liberty]], [[equality]], and [[security]]. |
By "property," Proudhon referred to the [[Roman law]] concept of the ''[[sovereignty|sovereign right]] of property'' — the right of the proprietor to do with his [[property]] as he pleases, "to use and abuse," so long as in the end he submits to state-sanctioned title, and he contrasted the supposed [[property right|right of property]] with the rights (which he considered valid) of [[liberty]], [[equality]], and [[security]]. |
||
==Literal contradiction== |
|||
[[Karl Marx]], although initially favourable to Proudhon's work, later criticised, among other things, the expression "property is theft" as [[Self-refuting idea|self-refuting]] and unnecessarily confusing, writing that "since “theft” as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property" and condemning Proudhon for entangling himself in "all sorts of fantasies, obscure even to himself, about true bourgeois property."<ref name=marx1/> In a 1963 article, [[Objectivism (Ayn Rand)|Objectivist]] scholar [[Nathaniel Branden]], used the phrase's literal self-refutation as his prime example of the fallacy of the stolen concept: "[i]f no property is rightfully owned, that is, if nothing is property, there can be no such concept as “theft”…to use the concept “theft” while denying the validity of the concept of “property,” is to use “theft” as a concept to which one has no logical right—that is, as a stolen concept".<ref>[http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/the_stolen_concept.html ''The Stolen Concept''] by [[Nathaniel Branden]] - originally published in ''The Objectivist Newsletter'' in January 1963.</ref> |
|||
Proudhon was aware of the literal contradiction involved in the phrase; being inclined towards the use of [[paradox]], he also declared in ''[[What is Property?]]'' that "property is impossible", "property is despotism" and "property is freedom".{{page number}} A slightly less literal reading of the phrase makes his meaning clear.{{specify}}<ref>[[George Woodcock]], ''Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements''. Broadview Press, 2004; see e.g. page 13</ref> As 20th century anarchist scholar [[Albert Meltzer]] explains in ''Anarchism: Arguments For and Against'', Proudhon was using different definitions of "property" in the phrase "property is theft" – the property doing the thieving, and the property being thieved from. The property that is theft is private property, whereas the pre-existing concept of property that allows Proudhon to use the concept of "theft" is not the same property, but people's natural inheritance.<ref>{{cite book | last = Meltzer | first = Albert |authorlink=Albert Meltzer| title = Anarchism: Arguments for and against | publisher = [[AK Press]] | location = Stirling | year = 2000 | isbn = 1873176570 |pages=pp. 19–20}}</ref> |
|||
==Similar phrases== |
==Similar phrases== |
||
Revision as of 09:58, 27 July 2008
Property is theft! (French: La propriété, c'est le vol!) is a slogan coined by French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in his 1840 book What is Property? Or, an Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government.
If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder!, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required . . . Why, then, to this other question: What is property? may I not likewise answer, It is robbery!, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?
— What is Property?[I] , in Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
By "property," Proudhon referred to the Roman law concept of the sovereign right of property — the right of the proprietor to do with his property as he pleases, "to use and abuse," so long as in the end he submits to state-sanctioned title, and he contrasted the supposed right of property with the rights (which he considered valid) of liberty, equality, and security.
Literal contradiction
Karl Marx, although initially favourable to Proudhon's work, later criticised, among other things, the expression "property is theft" as self-refuting and unnecessarily confusing, writing that "since “theft” as a forcible violation of property presupposes the existence of property" and condemning Proudhon for entangling himself in "all sorts of fantasies, obscure even to himself, about true bourgeois property."[1] In a 1963 article, Objectivist scholar Nathaniel Branden, used the phrase's literal self-refutation as his prime example of the fallacy of the stolen concept: "[i]f no property is rightfully owned, that is, if nothing is property, there can be no such concept as “theft”…to use the concept “theft” while denying the validity of the concept of “property,” is to use “theft” as a concept to which one has no logical right—that is, as a stolen concept".[2]
Proudhon was aware of the literal contradiction involved in the phrase; being inclined towards the use of paradox, he also declared in What is Property? that "property is impossible", "property is despotism" and "property is freedom".[page needed] A slightly less literal reading of the phrase makes his meaning clear.[specify][3] As 20th century anarchist scholar Albert Meltzer explains in Anarchism: Arguments For and Against, Proudhon was using different definitions of "property" in the phrase "property is theft" – the property doing the thieving, and the property being thieved from. The property that is theft is private property, whereas the pre-existing concept of property that allows Proudhon to use the concept of "theft" is not the same property, but people's natural inheritance.[4]
Similar phrases
Brissot de Warville had previously written, in his Philosophical Researches on the Right of Property (Recherches philosophiques sur le droit de propriété et le vol), "Exclusive property is a robbery in nature."[5] Karl Marx would later write in a 1865 letter to a contemporary that Proudhon had taken the slogan from Warville,[1] although this is contested by subsequent scholarship.[6]
Similar phrases also appear in the works of Saint Ambrose, who taught that superfluum quod tenes tu furaris (the superfluous property which you hold you have stolen), and Ralph Waldo Emerson, who wrote:[where?] "In the last analysis all property is theft."[5]
Footnotes
I. ^ This translation by Benjamin Tucker renders "c'est le vol" as "it is robbery," although the slogan is typically rendered in English as "property is theft."
References
- ^ a b Karl Marx, "Letter to J. B. Schweizer", from Marx Engels Selected Works, Volume 2, first published in Der Social-Demokrat, Nos. 16, 17 and 18, February 1, 3 and 5, 1865
- ^ The Stolen Concept by Nathaniel Branden - originally published in The Objectivist Newsletter in January 1963.
- ^ George Woodcock, Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. Broadview Press, 2004; see e.g. page 13
- ^ Meltzer, Albert (2000). Anarchism: Arguments for and against. Stirling: AK Press. pp. pp. 19–20. ISBN 1873176570.
{{cite book}}:|pages=has extra text (help) - ^ a b William Shepard Walsh, Handy-book of Literary Curiosities, p. 923
- ^ Robert L. Hoffman, Revolutionary Justice: The Social and Political Theory of P.J. Proudhon, (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1972), pp. 46-48.