Be careful in making grand statements like that, using definitions that only a narrow range of people use. Anarchists are not against what most people think about when they think about private property:
To summarise, anarchists are in favour of the kind of property which “cannot be used to exploit another — those kinds of personal possessions which we accumulate from childhood and which become part of our lives.” We are opposed to the kind of property “which can be used only to exploit people — land and buildings, instruments of production and distribution, raw materials and manufactured articles, money and capital.”
And I find it disingenuous to make peremptory statements about “all anarchists” and “no anarchist”. We are a pretty diverse crowd when it comes to the political theory.
Well, that’s the entire point of the article, no? To explain what the difference between private and personal property is, and why private property (as defined in the article) is incompatible with anarchism.
And this definition is not some niche one only anarchists have. Basically any political theory has a variation of it, except capitalism, which is at the core about everything being private property.
And this definition is not some niche one only anarchists have. Basically any political theory has a variation of it
And call it differently.
Saying “we are against private property” is understood as “we are coming for your house, for your car, for your kids’ toys, for your tools”. Proudhon is voluntarily provocative in his maxim but I really think it is counter productive.
So you object against the headline only? Because the text immediately makes it clear that this isn’t meant.
Provocative headlines work, and people that only read headlines are probably not the right target audience anyways.
The headline and the first 4 pages that never define these notions. You have to reach B.3.1 for that.
I only read that far because I know (a bit) the various theories of property and wondered if they would define the “usage property” a bit later. Someone who does not know that private property has a different meaning in socialist literature would probably not have read that far.
Provocative headlines work, and people that only read headlines are probably not the right target audience anyways.
What is the target audience then? People who already know the anarchist definitions of private properties? These are learning nothing from that read. Here is the flow for the people who may have been interested but are going to get lost by that article:
- Provocative headline -> “What the fuck is that crap, are they saying what I understand, that I can’t possess anything?”
- Skims the first few pages -> “Yep, it is as stupid as it sounds”
- Closes and gets a wrong idea of anarchism and socialism in general.
This is a lengthy text on economic theory targeted at an already anti-capitalist audience, or alternatively at anarchists that want to understand better why anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in itself.
Obviously you wouldn’t link that in your racist uncle’s facebook group…
