Proudhon: What is Property? 

“As man seeks justice in equality, so society seeks order in anarchy.” ― Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, What Is Property?

This is something that indigenous communities have known for sooo long. Excellent video, glad to be a Patron

Would be interesting to see your coverage of Max Stirner/Egoism.

Great introduction to Proudhon.

You could make one video about Bakunin and his views on oppression

I remember i found your channel via your Baudrillard video and ever since you've been one of the best philosophy channels on RU-vid for me. Thanks a lot for your content!

I really liked your video. I'm currently libertarian being pulled downward and to the left towards the quadrant inhabited by Proudhon, Tucker, Spooner, de Cleyre and even Kropotkin. 2020 was a strange year indeed, and has brought me almost full circle to where i was(or thought I was)nearly thirty years ago. Anarchism is one of the most misunderstood ideologies so thank you for the elucidation and the fun with the miniatures!

It's so funny hearing this, it's like someone is telling me what I've been saying for years. Never knew I had an actua...long dead soul mate.

You have done a remarkable job of summarizing and communicating the ideas of a text that is remarkably in-depth and abstract. Very nice work!

Glad to see such a well made and in depth analysis for Proudhon and Mutualism.

Very interesting justifications, not only obviously in line with that of Marx's extensive highlighting of contradiction in a similar capacity, but from conceiving of alternative first assumptions to equalize them. Even Adam Smith himself pointed out the injustice of rent extraction within his own conception of capitalism, Chapter 11 in Wealth of Nations laying out in great detail how the justifying logic of capitalism quite clearly contradicted by it in that it is value extracted _without_ value produced and an inherent potentiality to the protection of private property by the state and therefore _must_ be addressed to suppress such exploitative and unjustified use of social mechanisms. _"Kelp was never augmented by human industry. The landlord, however, whose estate is bounded by a kelp shore of this kind, demands a rent for it."_ Good thing society definitely incorporated such considerations of principles into contemporary "economics" and didn't just completely ignore them or something...

2:31 can confirm, those pens are really really good to write with, would recommend.

Really enjoyed this video format. Looking forward to more!

Mate, been watching your videos for ages now, you're amazing at what you do, thank you!

This writer was loved and visited Leo Tolstoy who shared many of his opinions on Anarchy and Christian values being one and the same and the only real solution to a Golden age of the Kingdom of heaven coming to Earth.

Thought provoking and informative. Thanks a ton. I love your videos.

Super amped for this. Thank you.

Beautifully done.

Loved it. Great work

All your videos are great but your videos incorporating anarchist theory & theorists are definitely my favourite. Have you thought about doing something on contemporary anarchist theory? Like In Defense of Looting by Osterweill, How Non-Violence Protects the State by Gelderloos, or perhaps something from Black and/or Indigenous anarchists.

That was some excellent food for thought. Thank you!

Extraordinary video one of my favorites so far

Amazing well done video. I hope to see more content relating to proudhon👏

This is why, when pressed, most neoclassical economists will move away from relying on notions of justice when defending private property relations under Capitalism, and instead base their ultimate defence on a Utilitarian rationalisation. They will often admit that, yes, Capitalism is ultimately based on unjust expropriation in the past, but it’s consequences are so preferable as to make this a desirable trade off in a Utilitarian calculus. I have also heard them try to naturalise the concept of private property by pointing to animals which mark and enforce a territory, claiming that this proves human nature is just fundamentally biased toward this particular arrangement. Both of these apologies are of course misguided, but, as we all know well, those with a vested interest will often try anything to stay in power.

Lovely video, as usual.

This is becoming a very important subject.

I always thought of myself as privileged because I enjoyed the comforts of this theft. I now realize that I am actually a victim of it in the long run, and that duality is in the end the reason it exists. RIP

As I was watching this I got an ad for a property management company

Love the Intro!😊😊

Great stuff, thanks!

Truly remarkable. Must watch for everyone.😊😊😊

Grear channel and great videos keep it up man

Ancaps who try to claim Proudhon should watch this first

a video on Proudhon necessitates one on Stirner imo

really good!!

angry Engels has entered the chat

Proudhon is right always was. embrace it

Great video!

quarantine made me a mutualist

great work

Great video this is accurate! thank you

Congrats on going fulltime!

right is not mutual, in the sense that all are equal before it. But rather, it is mutual insofar as those who take and sustain their seizure have the mutual respect of those who cannot take from them.

Great vid

Entergaging!

i'm an anarchist at heart. and to me its a utopian ideal for society, but more of a frame of mind as an individual society. what is the anarchists answer to overpopulation? the right to assure ur own survival sometimes clashes with others. haha it works better in a utopian world of enlightenment and brotherhood, not so much the hellscape dystopia the world is in, and really has always been in.

We haven't come as far from feudalism as we like to think

Thank you :)

Thanks!

Hell yes!

Lovely

Loved the video!😄 Quick question: I have been moving further left as of late. I still, from my right libertarian days, subscribe to lockean homesteading as being legitimate, assuming that the lockean proviso applies. I dont believe in private property that derived from the enclosure acts/state privilege etc or believe that homesteading can be used on common property. Only on land which is unowned. I am personally okay with landlord'ism or absentee ownership (in a hypothetical anarchist society as I believe that with the abolition of the states land monopoly and capitalism that people would have better alternatives and that people who did choose to live under a landlord or work for a capitalist would for all intents and purposes be doing it voluntarily (if they would even choose to at all). I generally dislike landlordism and capitalist hierarchies but as you can see I am okay with it, hypothetically, assuming socialism is pervasive. I am in a slightly confused place and I obviously need to read more, but I also feel like I understand the use and occupancy position (somewhat). Do you, as a socialist, think that my stance on the validity of lockean homesteading is unreasonable? Or that I am failing to grasp something essential? I would love to hear anyones opinion 😊

Love the video! beautiful explanation with the toys!

Hey, man. Would it be possible for you to do a video on art or art history? Stuff like abstract expressionism? I remember seeing a Rothko in one of of your videos and it made me wonder.

Proudhon dressed like a hipster

Weirdest baking channel I've stumbled upon in Quarantine tbh

Its worth mentioning that he and Bakunin predicted where marxism will end. In tyrany.

Property is a spook because we live in a society.

fucking brilliant explanation, thanks a lot

I guess when it comes to survival I don't know if I care about justice.

Love the video and your explanation with the figurines but you couldn’t have zoomed out a little instead of trying to fit in the frame behind them? 😂

It's difficult to respond with a kind of opposite viewpoint in any concise way However I have an anti-socialism view of "What is property?" that's anarchistic I hope people will take this introduction and think about it over enough times to see the limits of every great thinker This line of thinking reminds me of when I was a Marxist in my early 20s Proudhon definitely thought it out more generally and less systemically by comparison to Marx, I appreciate that! Still trying to liv by the notion that "property is theft" will end up in most cases fruitless even with those who speak passionately the mantra together, however the premise "taxation is theft" more agreements and peace can be sustained At least that's what I've found Anyway! I hope you're going to make documents explaining the failures of both premises as well as their successes among your unbiased exposés introducing viewpoints I've much appreciated your examples of thoughts in history not only the abstractions of what could be practiced; oh pragmatism how do I balance you with my disposition of being a romanticist? - Your Quality Anarchist

So what you're saying is: I need to buy an apartment house.

No private thought or cultural dialogue of rights is healthy if it does not include responcability, a dymanic duo.

I think the ideals of mutualism are all you need. It doesn't matter so much how resources are allocated, so long as they're allocated by peaceful consent.

Land title is very different than owning your shirt. In Canada the class of ownership of land for most is called fee-simple. What that means is that people on the title to the land but not the land itself and that title is subject to rights and responsibilities and very strict limits based on common law and statutes.

Theft

Has he covered Bakunin??

I never could understood a socialist system, although I love their theories and criticisms. Indeed, means are common and possessions are socially contributed. But, what does this exclusive production and necessary occupation mean? If one 'rented' an acre and only worked with a quarter of it, can someone says I want the rest of it because they are not utilizing it as a whole however utilization means? If one cut out marble from a mountain does they get the exclusivity of the product even though this is an unrenewable product and they didn't actually do much to produce it? If one found a diamond or wanted to rent a land where treasures are hidden under, is it about who proclaims it first? who can claim such resources? It is easy have a vague idea like that in a small society, a tribe for example, where social order is easily maintained by common knowledge of a close-knit. But, in a large society, if lands are common unless occupied out of necessity and mixed with labor, who does one know if they have a right to proclaim the rented land or know when the evict the person not using it? Utilization, necessity, and labor are all very relative and vague. And so, in an attempt to replace the unlawful but clear Capitalist notion of property, what is occupation? I am all in favour of cultural domination over economical, just like economical dominated politics of the middle-ages and the political dominated the religious. But, can culture bring order and become semi-unified in a large society? I always have this problem with socialist theories: they work in a village not a country.

I heavily challenge the notion that proudhon wasnt a "wide-ranging and difficult author", he actually had a progressive social science running throughout his work, and his writing style can make him quite difficult to parse (and quote, see: Stirner and Marx's critiques, though Marx blatantly made stuff up too). What is Property? Is obviously one of his earliest works, and his theory of property evolves, going through atleast 3 stages. It's unfortunate that anarchists have such a shallow reading of him (sortof like De Mollanari is for ancaps), even those who proporedly come from a "proudhonian" lineage (i.e. Tucker).

You wouldn't run out of land because people die. If the original occupiers all had a piece of land, their progeny would inherit that land.

Yeah,, knead it.. knead it roughly.. 😘

common law: occupation [ possession]= 9/10 of the law J Swift deals with this by making a race live hundreds of years / immortal it all depends on who is doing / how is done / the populating perhaps

i find Proudon's argument abit hard to digest. if the labor of picking an apple from a tree grants right of property for increasing its use value through labor, how is the pickpocketing of an item an individual carries from point A to point B any different? does that make only objects that are in immediate use the property of their holders?

In the word of that hippie from Futurama, "you can't own property, man"

No actually my screen is mine thanks

Can you also make a video on Herman Hoppes' The economics and ethics of private property? Surely Prodhoun arguments will look like unevolve and obsolete

Why is Proudhon wearing trousers though

Great video. If possible, please also cover Hayek on law and justice. He is one of the philosophers often misrepresented.

And there it is. The "original sin" was not taking the fruit, it was God declaring it off limits. Property IS the problem. If God is everything (and indeed It is), how then can a thing be owned exclusively among us? Property is a uniquely religious/cultist concept.

Property is different from life and liberty because it must be pursued and acquired. I legally, morally, and ethically own the screen I'm watching this video on because I pursued and acquired it. I don't have a right to occupation but I do have the right to pursue occupation if I wish it.

Justice presupposes that we can determine what is "just" which we can't ever really do. Also equality is compulsory and there are many humans who do not want to be equal. Not because they want more than others but simply maybe don't even want everything that is available to them... :D Also what if some of those men on the fictional island decide to live together? Would 2 humans really need twice as much land than one human? And even if they didn't form "couples" they could decide to build one big common building where they'd have small personal spaces and large common areas. And they could decide to in a democratic way. I wonder how they would organise their common lives... I think there is no effective way to abolish property, but personally find decommodification and collective (not state) property to be the least bad solution for this problem. Stuff like cooperatives, commons and so on. #PersonalIsPolitical :D

Enjoyed the video, but have some serious reservations about Proudhon's thesis. 3:30 in or so Proudon gets to the his analysis of how property rights are not like other absolute rights. Namely not like right to life. He makes the claim that property rights don't seem to be absolute rights. We pay taxes,many government can take them in eminent domain cases. If the were absolute then then no one could make a claim to them. Classical liberalism knew of property is different that the one being critiqued. This fact is evidenced in the concept of in(un)alienable rights (life Liberty and pursuit of happiness (Declaration of Independence) or Locke's original "Second Treatise of government," (life, liberty, and property) define property as owning one's self, one's speech, one's activity, one's work product. None are absolute in that for societal benefit one can take property because it was used in the commission of a crime. One's life can be taken, and physical property taken, and their work can be taken even on the classically liberal ideology. Proudhon is equivocating the word "property" to mean something much less than his recent contemporaries Jefferson, Paine, and Locke? Is Proudhon going to ask us to account for "Justice," and "Laws" and not justify his own narrow view of "Property?" Without dealing with definitions and without examining deeply where these natural rights derive our video skips to less foundational concepts of property law. It seems that firstly we need to look at the claims of natural rights advocates to identify objective moral values and duties from "a creator" We Inuit these laws with our faculty of moral intuition, and we proceed from these morals to societal laws built upon them. I never heard any further grounding of rights whatsoever by Proudhon in this video, does he have such a argument? "Property is the right of increase claimed by the proprietor over any thing which he has stamped as his own." Proudhon's first axiom Nice a priori presupposition, but before we go any further, is it true? Can anyone mention any property they have that was acquired the way Proudhon's axiom suggests? I can't think of a single thing! Homes, cars, phones, dog, horses at my farm. Nothing acquired as a result of, "Stamping it as my own." If that were the case then the hell with social media, we should all be in the stamp-making business! I grant that this stamping phenomena has happened in history. He should have started with a similar modest claim as his axiom. But the claim Proudhon is making is that this presupposition is a or even the essential axiomatic feature of gaining property and that claim is a strong claim and false prima facie

"Property is theft... except in certain cases". Doesn't quite have the same revolutionary ring to it, eh?

Property is theft, thus i can take everything you have unless i use violence, is suggesting that doing any action is ok behaviour unless you use direct violence. So threaths and not respecting contracts or promises would also be fine. Perhaps even if someone is gonna attack you but hasnt yet means that you cant intercept the attack, even if its obvious; you simply have to wait until they hurt you first. If property is theft then you should be able to take everything even the clothes and occupy their home and destroy windows to come inside, as long as you dot use violence on the person. You could take all their tools, food and chances for survival and it would be fine. Would poisoning or leading someone to their death or a e vere danger be fine? Youre not using violence, you are merely making the food in the house they live toxic, thats your right as long as you dont hurt anyone. Its not as if its that persons own food, or not like youre being violent. Could i climb a mountain or dive in caves with someone and then without violence take the crucial equipment they used and leave them there stranded? And if property is sometimes theft but not always then its not really that consistent of an ideology. I mean why would property be theft when protecting a billionaire's banana tree in his 17th house that he hasnt visited in 10years from starving kids, but not be when a billionaire wants to take a poor kids food without violence?

People could save a lot of money on miniature trees if they just bought some weed. Two birds one stone

Mmmm, sugar cookie

"Property is Theft!"

I don't think Proudhon was talking about phone screens when he discusses property. Yours is the first video that pops up when i search 'what is property?'. My nephew, you must take greater care if your intent is to educate, or to accurately portray the ideas of history that preclude your contemporary education. Otherwise this entire enterprise is pointless. He meant property that has potential to better people's lives; primarily the means to produce, which could be thought of as the raw resources of the planet/galaxy, or even the very dirt we carelessly trod around on (because that's where your food comes from. Happy Meals require grass, and animals, and peasants to package it all...+ a toy! to distract you from the homeless fellow American in the dumpster by the drivethru. Shhhh! Turn away. Indifference is mercy. Church tomorrow.) Land Reform Now! Divide all federal land (excluding national parks) amongst the landless! I'd rather starve on my own land than work in Walmart and beg for welfare scraps. It's possible that organized working poor have already pooled their money and are building bunkers within BLM wildernesses. I'm an abolitionist. I had slavery to Walmart and Amazon. Dear United Nations, please send Blue Helmets to evacuate refugees of Runaway Capitalism.

The bit where he says that occupation requires the consent of others came out of nowhere and seems like a non-sequitur. Why does occupation require the consent of others? I don't need someone's consent to find a random piece of land and put a fence on it, I can just do it. I don't get it.

Reminds me of gentrification

You will own nothing and be happy.

No to vaccine passports, no to forced or coerced vaccines.

man, from his existence does not have the right to occupation. This would be an awful teleology, a prima causa. Of course, this is not real, it is an abstraction, it is a part of our political text. A positive capitulation etched upon a negative space.

Humans don't just pop into existence out of nothing. They have parents.

The concept of property (at least in practice) is older than humans. Animals have territories which they establish for themselves, and vigorously defend against interlopers. Humans are just fancy animals.

Agamben blows Proudhon out of the water. Our libertes are not 'ours' either, but not in the stoical sense, but rather by the fact that states can seize our liberties at will within any state of exception. The japanese american citizens held the same liberties as any other citizen, and yet by the state of exception of WW2, they were stripped of these rights. They didn't possess them, but rather, they were allowed to have them. So it is with all of us, for all things.

Proudhon didn't think property rights were a mistake... they merely stood in the way of his revolution, so he discarded them. Agenda always comes at the expense of truth. Additionally, "natural rights" and not the right of the strong to take from the weak. They are merely the rights we observe humans to have in the state of nature, those which are self evident: life, liberty, property. Furthermore, natural rights are not generated under law, laws conform to them. The state of nature precedes government, that's the fucking point of it. You have displayed a fundamental ignorance in professing otherwise.

This is not a good argument as it argues consequences only while attempting to slam principles in. Ownership of something comes from action, which comes from free will (ability to compare actions to ideal standards), which comes from self ownership. If you read this statement and say i wrote it, you know i own these words as it resulted from my action. Same as occupying land, Occupying it is an action, developing it is action. One does not own what he has not effected. Same goes for land, if a man does not touch the land but simply fence it, he owns the fence but not the unoccupied/unacted on land. To own one must act and one always owns all consequences of said actions even if knowledge is not present. Yes all land can be owned Yes some may not own land Yes some people maybe limited from their ability to survive and suffer or die. This is not a land owners fault but the actions of parents and the person. There is always a way to exchange value, no one owes you their actions even if it means you die.

What about the view that property is created and maintained through violence, and will exist so long as violence exists? I don’t think property is just, per se, nor is that what I learned growing up in a libertarian family. Instead property is just reality: if someone has the violence to enforce a claim and nobody contests it with equal or greater violence, then practically speaking that claim stands until someone does. So long as disparities in the capability for violence and finite resources exist, therefore, it seems to me like property will exist.