Welcome to our newest JazzFanz member!!!

[LogGrad98]

Anarchy does not necessarily mean 'no state' or 'no rules'. archy as in monarchy defines who rules. A- or an- means no or not. So anarchy just means no rulers. It is the proclamation of an ideal just like democracy is. People speak about living in a democracy all the time even though we obviously are not technically living in a democratic country. People apply a level of literalism to Anarchy that they do not apply to any other political philosophy even though they have never read any of the anarchists. The ideal does not mean we throw pragmatic considerations out the window.

If you believe that we should strive to reduce the authority of the state to the absolute minimum we reasonably can, increase the authority of the self over the self to an absolute maximum, and that we should also strive to empower the all individuals rather than just the corporation or capitalist in the private sphere than you are an anarchist.

There are many flavors of anarchy and many different ideas about how to get there but the statement above, I think, pretty much sums up the general idea.



Historically they are. He was referring to that as robbery.

The communists sought to make all property collective. He was speaking to them when he spoke about property being revolutionary. He realized that it would cripple the individual and the masses and put them at the mercy of the state. How can anyone stand against any action of the state in such a condition?

I was just pointing out that property and the earliest forms of property ownership do indeed predate any form of "state". I really don't care one way or the other tbh.

 

[♪alt13]

I was just pointing out that property and the earliest forms of property ownership do indeed predate any form of "state". I really don't care one way or the other tbh.

What you are talking about is possession. Property means that you have some 'legitimate' claim to ownership. We can still forcibly take things from people. If I came to your home and took your car it would become my possession but it would not be my property.

 

[LogGrad98]

What you are talking about is possession. Property means that you have some 'legitimate' claim to ownership. We can still forcibly take things from people. If I came to your home and took your car it would become my possession but it would not be my property.

All property is, is something of value. No distinction is made about who values it, why, or for how much, or anything else. You want to argue semantics, have fun with that.

property (ˈprɒpətɪ)
n, pl -ties
1. something of value, either tangible, such as land, or intangible, such as patents, copyrights, etc

 

[Gameface]

All property is, is something of value. No distinction is made about who values it, why, or for how much, or anything else. You want to argue semantics, have fun with that.

property (ˈprɒpətɪ)
n, pl -ties
1. something of value, either tangible, such as land, or intangible, such as patents, copyrights, etc

He didn't say it wouldn't be "property," he said it wouldn't be "my property."

 

[Gameface]

And welcome back franklin!

I feel like I'm the only person who doesn't know how you left.

 

[addictionary]

Historically they are. He was referring to that as robbery.

The communists sought to make all property collective. He was speaking to them when he spoke about property being revolutionary. He realized that it would cripple the individual and the masses and put them at the mercy of the state. How can anyone stand against any action of the state in such a condition?

Collectivism is a good example. Practically, communism turned into a party oligarchy and the root exploiting of state as an experiment for humanity reflected itself economically in that way in communist state of Russia. Collectivism could be a step, just like having a political party to protect the rights of proletarian class against the wealthy bourgeois, but obviously, it became just an illusion after Stalin, and weakness of human nature to power prevailed again.

Theoretically, socialism required the Workers' Party ending its historical function and get solved, collectivism turning into a natural understanding of the means of life that are not private properties, but means of a whole world's nation that has the knowledge to consume and reproduce them with a completely mutual, sci-fi'ly telepathic approach towards the means of living in the happiest way possible.

Then again obviously, it came down to just being a utopia. But socialist actions of mankind has made great benefits to the egalitarianization of the society as much as possible up until now, and it still lights a candle in the darkness of state's rule. Property could be a revolutionist action against the one-handed ruling of the state against society, but it could also simply mean that only the real holder of power who is the holder of property can balance or unbalance things up. So if the balancing effect of property is unbalanced, we're back to square **** once again with a fresh new governmental force that seeks for more property and power to exist.

 

[franklin]

And welcome back franklin!

I feel like I'm the only person who doesn't know how you left.

Apparently you and I. Is there some back story that's floating around?

And thanks, it's good to be posting again.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Apparently you and I. Is there some back story that's floating around?

And thanks, it's good to be posting again.

Not that I am aware.. Just some "where did franklin go?"s.

 

[Gameface]

I said something in the "posters you miss" (or whatever it's called) and someone said you got banned. I thought maybe I missed something.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I miss that thread.

 

[franklin]

I said something in the "posters you miss" (or whatever it's called) and someone said you got banned. I thought maybe I missed something.

Oh. That's probably because I changed my email address to an incorrect email and it set my rep at zero until I responded to the confirmation email, which I couldn't get. My inquiries to Jason were lost in his spam folder until, coincidentally, the same day I finished creating that new account that I messaged you from. Took me a week to figure out I mistyped benjamin.

If it wasn't for a new router allowing me to create a new account and Jason checking his spam folder I might have been lost to JF forever. Couldn't even post from my work computer on the duplicate.

 

[♪alt13]

All property is, is something of value. No distinction is made about who values it, why, or for how much, or anything else. You want to argue semantics, have fun with that.

property (ˈprɒpətɪ)
n, pl -ties
1. something of value, either tangible, such as land, or intangible, such as patents, copyrights, etc

I have previously admitted that his statement is reliant upon definitions. When speaking concepts semantics matter. I am not arguing for any definition of the word. I am not even arguing. I am just doing my best to relay a concept without butchering it.(I pretty much am butchering it)

Property has many meanings. Gold has a lustrous property but that is clearly not what we are talking about. The definition that you use is fine but it is also not what Proudhon is talking about. He made a distinction between possessions/personal property and property. He did not make the distinction for the sake of semantics but to try and convey his ideas and to be precise about concepts having only the imprecise tool of language with which to do it with.