💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › dora-marsden-on-property.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:13:41. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: On Property
Author: Dora Marsden
Date: 1914
Language: en
Topics: egoism, property, The Egoist
Source: Retrieved on 10/02/2021 from https://modjourn.org/issue/bdr520929/
Notes: Originally published in The Egoist Volume I Number 9 (May 1, 1914) under the “Views and Comments” section. Title is unofficial and derived from the text.

Dora Marsden

On Property

On property. The mischief in all the debates which turn on property is

that unconsciously the debaters are infected by the clerical habit of

labelling as to quality. They are so put about to decide whether

property is good or one or bad for one that they forget that their first

concern is with what property is. The subject is by this means landed in

the thorny region of attitudes, oughts, and duties where the controversy

born of ungranted assumptions takes the place of the unrestrained tale

readily told. Out of the great clamour which in modern times has raged

about property two themes only can be picked out: one, that property is

“bad” for a man, therefore must men be influenced to acquiesce in the

placing of their property in Mortmain: in the Dead Hand which cannot be

harmed by, or do harm to, it—the corporation, the commune, the state,

the guild; and two, a fainter-sounding but more tenacious one that it is

“good” and that therefore the “influence” must be exercised to find out

ways and means whereby once got, property may remain attached to its

possessors.

Now both these lines of theory become obviously futile if one starts

from the point of what property is. Property, as its name sufficiently

indicates, is what is one’s own. What makes a thing into property is the

fact that a person owns it. Apart from this power of the owner to work

his will upon objects, “property” is not property: it is mere

substance—part of the objective world, whatever we will to name it. The

tight little problem with which a modern tendency of thinking is faced

is, how at one and the same time to retain and abolish property, how to

make commodities one’s own and yet not one’s own. When this has been

solved, “collective” ownership will begin to show livelier signs of

being acceptable to blunt sense, but until then, “collective” ownership

will remain what it at present is, and always has been, the cover under

which after winning a more or less grudging “consent,” the few who are

sufficiently powerful to mount to “control” will own the various

properties which nominally are the possessions of the collective group.

That is, the few will as long as they remain in power, work their will

on the “organisation”—the Dead Hand, and aforetime property, after

having been transmuted into “substance,” will again become property: the

properly of the controllers.

---

Property is “one’s own,” and driven from one owner it finds another as

inevitably as water seeks its level. And an owner is a master—one who

does with what he possesses according to his own nature, Accordingly

when a group vests its “property” in a Dead Hand, the Dead Hand of

necessity must elect living agents: the property finds its owners in the

agents. It is inevitable. Should the official be one who cannot “own” on

an extended scale he at once appears the “nithing,” the “weak man” in

the system. The “group” detest him in a sense and a degree very far

different from that in which they fear a tyrant, for he reflects their

folly back upon them, degree very far different from that in which they

fear a tyrant, for he reflects their folly back upon them, The “group”

appreciate even if they could not explain the difference between being

governed by a Napoleon and a Praise-God Bare-bones: even between a Sir

Edward Carson and a Labour M.P.

The reason is that what one can own, i.e. control, gives a measure of

what one is: and the instinctive knowledge which the masses have, all

phrases to the contrary notwithstanding, that the official in control is

the owner is revealed by the fact that they reckon such a one, being

elected to the position and not acting as owner merely proves himself to

be incapable. They realise that they have not merely divested themselves

of their own powers to own, but have perpetrated the foolishness in the

interest of one too feeble to profit by it.

---

The misunderstandings which are rife in relation to the holding of

property are due to the fact that we endeavour to limit the area over

which it extends. We own not only land and money (supposing we do): our

“property” extends to the limits exactly of what we are: the nucleus of

our property is what we are born with: instincts, family, grace, beauty,

manner, brains, and the original dower of power which we have which puts

them into evidence. These, are, in a more absolute sense than material

possessions—our property. In relation to what these are, the toll we can

levy of such material possessions as we desire will be. Human

calculations are likeliest to work out aright if we regard our

“property,” that is, our “own,” rather as a native endowment, than as

something which can be post-natally conferred, as for instance, our kind

of education; if we regard it as fundamental, a hazard of which the die

is cast at birth: like our breathing apparatus rather than a muffler or

artificial respirator. In fact, the analogy between the power to acquire

property and the power to breathe might be usefully extended. Both are

native endowments; both are necessary to continued existence; both are

powers which can be adequately exercised only on one’s own initiative;

both require for their exercise access to a medium external to the body

through which they exercise; both require their needs to be measured by

their wants: both invalidate the entire person by any failure to work

effectually, both have a minimum of specific requirements which they

draw from the environment in which they are placed; and these failing in

either case, only an advanced stage of inanition explains the failure of

fight to the last degree of savagery in order to enable them to augment

their powers to the necessary degree. That one acquires food and

clothing for its first satisfaction while the other acquires fresh air

makes no real sort of difference to the parallel. The ones are as

essential as the other and their acquisition to be considered as much a

matter of course.

---

It will of course be maintained that the power to acquire property and

the actual coming by it are two very different things; it is because

they are regarded as so different that those debaters who uphold the

“theme” that property is “good” are so concerned with the ways and means

of keeping property “stable”; ready to go to any length towards the

creation of an authority which will guarantee that men shall remain

secure in their property. Yet after all their efforts the nature of

property defeats them: it remains fluid. It gathers as a refulgence

about the individual powers, grows dense and dissipates exactly

according to the force of the individual will about which it settles.

The authority which was to keep it fluid, itself becomes the property of

those who choose to exploit it. All properties are as fluid to the

acquiring as air is: they know only one authority: the will which can

command them; and the means which can command them can be as readily

sought and found in the individual will, as can the force which

primarily conceives them as desirable. There are no firm and fixed

methods: there are merely convenient ones. Whatever method serves best

to the getting and holding is best. The line of least resistance to

actual possession is the line for successful competition.

Phrases—“morality,” “legality”—from the point of vision of the person on

the make are negligible quantities: they come into the reckoning only as

possible factors with resisters one might encounter on the way. They

belong to the kind of forces which, while not respected, are recognised:

they enter into the calculation in the account of resistance to be met,

but not in the account of the force which is to meet it. Moral and legal

forces are part of the machinery whereby those who think property “good”

try to make us “respect” our neighbour’s property: whereas the fit and

feasible thing is for each of us to respect our own. The respect due to

our neighbour’s property is the affair of our neighbour. Minding each

other’s business—and property—is a dull laborious and irritating affair.

Minding our own is our native interest; the proper affair of a swagger

person. For the possession of property is nothing more than the

expression of our personality and will, the material with which we are

able to do as we please. The seeking to acquire it is the endeavour to

get a free scope for the exercising of our own power: it is the avenue

to self-expression and self-satisfaction. Those who do not force open

such an avenue to some extent, are those who have nothing to express. A

deterring “respect” that the avenue is other people’s property is a smug

excuse provided for those who cannot attend to their own proper

concerns. It does not hold with stronger powers, nor does human

admiration go out to it. It goes to the “strong” men: whether it is the

exploiter who sets out to buy human stuff—body and soul—to express his

will upon—like Mr. Ford; or any “tyrant” who will sacrifice his fellows

life and limb—to please himself. They like it. When men gather up all

their scattered conceptions of what is admirable and create God, they

create him in their image and give him the world to play with. The world

is his: we and all that therein is. He makes his will through the world

and us: anything less would be a derogation of his dignity and power. It

is not an accident that men have conceived “god” under such an image: he

is the embodiment of the strong will which they fundamentally admire.

That the image entails their being hustled somewhat is matter for grim

satisfaction. There is a real pride in being treated sans cérémonie.

If it is felt occasionally that God goes too far, he does not lack

apologists. “May not God do what He likes with His own?” Of course God

has the advantage over earthly strong men of being very remote and is

thus saved from administering those aggravating personal pushes for

which well-beloved earthly tyrants usually pay with their necks: though

even a Job ultimately cursed him, in spite of his good opinion of him.

In short he ceased to respect him though he continued to like him: and

that is precisely what happens with the strong-willed here: the great of

the earth—those who work their own will in the world—are admired and

liked but, of necessity, tripped up, kept as much as possible on a

leash; as for the small, the feeble-willed who respect their neighbour’s

possessions—they are neither liked nor respected; they are trodden upon:

then actively disliked because they appear so messy and disfigured.

---

If then the person who respects only his own property, placing on his

neighbour the onus of respecting his, is the one who instinctively is

appreciated as the worthier person, it remains to consider why the

apparent practical forcing into effect of such instinctive impulses is

spoken of with disfavour: why, in short, the seizing of property is

regarded with abhorrence. It is mainly accountable to the uncalculated

effects of the efforts of those who seek to make property stable, by

guaranteeing a man’s “security” in his possessions. What actually

happens is that property follows its natural trend in the wake of the

strong will. The net which the invoked “authority” lays manages only to

ensnare those too feeble to break through it. It is like a spider’s net

which will catch flies but through which a man’: boot rips without

recognising its presence. In effect the pains and penalties which the

state attaches to attacks on property turn out to be handicaps attached

to the slowest runners. Prison is the potential home of the poor: the

crust and ha’penny stealers. The big thieves regard prison as outworks

of their various enterprises: the houses of correction which a kindly

state for some unaccountable reason supplies them with gratuitously. It

is not strange that the strong and rich believe in the state and the

penalties it imposes: because these things suit them; there is no need

for them to be hypocritical: they believe with all their heart and soul

that the poor should not steal: it would be quite awkward if they began

to: like two people both trying to get through a stile at the same time.

So to encourage them they will, unless it happens to be seriously

inconvenient at the moment, observe the demeanour of one who does not

commit petty thefts: in fact they would honestly be ashamed to. Let

Justice be done and preserve the Law-Courts!

---

The really queer and odd factor concerned in the morals clustered about

“theft” is that the propertyless take so readily to them. The

praiseworthy efforts of the rich in maintaining the “tale as it is

told,” are based on common sense and are comprehensible, but the

acquiescence of the “poor” is only explained by failure in intelligence.

Not only do their instincts fail to prompt them to the adequate

assertion of their will to acquire: they are not strong enough to resist

the laying-on of such an interpretation of their situation as makes a

bad case hopeless. They permit themselves to be bamboozled into the

belief that the piping voice of the magistrate saying to the poor, “He

that takes what isn’t his’n, When he’s cotched’ll go to pris’n,” is the

thundering voice of the Lord saying from everlasting to everlasting

“Thou shalt not steal.” What really means nothing more than “Mind your

manners,” gets mixed up with odd queer things like Universal Law,

Religion, Space and Everlasting Time, into which mixture the figure of

the policeman and hangman appear as the agents of an Eternal Justice

which deflects them—mere specks—into time.

---

Not all the “poor” however are thus pathetically and bemusedly silly.

They are not all putty made for the moulder’s hand, ready to be shaped

by the “statesmanship” of the perfect statesman. Quite a goodly

proportion would be able to appreciate Mr. Winston Churchill’s remarks

anent Sir Ed. Carson: appreciate them perhaps a shade more caustically

than they doubtless appeared to their author.

“The great democracy is watching. So often we urge these millions to be

patient with their bare necessities of life—the audience in India—in

Egypt—all are watching, noting—native soldiers, native officers—the

devastating doctrines of Mr. Bonar Law .... I thank God that I have not

to play for the stakes to which you are committed. ‘We are Tories,’ you

say, ‘no laws apply to us. Laws are made for working people—to keep them

in. their proper places. We are the dominant class and it will be time

enough for us to talk about law and order when we get back to office.’”

Yes, indeed!

— “Daily News,” Wed., April 29^(th).

What the intelligent “poor” in their present perilous position are set

to solve is the “calculation as to consequences.” The boomerang effect

of any aggressive expression of the will returns on them in the shape of

consequences—a bill to pay. The antagonisms, the rage of frustrated

schemes are roused in just those persons who are empowered to get their

own back with interest.

An accepted “value” which more than any other to-day stands in need of

overhauling is that of a guaranteed security: more particularly that of

security from physical violence. In the civilised world this supposed

“good” has long outweighed every consideration which might have seemed

to vie with it. It has become the sacredest of the sacred. It has had a

long run—a fact which has the merit of leaving its effects too defined

for doubt, and its present sublimation in modern democracies and modern

industrial civilisations calls out for judgment to be passed on its

worth. Three main charges can be brought against it. It destroys the

stamina of the people, whose young men fritter away their strength in

talk. They are as garrulous as old women, far more sentimental and far

less shrewd. Their battles are fought—in talk. It encourages the

peoples’ most dangerous vices: they become self-deceptive: at once

cocksure and timorous, swaggering yet having to seek a vicarious

vindication; vain of their “freedom” which is yet merely “freedom” to

obey and submit. It provides a system which offering a common protection

for all alike defeats the ends of contests in which men might become

apprised of their true level. They are all “equal” because “security” at

once makes unnecessary and forbids the putting of their full powers to

the proof. But more than these: the promised benefits which were the

considerations which led to this apotheosis of Guaranteed Security turn

out to be a complete hoax. Against whom do the “people” seek to “secure”

themselves? Not against each other, but against the top dogs: which they

do by doffing off responsibility for their own defence, and leaving

themselves bare and weaponless with their defence left in the charge

of—whom? Just these top dogs. The workings of the machinery inside the

heads of these democratic peoples is extraordinary and funny. They are

like men working in a pit filled with poisonous gases supplied with the

necessary fresh air by men at the surface whose only concern is to keep

them toiling down there for their benefit. At any moment they can switch

off the supply, and the workings of the cage which would bring the

toilers to the surface they are placing in their employers’ hands also.

And they imagine that making great to-do banding together in the depths

of the pit will have an effect, not realising that they must approach

more nearly to equal terms before their organising together can do much

for them. To abandon a straining simile: the re-assumption of

responsibility for self-defence, the self-provisioning of weapons of

offence and defence which will compare with those of their present

masters is the first concern of the propertyless who now depend upon

“employment” by others as a means of livelihood.

---

A correspondent, Mr. Henry Meulen, asks how far the advice given to

starving strikers to seize food would go with persons in less desperate

straits. No distance at all we should say, since for unarmed men to take

to courses of violence is to court the possibility of desperate

reprisals, and common sense justifies such action only on the

understanding that it is an alternative to an otherwise still more

desperate situation. Moreover, it stands some chance of success because

of its suddenness, its obvious need, and from a wholesome fear which

sees in it a lesser evil than a more ferocious which might come later.

But it remains an affair of wild impulse, and impulse cannot be adopted

as a policy in a dangerous situation. Our view is that all men and women

should equip themselves with weapons of offence and defence as deadly as

the deadliest of which they can hear tell: that only by this means can

the people be in a position to make terms with those who can call in

such to support them: that under such conditions the “property” question

would cease to be the festering class problem which it now is, but would

unravel itself on the lines of natural ability, human self-respect and

kindliness. The present paralysed condition of an unarmed “protected”

mob in the power of a handful of armed “protectors” supplied by the

state, and called a condition of law and order, peace and security, is

the real problem: not a “property” problem but a “power” problem.