💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › freedom-press-london-property-freedom-journal.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:20:32. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Property [Freedom Journal] Author: Freedom Press, Anonymous Date: August, 1888 Language: en Topics: Freedom Press, Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Socialism Source: Freedom: A Journal of Anarchist Socialism, Vol. 1, No. 12, online source http://www.revoltlib.com/?id=3110, retrieved on May 1, 2020. Notes: Freedom Press, London
Another comrade contributes the following remarks, treating the same
subject.
Communist Anarchism implies a change in the mental attitude of men
towards things as well as towards one another, a change which will
necessarily bring with it a change of outward conditions. It implies the
disappearance of the idea of ownership.
Property as it exists at present is a claim to the absolute ownership of
things put forward by an individual of an association and acknowledged
by society. Lately we have seen this claim disputed with regard to land.
When Lady Matheson says of her estate in the Highlands shall I not do
what I will with mine own? there is a general and growing feeling that
the claim of any individual to hold land in such a fashion is
outrageous. This woman is not using the land. She only demands that we
shall all help her to prevent any one else from using it, a claim
contrary to common sense, when people are starving for want of what she
does not need.
But suppose she were using it? Suppose she were speaking not of an
estate but of a potato field, which she and her family were cultivating,
suppose her neighbors wanted her potato field to grow cattle fodder, and
she in return said, "Shall I not do what I will with my own?" and
demanded that we should all stand by her in her claim to this property.
Should we?
If we did, if we acknowledged her absolute ownership of that potato
field as long, and only as long, as she was actually using it, we should
have modified the idea of property. We should have made some attempt to
limit the claims of ownership according to the merits and the needs of
the proprietor, instead of leaving each to acquire all he can get
without illegal violence or fraud. But we should still be individualists
advocating rights of property, just as much as the lawyers who contend
to-day for a kind lord's absolute right to his estate. We should be
advocates of peasant proprietorship of Land, of occupying ownership of
houses, and so on.
By so doing we should leave the root of the evil untouched. The hard
dividing line of mine and thine would remain. The ownership of things
would still stand as a bar between man and man, crushing individuality,
alienating social feeling.
"Things are in the saddle,
And ride mankind,"
said Emerson; things and the idea of the individual possession of them,
of getting and keeping one's own particular tattle pile of goods. Things
sought and held in this spirit get as it were on our backs and weigh us
down like an Old Man of the Sea. They ride our energies and affections,
our aspirations and hopes. They put a bit in our mouths and a spur in
our side and guide our lives, and the more we get the closer the
bondage; until the very rich are almost as much shackled and oppressed
by their wealth as the very poor by their poverty. Have we not lately
heard that the younger Vanderbilt has gone nearly crazy beneath the
burden of his riches? yet the fever of accumulation grows unchecked as
long as it is fed by the temptations of private property, and the poor
are ground into yet lower depths of misery that the rich may be more and
more miserable. But this slavery of men to things is not confined to
owners of great possessions. In varying shapes it burdens the life of
the peasant proprietor striving and grinding early and late to add to
his plot of land, or the thrifty artisan always ready to take bread out
of his fellow's mouth by working overtime, so that he may add a few
shillings to the little hoard in the savings bank. The subjection of man
to the work of his hands is the curse which clings to property, and we
look to the destruction of the idea of property, to Communism, for its
removal.
Communism is not an arrangement for giving to each person property in
what he is using or equal property to all, it is the abolition of the
idea of property, of ownership, altogether. Does it seem strange to
think of things as ownerless, of the claim of individuals to their use
being settled by no abstract rules explained by a lawyer? When you feel
inclined to laugh at the idea of masterless things, recollect that not
so many hundred years ago, our ancestors would have laughed at the idea
of a masterless man. Readers of William Morris's 'John Ball' will
remember that one of the first questions the poet hears in dreamland is
"Whose man art thou?" And when he indignantly replies "No one's man,"
the peasant at once says, "Nay, that's not the custom of England," and
supposes that he must have come "from heaven down." That is a perfectly
true picture of English feeling four or five centuries back, and yet
today the idea that every one must necessarily belong some one else, who
is personally responsible for him, seems ridiculous.
One day it will seem as ridiculous with regard to things. Why must a
potato field be some one's property? Is there no other and more
reasonable way of settling who is to work on it?
The daily experience of Russian peasants or Scotch crofters, settles the
question with regard to land. Where no abstract rights of property are
known or enforced, land is cultivated according to an amicable agreement
between those whose needs are concerned. But how about other things, how
is the use of them to be apportioned fairly unless we admit ownership?
Is my neighbor entitled rudely to interfere between me and the things
with which I have some personal relation and which are supplying my
needs? Is he entitled without any consideration for my feelings to ride
the horse I tend, to take possession of the sewing-machine I am about to
use, to retain my favorite pencil in his pocket, to carry off the
tea-pot given me by my grandmother, or insist on employing my comb and
brush, to say nothing of intruding himself into my room when I prefer
solitude?
If there were no way of securing respect from others for one's relations
towards things but an acknowledgment of the rights of property, it would
be tattle use to talk of abolishing those rights, for such respect is an
essential part of human happiness. It is the vague idea that this
respect for personal relations with things depends on property, that is
the real objection to Communism in the eyes of many people. A very real
objection if property and a true human relation to things were one and
the same. But are they? To be sure of it we must consider, first, if the
acknowledgment of abstract rights of property does secure the true human
relation of men to things, and secondly, if it could be secured on no
better grounds.
First, then, what constitutes a man's real relation to things? Either he
has created them, put his own qualities, his own thought into them,
shaped them so that they repeat his personality, or he tends, fosters,
develops them so that to him they represent a certain portion of his own
care, affection and energy. And in either case he loves them with some
of the same instinctive love which he feels for himself. Thus the author
has a sense of personal relation with his book, the mason with the house
he helps to build and decorate, the housewife with the clothing she
devises and sews, the gardener with the plot of ground he cultivates,
the carter or shepherd with the animals he tends.
Again, we each of us have a sense of instinctive attachment to the
things which supply our needs in proportion as they satisfy our
individual tastes and requirement---as they suit our fancy. In this way
we get attached to special tools, special workshops, special houses,
special furniture, special clothes, special sorts of food, even special
knives and pencils. By using these congenial things we can produce
better work with less effort and in general enjoy a fuller satisfaction
in our life.
Here, then, are two very real sorts of relation between men and things.
Are they of the nature that can be assured and confirmed by any code of
rules as to abstract rights of property? We continually see on the
contrary that the rights of property interfere between men and the
things with which they are most intimately and actually connected. Human
beings are being separated every day from their own handiwork, and from
the things that can best supply their needs, from land, and machinery,
houses, food, and clothes, in the name of rights of property. Does the
farmer consider his carter's claim to the horses, or the capitalist the
workman's claim to the tools or machinery, or the landlord the peasant's
claim to the land or the woman's claim to the house or room or
furniture? No, abstract rights of mine and thine ride rough-shod over
human feeling and human need and violently divorce men and women from
things which are to them a part of themselves, thereby causing a
frightful amount of suffering, mental and physical.
Is this necessary? If there were no fixed hard and fast rules of mine
and thine to settle the claims of men to the use of things, would this
suffering be increased or lessened?
If society acknowledged no such rules, if it were Communistic, the
relation of men to things would be determined as relations between
persons are in most cases settled already, i. e., each case by free
choice and on its own merits. There is, there can be no law to prevent
another man from coming between me and my brother, my friend or my
sweetheart.* If personal relations clash, we must arrange them according
to the circumstances, feelings and needs of the people involved. There
are no fixed rules, but on the whole we preserve an attitude of respect
for one another's claims. If we did not, society would be impossible and
no acknowledgment of abstract legal rights could mend matters.
Now suppose abstract legal rights with regard to things done away with,
do not much the same reasons as prevent me from interfering between my
neighbor and his friends restrain me also from carrying away his tools,
turning him out of his house, driving him from his land, insisting on
riding his favorite horse, playin6 on his violin, using his brush and
comb, wearing his coat, or running away with the silver tea pot given
him by his grandmother? I do not acknowledge his property in these
things, but if I see that he has an actual relationship with any of
them, social feeling will instinctively restrain me from violating it.
If I am so unsocial a person as to be indifferent to his pain, still I
shall remember that I too have no abstract rights of property. As I do
unto others so will they probably do unto me and if I forget this, my
neighbors will remind me and resent unfair conflict which is a danger to
all of them, and a pain to the social feeling of most.
On the other hand, if I unfairly wish to monopolize things, coats,
horses, tools, or what not, when other people are going short, and there
are no fixed rules behind which I can by ingenious reasoning shelter
myself from the general human obligation to share the fruits of
the >common labor, this sort of selfishness will not be easy. If I am
imitating the unsocial behavior of the Marchioness instanced by Comrade
Kropotkin and keeping a big house all to myself when other people are
unhealthily over-crowded, I shall have no argument to meet the claims of
the over-crowded people and the protests of my neighbors against my
inhumanity. The house is not mine, and other people have an equal claim
with myself to be housed when there is house-room. If my necessities,
convenience, associations, or taste lead me to prefer certain rooms,
decidedly my neighbors would be unsocial to attempt to oust me, hut if I
try to keep more rooms than I really need, I shall have "rights" on
which to take my stand as any excuse. I and my needy neighbors must meet
as equals with equal claims and settle the matter by mutual agreement or
fight. In our century most of us prefer agreement, in cases where we
have no imaginary "rights" to back up our obstinacy. Those who have
lived in American communities say that it is curious how quickly the
idea of property fades from the mind when it is not kept up by a social
convention. How soon one begins instinctively to look on wealth as
something to be shared according to needs instead of contended for as an
individual right.
This is the changed attitude towards things which is dawning as a
desirable possibility upon the consciousness of our age, a change which
is at once the motive forge of the idea of expropriation and a security
against the lasting revival of economic slavery after the expropriation
is accomplished.
RICHES.
Since all the riches of this world
May be gifts from the devil and earthly kings,
I should suspect that I worshiped the devil
If I thanked my God for worldly things.
The countless gold of a merry heart,
The rubies and pearls of a loving eye
The idle man never can bring to the malt
Nor the cunning hoard up in his treasury.
WILLIAM BLAKE.
secure legal rights of property in wives, with such ill success that the
attempt has been to a great extent abandoned. This sort of property was
always specially insecure inasmuch as it was liable to steal itself.