There are several different and seemingly conflicting explanations of property:

• Proudhonian
• Lockean
• Neolockean
• Marxian

Proudhonian

In Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s view the Earth and all its natural resources are to be treated as one gigantic commons, with ownership entirely dependent on possession. Therefore the owner is understood to be whomever is commonly recognised to occupy, possess, or use the asset in question, and their right to said property should be respected in order to avoid conflict. This is usually either referred to as “possession property”, “usufruct“ or “occupancy & use”.

Absenteeism arises is where ownership of property is commonly recognised despite it either being ostensibly vacant, or primarily being occupied, possessed, or used by others.

Abandonment automatically occurs when it generally becomes apparent that property is no longer being used by anyone.

Possession has the benefit of being both simple and intuitive.

Lockean

According to the John Locke’s the Labour Theory of Property (LTP), land is not owned until such time as people begin toiling on it, at which point it is gradually transformed into private property.

Somewhat confusingly Locke referred to unowned land as “the commons”, therefore giving rise to the belief that it’s reasonable enclose the commons into parcels of private property. Locke did however make two provisos around this (not one). The first was that claims would need to be revised should there ever come a time when there was insufficient unallocated commons left for other people to enclose. Locke is unclear as to how this would unfold in practice. The second is around what Locke termed “spoilage” whereby a claim would only remain valid provided the land in question was actually put to use, rather than just being hoarded. Again Locke is completely non-prescriptive regarding this. Both provisos constitute little more than a tacit admission of the weaknesses in his own theory.

The Lockean view also fails to take into account of the various differing circumstances that may factor into private property.

Neolockean

Also commonly referred to as no-proviso Lockean, this is essentially just a dumbing down of Locke’s Labour Theory of Property, and as the latter name implies it is absent both of Locke’s provisos. Thus the neolockean view eliminates any automatic entitlement to own land, places no limitations whatsoever on the extent of individual ownership, and thereby implies that property can only be disposed of by being traded, gifted, or consciously abandoned.

Anticapitalists argue that neolockean property inevitably gives rise to a class monopoly over land and natural resources, since the absence of any commons or viable but unallocated land would leave those without property no choice but to “earn a living” by labouring for those who own property.

Marxian

Karl Marx sought to distinguish between personal possessions consisting mainly of consumer goods, which he termed “personal property”, and the absentee ownership of capital goods, which he somewhat confusingly termed “private property”. Marx then went on to critique the exploitation that is said to arise structurally when the means of production are privatised.

There’s a problem with Marx’s definition though, in that it gives the impression that the means of production should instead be treated as a commons, effectively rendering all workplaces ‘open access’, which is clearly an unworkable proposition.

Composite View

This is not altogether dissimilar to the Lockean view in that it identifies two main forms of property:

1. Commons – land or natural resources in common/social ownership that are jointly controlled by all, but which anyone may occupy or use on a non-exclusive basis.
2. Private Property – the owner determines who may occupy, possess, or use the asset.

It does however introduce five distinct subtypes of private property.

1. Personal Property – the main occupiers, possessors or users are recognised as being the owners.
2. Absentee Property – an asset that is either vacant but not abandoned, or predominantly occupied, possessed, or used by others.
3. State Property – the owner is the state.
4. Communal Property – an asset owned, and occupied, possessed or used exclusively by a community, where any notion of ownership is contingent on membership of said community, and automatically abandoned without compensation should that membership be discontinued.
5. Collective Property – a workplace owned & operated exclusively by its workforce, where any notion of ownership is contingent on membership of said workforce, and automatically abandoned without compensation should that association be terminated.

---

[NOTE – capitalists may reasonably argue that shareholding literally constitutes collective property, but since that’s already encompassed by absentee property let’s not begrudge collectivists a label for their preferred form of ownership!]

---

While the composite view affords a much more nuanced perspective, it’s also much more complex and harder for people to grasp. More problematic is that it fails to define any abandonment criteria for personal or absentee property.

The Problem

Thus we arrive at the problem with property, in that there exist at least five conflicting yet overlapping interpretations. This is troublesome in any debate where the protagonists refuse to agree on a common terminology, and instead insist on arguing at cross purposes.

The Solution

Rather than attempting to alter the definition of private property, which some people already consider to be too broad, or to divide it into various subtypes, a better approach is to delineate property based on other attributes, and there are non-arbitrary ways of doing this:

1. Abandonment criteria, where sticky property means ownership is maintained until a conscious decision is made to abandon the property, verses possession property wherein there’s an inherent automatic abandonment criteria.
2. Abstraction – where intuitive property is primarily occupied, possessed, or used by its owner, verses abstract property that is primarily occupied, possessed, or used by others.

This provides the tools to accurately describe property in terms of how it works rather than the circumstances around it.

Conflicting Outlooks

Anarcho-capitalists believe that it’s somehow possible to peacefully mandate the stickiness of abstract property in the absence of the state, whereas statist capitalists, minarchists, and anticapitalists all refute this notion as being nothing more than wishful thinking.

Communists, collectivists, mutualists, and the various types of individualist anarchist (including market anarchists) believe that possession would be the basis for all property in a stateless society, and that if conflict is to be avoided then the right to possess abstract property would entirely depend on the agreement and cooperation of others. This does not rule out scenarios such as property leasing or financial compensation is lieu of labour , but eliminates any prospect of giving rise to a class monopoly over the means of production.

So who is correct? We hereby respectfully submit Exhibit A for your careful consideration.

Origin of “Snowflake” as a Pejorative

Interesting fact: in the 1860s the pejorative “snowflake” was used by abolitionists in Missouri to refer to those who opposed the abolition of slavery. The term related to the colour of snow, referring to valuing white people over black people.

Anarchists (with their acute appreciation of the history of class struggle) resurrected the phrase in the early 90s, around the time that Internet flame wars first became a ‘thing’, and employed it in reference to the authoritarian right. A “snowflake” was someone who believed their genetic makeup to be ‘pure white’, and who would enter total meltdown in reaction to anything that conflicted with their ideological perspective (be it gays, blacks, or breastfeeding in public).  This subtlety went entirely over the heads of the auth-right, who perhaps due to their lack of self-awareness perceived “snowflake” as just “name calling”, and ironically started using it in retaliation!

This is likely how “snowflake” came to feature in Chuck Palahniuk’s 1996 novel Fight Club, which famously included the quote: “you are not special, you are not a beautiful and unique snowflake”. This line was later included in the film adaptation, and thus entered into popular culture. Nowadays “snowflake” is sadly associated as a pejorative used by the alt-right against the liberal left… unless of course you were a Generation X anarchist in the 90s.

Thus ‘anger’ was originally the prerogative of conservatives and other reactionaries on the right. These ‘snowflakes’ would take offence at anything ‘different’ (typically anything not white or ‘straight’) and become morally outraged about it. Their authoritarian tendency was to ban, prohibit, censor, or segregate stuff they were’t comfortable with.

Political Correctness

The notion of “political correctness” was first applied in reference to that which strictly adhered to a range of ideological orthodoxies. For example, in 1934, The New York Times reported that Nazi Germany was granting reporting permits “only to pure ‘Aryans’ whose opinions are politically correct.” Ffwd post-WWII, and the term was being used sarcastically in reference to Marxist-Leninist doctrine. By the 1970s the left had also begun using the term in a sarcastic manner, albeit in reference to the sort of lip service routinely employed to placate them (the sentiment being in reference to the political perversion of fundamental correctness).

Up until the 1980s mainstream egalitarian thought had predominantly been social, in that it dealt the politics of class, and advocated equality of treatment. Gradually this was supplanted by a populist liberal take on egalitarianism that dealt with the politics of identity, and advocated equality of outcome. These liberal egalitarians unironically adopted political correctness as a strategic method of delivering social justice. They began to express outrage, at the outrage being expressed by those on the right. This heralded the Age of the Pathologically Offended.

Egalitarianism: Social vs Liberal

Black Cat Worker Collective is founded on social, not liberal, egalitarian principles. Correspondingly, as a dive bar, Krakatoa is steeped in a culture of respect and tolerance, as opposed to one of judgement and intolerance. Our view is that outrage cannot be counteracted with outrage, and that the notion of being offended at someone else taking offence is nonsensical. One cannot preach tolerance from a position that is in itself inherently intolerant. Respect cuts both ways. Yelling in an angry person’s face is unlikely to change their mindset. Make love not war.

The problem with liberal egalitarianism is that it’s reactionary and therefore inherently authoritarian in nature. Advocates believe that others will slowly conform to its ideals, through the application of political force. All this does is thought police fundamentally wrong opinions underground, where they bubble away, giving rise to perceptions of oppression. Liberals have in effect birthed the alt-right: a reactionary movement, to the reactionary movement, to the original conservative reactionaries.

Or as George Carlin more succinctly put it:

The social egalitarian response is three-pronged. It not only seeks to address the underlying structural issues, but also strives to reeducate, and is outspoken in its rejection of the authoritarian solution… that latter aspect being crucial to flushing this nonsense out. If people are harbouring views that are racist, sexist, or homophobic, then forcing them to conceal those, makes it much harder to address the problem on an interpersonal level.

Any worthwhile progress in equality, has arisen from structural changes facilitating equal treatment rather than via the banning of free speech.

For example “the right” actively seek to criminalise homosexuality, whereas liberals actively seek to criminalise homophobia. They are in effect pursuing the exact same means in an effort to secure polar opposite objectives.

Social egalitarians reject criminalisation as a solution to anything. Instead they focus their efforts on education and securing equal treatment. In this case legalising marriage for same-sex couples. Other welcome structural levellings have included universal suffrage, common age of consent, allowing everyone to the use public transport regardless of race, and numerous changes to the school curriculum to encourage equal treatment early in life.

It’s often assumed that those seeking to ban stuff are the same people as those working to dismantle coercive structures. Although these strategies tend to parallel one another, there’s seldom any real overlap. While liberals express similar aims, their approach actually impedes structural reform, as it mainly serves to entrench opposition to it.

Class Struggle Anarchism

Although oppression assumes multiple forms, there is but one mechanism. It is impossible to oppress someone unless you have scope to dominate them. Class struggle anarchism is predominantly about dismantling passive structures that facilitate domination. We eliminate class distinctions by levelling the playing field. Rather than criminalising the use of slurs, you seek to render them meaningless and obsolete.

Highlighting the differences between people, actually creates scope for oppression. People can only be targeted if they are perceived as a distinct group. This is why the social egalitarian component of class struggle anarchism advocates for equal treatment.

Class struggle anarchism, does not propose lumping everyone into a single economic class, rather it’s the recognition that we are all equally worthy parts of the same human race.