I used to share a house with someone who used to say 'all property is theft' ...?

Question

I'm not well read enough on Marx to know what this means. Could someone help explain this theory to me?
Ed would use it as a way to steal stuff from the fridge, or books, or records, even money, yet he was convinced it was his 'right' to do so. I don't understand his point of view and he would never see it as stealing or disrespectful. What was Marx on about?

Answer 1

This is not a quote from Karl Marx.

It was the French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who claimed that "property is theft" ("la propriété, c'est le vol!"), in a book entitled "What is Property? An Inquiry into the Principle of Right of Government".

This quote is generally misunderstood by people (including Ed). Unless you read Proudhon, or an analysis of his work, you will not understand what he means. For Proudhon (legitimate) property is a right to ownership, which is based either on labour or occupation. Here are two illustrative examples from Proudhon's work. Even though he has been paid wages, a labourer retains a natural right of property in the thing which he has produced, because he is the person who has created it. When the business owner removes the object out of the control of the labourer, it is then that theft occurs. Unused land can not be regarded as property, because land can only be rightfully owned by use or occupation. Use or occupation creates legitimate property, which Proudhon calls "possession".

So actually Proudhon did not totally oppose personal property ("possession"), as long as it had active use. Indeed he thought that it could act as a counter-balance to the power of the state: "the absolute right of the State is in conflict with the absolute right of the property owner." So for Proudhon, "property" was used to further tyranny, whilst "possession" was used to protect liberty.

As an anarchist, Proudhon was very much a libertarian and an egalitarian, and so he opposed all forms of repression, including that of the Marxists. There are a number of ways in which, what he proposed, differed from Marxism. Because of the inherent problems in determining legitimate possession, he argued that all notions of property ownership should be abolished. This included communal ownership: "instead of inferring ... that property should be shared by all, I demand, as a measure of general security, its entire abolition." He argued that Communism did not make people equal, but, on the contrary, was a form of repression by the weak and mediocre("Communism is inequality, but not as property is. Property is exploitation of the weak by the strong. Communism is exploitation of the strong by the weak. In Communism, inequality comes from placing mediocrity on a level with excellence").

Ed stole, and then (probably unknowingly) quoted Proudhon out of context, in order to justify his actions. Proudhon would have seen Ed's actions as common theft, and Ed himself as an anti-social being, who could never be responsible enough to earn a place in an anarchist community.

Answer 2

The marxist notion of theft was based on the way a society is organised and not the actions of an individual. So what Marx meant was that we should act as a society and regard property as theft...that is individual ownership amounting to theft from the 'collective'. To misrepresent that as the right to steal from an individual is an excuse for the act of a thief. Marx made no reference to individuals of this kind, but I believe they are known as thieving, piss taking bastards. Hope this helps.

Answer 3

simplified, marx believed that all property belonged to the state,ie the people, so your friend was justifying his theft by using this as a get out, he was not taking someone elses property because all of the food in the fridge belonged to all.
the theft act states that to steal something ,''is to appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it'' [English law]. WHAT YOUR FRIEND WAS FORGETTING THAT ALTHOUGH HE MAY HAVE HAD MARXIST LEANINGS, YOU CLEARLY DONT, AND YOU PROBALY DO NOT LIVE IN A COUNTRY THAT IS MARXIST.
so his argument would not stand. He was and is a thief.

Answer 4

Proudhon came up with "all property is theft", not Marx.

Marx said that "if you do not work, you don't eat".

Why didn't you just take all of Eds things, including his clothes, and sell them to pay for the stuff he stole from you?

Answer 5

I believe Marx (roughly) believed that all assests ought to be equally distributed, and that appropriating things for private ownership was "stealing" from the masses.

Your roommate does not sound like someone *I* would like to share a house with!

Answer 6

Marx was a socialist. He wanted to abolish social classes. Everyone will work but everyone will have access to everything. It was to make it equal for everyone. Your roomate on the other hand seems to just like to steal without giving his share.

Answer 7

I think his idea was challenging the common assertion that humanity has the right to OWN anything. If you think about it, humanity has granted itself the right to claim ownership of land, and everything that can be bought and sold. If you challenge the idea that we have the right to grant ourselves ownership then everything we claim to own is stolen.

It's kind of a faulty assumption though because if you steal something, you're admitting to owning something or that it was owned by someone else. What he probably meant was that it isn't stealing if nobody really owns anything.

Answer 8

in an ideal world we'd share everything equally with no exclusive ownership, therefore (in theory) eradicating poverty, starvation, inequality etc. It has been achieved succesfully in certain remote tribes on a small scale. However it sounds like your former flatmate corrupted this approach for his own ends. Did he put back as much as he took or was he even prepared to. Sounds like a proper p*** taker. Met a few in my time with same corny line...I despise them.

Answer 9

Ed sounds like a true blue narcissist or sociopath. I'd personally avoid Ed at all costs. hopefully someday someone will put their foot as far up Eds *** as it will go. We may just see a wiser and kinder Ed after that

Answer 10

I think your room mate was just a moocher and a thief trying to hide behind a ridicules theory