Proudhon believes that for somebody to own property, the person must keep using it. He is against loans and rent. My take is its hard to define 'using property'. Is the real estate of Donald Trump considered unused property and therefore not his or is he 'using' it from a managerial point of view? Are old toys and furniture in the house not mine anymore because I don't use them? Finally, his conception of property basically blows the point of saving so I find it wrong.
He was against loans (with interest) and rent but he was clear that he didn't want them to be abolished, just that they weren't natural. He did seem to accepts private property in objects, so the toys may still be yours, the land...not so much. Yes, Mutualism is pretty silly.
Mutualism might be the bane of my existence. I've read a little bit of Tucker. Some Proudhon, but not much. Candidly: Tucker's opinions on interest and rents are idiotic.
I presume Proudhon's are similar.
Wait until you run into a "mutualist" who supposes that a skilled laborer should earn less (per hour? per output?) than an unskilled laborer, because the work is "less difficult" for him.
Yeah, have fun with that one.
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
Kenneth: Proudhon believes that for somebody to own property, the person must keep using it. He is against loans and rent. My take is its hard to define 'using property'. Is the real estate of Donald Trump considered unused property and therefore not his or is he 'using' it from a managerial point of view? Are old toys and furniture in the house not mine anymore because I don't use them? Finally, his conception of property basically blows the point of saving so I find it wrong.
The real issue, IMO is what constitutes abandonment. Even the most ardent mutualst won't argue that your car is no longer yours simply because you've parked it for the evening, or that a stranger may sleep in your bed while you're away at work, or that the food in your refrigerator is only "your property" while you are cooking with, or eating it.
Paradoxically, when it comes to capital goods, (so-called "productive property") they adopt a different opinion: mere disuse is enough to invalidate any previously legitimate claim to ownership - even those established by use/production.
This is ironic, since they follow the Marxist tradition, and that we can clearly deduce that a capital good is the full product of someone's labor and that therefore to deprive that person of the full product of his labor is at least equally admonishable an offense as it were for him to keep that capital idle.
I'm working on a blog post that addresses this strange distinction. I'll try to circle back here and post a link when it's finished.
For a good overview and critique I recommend the work in my signature, The Socialist Tradition, which concerns Proudhon.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
"Finally, his conception of property basically blows the point of saving so I find it wrong."
As long as what you're saving is the product of labour then he thought it was fine to save it. You just shouldn't try to profit from those savings (either through rent, interest, dividends) etc
The problem isn't that it affects your ability to save, the problem is that it doesn't allow you to make returns on your savings in order to beat the wittling away of inflation. I've never read anything by Proudhon on inflation but I'd be curious to know what he thought about it.
The in-use idea of property is exactly the same as no property. Any object in a free-for-all can be used for one purpose and only one purpose at a time.