Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "아나키즘" in Korean language version.
The key is that "possession" is rooted in the concept of "use rights" or "usufruct" while "private property" is rooted in a divorce between the users and ownership.
The key is that "possession" is rooted in the concept of "use rights" or "usufruct" while "private property" is rooted in a divorce between the users and ownership. For example, a house that one lives in is a possession, whereas if one rents it to someone else at a profit it becomes property. Similarly, if one uses a saw to make a living as a self-employed carpenter, the saw is a possession; whereas if one employs others at wages to use the saw for one's own profit, it is property.
An Anarchist FAQ published in physical book form by "An Anarchist FAQ Volume I (2008)"
The similarities with Proudhon’s analysis is obvious. In fact, Engels and Marx were simply repeating Proudhon’s distinction between property and possession, although they narrowed it somewhat to focus exclusively on the means of production (and so ignoring rented housing and such like, which is property in Proudhon’s sense but not capital in Marx’s sense).
Of course, it would be churlish to point out that the usual name for a political system in which the owner of a territory is also its ruler is, in fact, monarchy. Which suggests that while "anarcho"-capitalism may be called "anarcho-statism" a far better term could be "anarcho-monarchism.
Within Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state. However Rothbard's claim as an anarchist is quickly voided when it is shown that he only wants an end to the public state. In its place he allows countless private states, with each person supplying their own police force, army, and law, or else purchasing these services from capitalist vendors … so what remains is shrill anti-statism conjoined to a vacuous freedom in hackneyed defense of capitalism. In sum, the “anarchy” of Libertarianism reduces to a liberal fraud.
The key is that "possession" is rooted in the concept of "use rights" or "usufruct" while "private property" is rooted in a divorce between the users and ownership.
The similarities with Proudhon’s analysis is obvious. In fact, Engels and Marx were simply repeating Proudhon’s distinction between property and possession, although they narrowed it somewhat to focus exclusively on the means of production (and so ignoring rented housing and such like, which is property in Proudhon’s sense but not capital in Marx’s sense).
The key is that "possession" is rooted in the concept of "use rights" or "usufruct" while "private property" is rooted in a divorce between the users and ownership. For example, a house that one lives in is a possession, whereas if one rents it to someone else at a profit it becomes property. Similarly, if one uses a saw to make a living as a self-employed carpenter, the saw is a possession; whereas if one employs others at wages to use the saw for one's own profit, it is property.
Of course, it would be churlish to point out that the usual name for a political system in which the owner of a territory is also its ruler is, in fact, monarchy. Which suggests that while "anarcho"-capitalism may be called "anarcho-statism" a far better term could be "anarcho-monarchism.
An Anarchist FAQ published in physical book form by "An Anarchist FAQ Volume I (2008)"
Within Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state. However Rothbard's claim as an anarchist is quickly voided when it is shown that he only wants an end to the public state. In its place he allows countless private states, with each person supplying their own police force, army, and law, or else purchasing these services from capitalist vendors … so what remains is shrill anti-statism conjoined to a vacuous freedom in hackneyed defense of capitalism. In sum, the “anarchy” of Libertarianism reduces to a liberal fraud.