Is Proudhon's 'property is theft' a critique of all property?
No, this is a common misconception. I did not condemn all property, only the specific form I called 'property'—the right to use and abuse land, capital, and labor without obligation to society. This is theft because it allows the owner to extract unearned income from workers. However, I defended 'possession,' which is individual control over resources used directly by the possessor, such as a farmer's land or a craftsman's tools. Possession is legitimate because it is based on labor and use, not on legal privilege. My goal was not to abolish individual ownership but to transform it into a just system where no one can live off another's labor.
Ask Pierre-Joseph Proudhon the follow-up →