Splendid is humankind for its diversity in construction. As with all living creatures, every individual is unique-- no two, not even genetic clones, are exactly the same. This is the result of an immesurably complex series of interactions between forces within the construction of that individual as well as the events and circumstances surrounding that individual through the course of time. The diversity we see in people, ideas, cultures, governments, vocations, are a natural result of this confluence of factors which are at once beyond our control and at the same time subject to the unique circumsances of each individual's life. The influence is mutual, and cumulative over time, both for the individual and for society.
It is from this interaction between past and present, individual and society, nature and nuture (so to speak), that are manifested the unique characteristics and traits that define each human being as a singular entity. We are all made of the sum total of our experiences within the context of our lives, influenced by the times and circumstances of those times while simultaneously exercising our own degree of control and influence over them through our own choices, actions, and ideals.
Additionally from this interplay of differing forces are manifested sometimes stark dissimilarities in talent, taste, and personality, as well as all of the other multitudinous factors which together form the composition of an unique individual. Through different experiences, people derive different lessons. Through different exposures, people adjust, adapt, and are modified in slight and drastic ways alike. Proclivities, inclinations, disinclinations, fears, wants, desires, hopes and dreams: these things are unique to individuals, and each provide important contributions to the sum total of a person, and develop gradually over time.
A person's standing in society is possibly the greatest contributing factor to the development of that individual. Their position influences which experiences they have, what lessons they learn, what skills they develop, which resources are made availible to them, what opinions are ecouraged, and so on and so on. The effect of this influence is cumulative over the course of an individual's life, and as time progresses, that individual's identity is more and more solidified along class lines. Their individual talents and natural proclivities are incorporated into this identity in the context of the wider society, and play a similarly important role in the development of the individual's indentity relative to thier standing within that society.
In every society and human association through the course of time this interplay has produced unique individuals, talented and suited for their time and place, well incoprorated into the accepted norms of that society. In every society, the dissimilarites in human talent and ability have played important roles in the survival of these societies, and the functioning of individuals within them. These dissimilarites have been interprepted and appeciated by cultures in various ways, depending upon the prevailing opinions and perceptions of each culture. The influence of western culture is over-arching and pervasive in the world today, which carries with it some alarming conserquences. Western culture, relative to this discussion, interprets the dissimilarities in individual talents and proclivities as representations of individual superiority and the favor of providence, or of God.
The norms of western capitalist soceity, as it is manifested presently, pretend to the notion that monetary and proprietary gain is the pirmary measure and arbiter of individual success and of personal worth. Consequently, individuals born into circumstance wherein access to wealth is the norm are funnelled by the circumstances of their lives and within the context of the institutions to which they are subject into lines of thought and into the development of skills and talents which are suited to the task of maintaining and utilizing this wealth in methods proscribed by the prevailing society as "appropriate". Similarly, individuals born into circumstances of disenfranchizement and servitude are funnelled into patterns of thought and skill which relfect their status in society, and via the institutions which influence their development, over time and generations, the differences in classes are maintined, enforced, and perpetuated.
In prevailing western thought, the differences in individual talent and disposition are considered to be self-evidentiary representations of individual worth. A person who has money is assumed to be better suited to its possession and use simply for the reason that this person "has it", regardless of how the money came into their possession, and regardless of what they do with it. The opposite is true for the "less fortunate", who are presumed to be somehow defective, somehow less worthwhile, for their lack of resources. This is called "The Myth of Meritocracy", and is among the most ruinous and ruthless fallacies which support and condone the continuing exploitation of individuals and disequalibrious distribution of wealth and resources. Because material wealth is so highly valued in prevailing western society, wealthy and powerful individuals are considered to be intrinsically superior to those whose exploitation is required for the acquisiton and maintenance of that wealth. These individuals, in conjunction with existing institutions and established authorities, contrive mechanisms for the perpetuation of these ideas and for the continution of the hegemony required for the implementation of them, typically by force of arms or economics.
It is through the interplay of individuals within the context of the wider society, as most often manifested by interactions with such intistutions that individuals are influenced in the course of their lives to accept the prevailing ideas of the cultures and societies in which they are born and raised, particularly in the context of their social standing or class. The same process influences the development of their talents and proclivities. Therefore, the manifestation of dissimilar talents is not evidentiary of a dissimilarity in human worth, but rather an indicator of the universality of the human condition. True, physical make up plays a co-equal role in the development of skills and abilities, and as the physical construction of an individual is entriely not of their choosing, should not be considered evidentiary of personal deficiency or failure; rather, it should be appreciated as a unique manifestation of the sublimely complex and diverse array of human possibility. Neither should the expression of one talent or skill versus another be regarded as reflecting on a dissimilarity in personal worth between one individual over another, for these talents are also unique to the individual representing them, and formed naturally through the course of a splendidly unique individual history. Neither is it appropriate for any individual or organization to attempt to divide individuals into categories of worth relative to a broader society based upon arbitrary cultural designations regarding the primacy of one expression of talent and diversity versus another; without fail, institutions which set themselves in positions so as to enable the division of human diversity into categories of "worth" or "utility" do so primarily for the purpose of ensuring the continued service of those skills and the individuals possessing them to wealthy and powerful individuals and organizations which possess the requsite means to influence and control the aforementioned institutions which retain the power, through force of arms or economics, to make such designations; designations that are, without fail, purely cultural and arbitrary distinctions, done specifically (though often tacitly) for the perpetuation of the rule of the few over the many, and the exploitation of the labors of the masses to support the vanity and hubris of the ruling class.
Know always that this aspect of the human condition is universal: we are all part of this same scheme of interaction between our own personal histories and the societies and cultures in which we develop as individuals, regardless as to which society specifically this may be. The differences between us as individuals, rather than divide us into classes of more and less worthwhile people, are expressions of magnificent diversity and personal singularity and uniqueness, and help to define us as human beings. All People Are Equal in worth- no one person is intrinsically better than any other simply for the sake of the uncontrollable circumstances which have influenced their development as individuals; no expression of human possiblity is inheirently superior to another;
and no institution, no organization, no individual, no god and no government has the right to legislate, arbitrate, or otherwise designate human worth, for All People Are Equal, without exception or exemption!
Hale
For countless generations, societies the world over have been divided fundamentally into two castes: those who own, but do not work and those who work, but do not own. This dichotomy is maintained through a multitude of means, as diverse as the minds which devise them. Ultimately, all established authority perpetuates itself though the use of violence and other types of force, such as the denial of food, education, and other human rights. It all boils down to who has the power to enforce the decisions they make on other people, regardless of the malignant effect these decisions have on the people affected by them. The evident fact is that those who possess power utilize force, in its varied and many forms, in order to perpetuate their status; and their status invariably comes at the expense of other human beings.
This fundamental truth has changed very little over the many years of modern human existence. Those who are able to implement force, in whatever form and by whatever scheme, do so out of self-interest and primarily for the sake of personal gain. It has been these individuals who have possessed the means to influence society's development through the ages, and have done so for similar reasons. Ethical and doctrinal systems and institutions have variously been established in order to provide justification for these individuals and their exploitation of the masses. These systems, such as laws, governments, and dogma, at every turn prove their fallacy, as they are readily and judiciously applied to those do not possess the requisite power to influence them, and are widely and easily ingored by those who do possess such power. And again, at the root of their power is the use of violence, intimidation, and countless other heinous crimes which are broadly called "Authority" and ultimately are manifestations of force. This is what Mao Zedong meant when he famously quoted that "Political Power grows out of the barrel of a gun". Or at the point of a sword, or a police baton, depending upon the context.
Bearing this Preamble in mind, let us proceed to the purpose of the article, the title of which I am borrowing from a pioneer of anarchism, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. The modern manifestations of the two castes mentioned earlier are the two ends of the economic equation: Capital and Labor. These names can be potentially deceptive, so before proceeding, let us define them better.
To say that Capital is "those that own but do not work" is not entirely accurate, as readers of Das Kapital will attest. Capital is itself a product of the working person's labor: A builder of ships produces capital in the form of boats, a writer of poems produces capital in the form of poetry, a cultivator of food produces capital in the form of food, a steel-smelter produces capital in the form of workable metal and tools, and so on and so on. Any worker that labors to produce anything produces capital, no matter what the product ultimately is. Even the labor itself can be capital in certain cases. "Labor", referred to earlier, then can be said to be the working people, those who "work but do not own". It is we who strive to produce, we the workers. "Labor", in this context, shall be said to be the efforts and products of people who strive to be productive in any capacity which produces capital.
So what then is "Capital", in the terms of the equation mentioned earlier? To refer to the phrase "those who own but do not work", Capital is the end of the equation wherein the productive labors and beneficial, ueful capital produced by working people are expropriated (Read: Stolen) by the ruling class for the express purposes mentioned earlier, namely personal, selish gain at the expense of their fellow human beings, and the hijacking of goods and services which they did not earn for the purpose of maintaining their lifestyles, status, and power. The monopoly of force possessed by the Ruling Class enables this grand crime, which is seen time and time again throughout the course of human history.
As mentioned earlier, the ruling class employs an endless variety of institutions and fallacies by which it justifies and perpetuates this ongoing process of expropriation and exploitation. Primary among these methods are deception and misinformation, which are disseminated widely and variously through docrtinal institutions such as schools, churches, and vaious other means of distributing information (henceforth refered to broadly as 'the media'). George Orwell once said "A trained dog will jump through a loop when a whip is cracked; A truly well-trained dog will jump when no whip is present." The same is true for people. While the ruling class maintains a monopoly on the use of force, it is not always practical or even possible to utilize this force on a scale necessary to maintain their control and status. Through the manipulation of the common discourse and distribution of fallacious misinformation (by which the ruling class is itself often decieved), working people come to believe that certain practical realities prevent them from achieving their own productive goals, as well as require them to remain in their situation of exploitation and servitude. Indeed, it is often the case that these "practical realities" can manifest with very real and very severe consequences, up to and including the use of force against them as individuals by the established authority. Through control of the media, education, and common discourse, individuals are encouraged to feel isolated and dysfunctional if they find thmeselves classified by prevailing perceptions as being "deviant" or "dissenting", and in conjunction with real consequences provided through the use of force, are strongly discouraged from activities and lines of thought which countermand the status of servitude imposed upon them by the established authorities.
One such fallacy, the focus of this article, particularly present in western capitalist (Read: "Plutocracy", or "Kleptocracy") societies, is the lie which is widely known as "Property". The institutions established and controlled by the ruling class, "those who own but do not work", will provide very specific yet remarkably vague qualifications for what property actually is; the definitions change quickly and easily around the requirements of those individuals who possess power and ill-gotten wealth, so as to better accomodate the expropration of Capital from those who produce it. The indefinate character of property as it exists in the carefully cultivated "reality" constructed by the ruling-class serves them well, as it enables them to change it at will and in response to their ever expanding quest to exploit the working peoples of the world. In reality, many societies have widely varying definitions, some have none at all, for what property in fact is. Generally, the consensus seems to be that property is closely related to habitation and responsibility. Beyond that, there is little consesus. Indeed, what property is seems to be a primarily cultural distinction, subject heavily to individual interpretation.
Let us consider the following hypothetical. A wealthy man buys a plot of fertile land, and orders the construction of a large, well-built house. He pays "his" capital (which as mentioned earlier, was expropriated from the work of others) to the established authority of the region, and to another wealthy man who commands a team of builders. In short order, the house is built. Very soon, the work is done, and the wealthy man hires a gardener who, with great skill and care, raises a bountiful garden on the site. The wealthy man feels confident and satisfied that the house belongs to him, and that he owns that land upon which it has been built. The wealthy man is sure that the garden belongs to him, and claims all the vegetables within to be his property.
But he is lying to himself, and stealing from everyone else!
It was not he who built the house; no, it took the labor of a dozen skilled men, whose trade the wealthy man knows nothing about. It was not he who harvested the timbers, or mixed the cement, or forged the nails, for the wealthy man knows nothing of these honest crafts, nor could he achieve any of them on his own even if he did. Though he lives there and populates the house with many fine things, none of which he built or has the skill to maintain, the house is too large for one man to maintain, and the wealthy man knows nothing of maintaining a house, so he hires it done. Maids, repairmen, et cetera. Even if he knew these trades, a wealthy man's house is much too large to be maintained by a single wealthy man, so he must exploit the labors of an endless number of other human beings in order to satisfy his vain lifestyle. Is the house his? Absolutely not, for he did not labor to produce it or any aspect of it!
And what of the Garden he says he owns, and the produce within? The land was fertile long before anyone lived there, and would have been whether or not anyone did. The wealthy man does not labor in the garden, and does not care for the plants within. Out of incompetance or laziness, he hires someone else to work land which the wealthy man claims is his own, to produce vegetables which the wealthy man claims as his own. But without the labors of that gardener, the land would remain fertile, but vegetable-free! And without the labors of that gardener, weeds and pests would shortly overtake the garden, returning it to its original condition within less than a year. Indeed, that produce is far more the product of the Gardener's labor than the wealthy man's capital!
The same is true for any means of production. Like the garden in our example, a wealthy man cannot own a factory, or a workshop, or any other means of production which require the labor of working people. For those implements would not function or produce without those labors and the maintenance of those individuals acquianted with them, and neither can he own anything produced via the labors of those honest people, for he had no role in their production!
Does the land belong to the wealthy man? Hardly! The planet earth is far more ancient than any man--- that ground was there long before the wealthy man drew his first gasp of life, and shall continue to be there long after his body is less than ash and dust. For the earth, the wealthy man's life is fleeting beyond measure, and the wealthy man can no more own the land beneath his feet than he can claim ownership of the clouds above his head. No matter how wealthy he may be, all the capital he may expend or labor he may exploit in his efforts to control either will amount to nothing and be ground to less than nothing by the endless procession of time.
Indeed, the authority from whom the wealthy man "bought" the land has no right to it either; for if we trace back the roots of history, we find that in the past as today, established authority has always employed violence in order to achieve its goals. This has been particularly true in the case of land acquisiton. In every land, it is a story of warfare and pillage, of slaughter and rape; kings and generals and emperors and presidents, each employing their own force to brutal effect, removing peoples from their lands and generations later themselves being removed by the same means and the same titles, held by different people separated by the gulf of time, though with the same odious and malicious intent. It is a story with which those of us from North and South America should be particularly familiar.
So what then is property? As it is defined now, by the established authority and by the ruling class, Property is Theft of the honest labors of other human beings, expolited and subjugated for the sake of the perpetuation of the same machinations that provide for their enslavement--- at best.
At worst it is the legacy of the rape of the earth and the wholesale slaughter of its rightful inhabitants, justified only by the greed and bloodlust of the ruling class of the past, which seeks to extend its control ever onward into a future it hopes also to own.
-Hale
