What is ownership

Origins
I started my research with the book What is Property by the French anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, which was published in 1840. A very interesting book, in which the concept of property is explained in detail and fiercely criticized. Highly recommended and, although the book was written over 180 years ago, still very relevant. While reading it I took notes, some of which I will share in this article. Let’s start at the origins. About the origins of property, Proudhon said the following:

‘Agriculture was a natural consequence of the growth of mankind. And agriculture in turn furthered population growth and necessitated the institution of lasting property. For who would take the trouble of plowing and sowing if he did not have the certainty of also being able to reap?’

By this he meant to say that agriculture is the reason for taking possession of land and thus constitutes the accidental cause of the creation of property.

Another of Proudhon’s assertions is:

‘All capital, material and intellectual, is the result of collective work. There is no individual merit. So actually everything is collective property. A city is the product of centuries and therefore the undivided property of all.’

In other words, no one invents or produces anything on their own. Everyone benefits from the work of others and all the work already done by previous generations. Anybody who claims that he/she/they achieved something entirely on their own is thus ignoring the efforts, energy and accumulated knowledge of the people that lived before us.

The two legal grounds on which the right to property could be based, according to Proudhon, are occupation (taking possession) and labor. He has considerable doubts about these himself, especially when it comes to common things such as land, air, water and light. On these he says:

‘What does labor have to do with the appropriation of common things? Did you not know that the dominion over land cannot be established any more than that over air and light?’

On property after labor, Proudhon says, among other things, the following:

‘My proposal is: the worker, even after receiving his wages, still retains a natural property right to the thing/value he has produced.’

And this one:
‘Even if all the individual forces have been paid, the collective force has not yet been paid. So there will always remain a collective property right.’

This last one I find very interesting, because he indicates by it that there is a difference between individual and collective power, both of which should actually be rewarded. I think the recognition of collective power is important, because it is indispensable to everything we have achieved so far and will ever achieve. That collective power should be rewarded with collective ownership I find a particularly nice thought.

A somewhat more famous statement by Proudhon is this:

‘Property is theft.’

With this, Proudhon rejects the fact that the employer pockets the surplus value produced by workers. ‘It belongs to the workers. If not, then the workers are robbed.’ In addition to this, the following assertions are also interesting:
‘Rent for land, rent for houses and interest for fixed capital are benefit, profit and gain. Three things we must not confuse with labor wages or the legal price for work.’
And this one:
‘There are owners who reap but do not sow, consume but do not produce, enjoy but do not work.’

Proudhon even went so far as to say:
‘Property rights were the beginnings of all evil on earth, the first link in the long chain of crimes and miseries that humanity has carried with it since its inception.’
That’s a pretty vehement conclusion, but he may well be right. It’s somewhat unsubstantiated to put it that way, but when I look at the world’s current misery, inequality, abuse and exploitation, I can’t deny that ownership, profit and advantage usually underlie it. A sad conclusion, but also a hopeful one, because it tells us where the solution is.

Proudhon himself also thought about the possible solution or alternative. Indeed, he wondered whether collectivism would become the form of society once property was abolished. About collectivism he said:
‘Collectivism is inequality, but not in the same way as property is. Property is the exploitation of the weak by the strong. Collectivism is the exploitation of the strong by the weak.’
That’s nicely put, but a construction of which I’m not sure it will work either. I am not convinced that we should speak of the strong and the weak, for if we were to abolish property, who are the strong and who are the weak? Is it about physical strength, intelligence, empowerment … Proudhon himself thought about it further and said:

‘The third form of society, a synthesis of collectivism and property, we call freedom. Freedom is equality, since freedom exists only in the social state, and without equality there is no society. Freedom is anarchy, because it does not tolerate the rule of the will, but only the authority of the law, that is, of necessity. Freedom is infinitely varied, because it respects every will within the limits of the law. Freedom is proportionate, since it makes room for healthy ambition and for the mutual pursuit of fame.’

Linked to this, he concluded the following:

‘Politics is the science of freedom. The rule of men over men, by whatever name, is oppression. Society reaches its highest degree of perfection in the unification of order and anarchy.’

Colonial past
While reading Proudhon’s book, I tried to imagine what life was like in his time, 1840. I can somewhat imagine it through books and movies, but I will never be able to truly understand it. I was born in 1974, more than 130 years later. To my mind, a ridiculous amount has changed in my life. When I was growing up, we listened to the radio, records and cassette tapes, and watched a color TV with only a few channels. No Internet, no smartphones, no tablets, no search engines, no Cloud and so on. Life was fairly simple, at least that’s how we see it now, but what about 1840? Was life many times simpler in 1840 than 130 years later? Technologically speaking, it was nothing compared to where we are today, but life does not consist of technology only, and therefore it is too crude to say that everything used to be simpler. We don’t have to paint a perfect picture of life in 1840, but it amazes me that property was written about in this way during that ‘simple’ time.

How is it possible that Proudhon had these thoughts about property when at that time slavery still existed? Slavery was not completely abolished in the Dutch Kingdom until 1863. Slavery is unfree labor. During the period of the transatlantic slave trade, people were kidnapped and then traded to work on plantations, in mines and in households. The enslaved, as ‘property’ owned by other people, were forced to perform work, without pay and in degrading conditions.
Human trafficking is only a small part of the colonial past we should be talking about when we talk about ownership. The Dutch colonial era spans roughly 400 years (from 1600 to 2010), during which land was seized in North America, South America, Central America, Asia and Africa. Original inhabitants were slaughtered, humiliated, subjugated, raped and traded. Gold, raw materials and products were stolen and brought to Europe. This colonial era, that we enterprising Dutch have long been proud of, is something of which we should be deeply ashamed. Of course we can’t do anything about what our ancestors did, but with today’s knowledge we should do as much as we can to make up for what happened. Not just because we have to, but because we can. We only have to want it. This has everything to do with ownership, since much of the wealth we enjoy today in the West derives from that time. It was stolen. It was not our rightful property and thus, today, we are still partly responsible for the situation of others, the less fortunate of the world.

The mother of all problems
I have to disappoint those who think that the colonial past and slavery are over by now. People are still being exploited, trafficked, mutilated and raped. By profit-oriented companies, in war situations, by human trafficking, child labor, sexual exploitation and so on. There is still plenty and unabashed abuse of both people and animals and nature. How is it possible that these things are still happening? How is it possible that we know about it and do nothing? Have we not learned anything from the past? Or is the conclusion of this story that we really can’t do anything about it because man is a depraved creature which will always try to improve his/her own position at the expense of others? I hope and do not believe that this conclusion is correct, and I agree with Rutger Bregman’s book De meeste mensen deugen. (Humankind). Of course there are people which do terrible things, but I am sure that most people wish a happy, honest and healthy future for themselves and for everyone else. So why we have derailed so tremendously can only be attributed to the system we have created. A system and a narrative based on the assumption that you can only be a successful, happy and good person if you have accumulated a lot of property, regardless of whether you earned that property yourself or have received it as a gift. Being rich stands (quite wrongly) for happiness, intelligence and success. Poverty, on the other hand, indicates stupidity, unhappiness and failure. If we believe in that narrative, we seriously go wrong. This is the so-called mother of all problems.

Space
When I read the book Wat we gemeen hebben (What We Have in Common) by Thijs Lijster a while ago, I found out that man has not only made the Earth into an object of trade, but the universe as well. There are people selling pieces of the Moon or Mars. The company Lunar Embassy (with the slogan ‘Selling Extraterrestrial Real Estate since 1980’) claims to be the only party on Earth legally allowed to sell pieces of the universe. They claim this because Dennis Hope thinks he found a loophole in the 1967 Space Treaty, and then legitimately claimed ownership of all the planets and associated moons. When I first read this I thought it was a joke, or an art project by someone who wanted to hold up a mirror to our society. But it turned out not to be a joke, it was serious business. That is, there are actually people who have purchased pieces of the Moon, Mars, Venus or other planets from this company. Mister Hope is lining his pockets by selling something that does not belong to him.

The commons
Apart from the rather bizarre example of Lunar Embassy, I believe it is a bad idea anyway to appropriate and trade land. In this regard, I fully agree with Proudhon, who said:

‘Someone who would be prohibited to walk on country roads, spend time in the fields, make fire, pick berries and cook in an earthen pot could not live. Therefore the earth, like water, air and light, is a first necessity of life, which everyone should be free to use, without harming the enjoyment of others.’

We are familiar with the idea of the common use of land, water, light and air as the commons. It used to be very normal to have shared farmlands, pastures and forests that were used and managed for both the individual and collective benefit. Unfortunately, over the centuries, those shared lands have been further demarcated and occupied for private use. We now live in an era in which almost every piece of land belongs to someone, a situation that I and many others would like to see changed. We want to return to more commonality and shared land. Precisely because the current division and land ownership in general create a lot of problems and inequality.
Commonality does not mean that there can be no rules or use agreements, but it certainly means that no one has an exclusive right to property and would thus be able to exclude others. Or as Proudhon put it:

‘Water, air and light are common property, not because they are inexhaustible, but because they are indispensable. The earth, however, is much less vast than the other elements, so its use must be regulated, not for the benefit of a few, but for the interest and security of all.’

You can organize the common land in a collective ownership construction, but as we have seen in the article ‘The Rights of Nature,’ we could also arrange it in such a way that forests, mountains, seas and meadows belong to themselves. In this way they could be placed completely outside the ownership of humans or the community of humans. Actually, in the case of land, water, air, light and even the universe, that makes much more sense. They should belong to no one, and thus to all.

Different forms of ownership
To better understand the current system, it is good to take a practical look at how it is organized. We can roughly divide the concept of ownership into five different types, namely: private ownership, corporate ownership, state ownership, collective ownership and steward ownership. These forms of ownership, except the somewhat newer form of steward ownership, are common knowledge and need no further explanation. Steward ownership means that the ownership belongs to a company, organization or forest itself and not to an individual or shareholders. Steward ownership is characterized by the separation of voting and financial power. You can read more about steward ownership on this page in the web docu.
In addition to these five types of ownership, there are a lot of other ways to legally establish ownership of something. These include patents, copyrights, trademark rights, neighboring rights, database rights, trade name rights and plant breeders’ rights. Patents are exclusive rights to technical inventions, a way of arranging a temporary monopoly on an invention or the further development thereof that gives you the exclusive right to offer a service or a product commercially. Let’s return for a moment to the beginning of this article, where we read ‘All capital, material and intellectual, is the result of collective work. There is no individual merit. So actually everything is collective property.’ Then one could not help but conclude that patents are ridiculous, unjustified constructs that should be abolished sooner rather than later. During the corona pandemic, public money (citizens’ tax money) was invested in developing a vaccine that was then patented by a private company. So the vaccine could eventually be sold for a lot of money, which is outrageous. First, it is terrible to sell a developed vaccine to the highest bidder and thereby exclude others. It is also incomprehensible that a company can acquire the exclusive right to a vaccine and thus line the pockets of its shareholders, while that vaccine could not have been developed without all the knowledge acquired by others in the centuries before us. A patent does not serve society, only individual enrichment.
You could compare the concept of copyright that to the idea of patents, but it is certainly not the same thing. When we talk about copyright we are not talking about a technical invention, but about a work created by someone, such as a book, a piece of music, a scientific publication or a work of art. Copyright deals with the intellectual property of that work. This means that through his or her copyright, the creator has the sole right to exploit his/her/its work. It is common knowledge that artists and musicians are often exploited by publishers, managers, streaming platforms, labels or other entities which do their utmost best to make as much money as possible from other people’s creativity. The very fact that this can happen indicates that the system of copyright is flawed. If you really want to protect someone’s intellectual property, then that piece of work should be unsellable. With this comes the same criticism as we saw with the patents, and which Proudhon already mentioned. Namely, that intellect and talent have come about just as much through collective as through individual effort. A musician, painter or writer has never created anything entirely on his or her own; that is impossible. So again, you would have to think differently about what exactly this concept of intellectual property means and how you can translate that collective effort into a piece of collective property. Regarding copyright, it is hopeful that there is also a copyleft movement that does give the public the freedom to adapt and redistribute.

Future
I could write endlessly about the sense and nonsense of ownership, but I hope it is clear by now that our ideas, laws and stories are in dire need of change. The focus on personal property and individual enrichment stand in the way of a healthy, enjoyable future for the greater good and for future generations.
You won’t hear me say that we should totally abolish personal or corporate property, not at all. They could simply remain in existence, but we should think more carefully about the consequences. What do these structures mean for humans, non-human life and the earth? I am convinced that we could and should arrange them in a different way. A way that results in less inequality, less problems, less exploitation and less destruction, and instead improves the well-being of many.
It is time to stop the glorification and aggressive protection of private property, and to make important necessities of life such as housing, healthcare, education, communication, food production and public transportation accessible and affordable to all, in a way that does not harm the earth and nature.

Just like Proudhon said, cities, products, talent and intellect are in fact collectively owned because they are not conceived, acquired and/or created by individuals, but the result of collective work. Add to this the fact that no one can live entirely on his/her own and that even the richest person on earth has no use for his/her/its wealth if there are no teachers, architects, bakers, electricians, doctors, pavers and other industrious workers. Our society, like a natural ecosystem, is built on a multitude of functions, talents, opinions and preferences. It’s a collective system with an incredible number of components that are all interdependent and thus, in fact, all equally important. Just as important or even more is our relationship with non-human life on earth. That relationship also needs to be reviewed and restored. All our possessions, wealth, health and happiness depend on a healthy earth. We should not control nature, but we should see ourselves as a part of nature, not owning the land, forests, animals and waters, but living together with respect and care for each other. This is important, because non-human life is an indispensable part of the big picture.
If we assume that we all agree that just about everything we have gathered and built around us is the result of collective work, that we cannot possibly live without each other’s help, talent, effort and a healthy nature, and that deep down in our hearts we would want everyone to be healthy, free and happy, then it would make sense to organize our society accordingly. In that case, we should focus much more on valuing collective structures and collective outcomes, and not be striving for as much individual wealth as possible. We should also live in harmony with all non-human life, instead of destroying the wonderful, magical nature on which our lives depend. Wouldn’t that be much better for ourselves and for future generations?