The power structure is necessary to enforce said private property
Other than pure forms of anarchism, don’t all systems require a power structure for enforcement?
Also, I’d argue that a system requiring enforcement is not the same thing as it being a system of enforcement. But that’s mostly semantics… I don’t mind much what you wanna call them.
(not to be confused with personal property!!)
Do you not need power to enforce personal property? What happens if someone takes and hoards the personal property of others?
I feel every change in the status of property (even if what you want is to abolish some form of property) requires some level of enforcement, and then in order to maintain that established status (or abolishment) you’d need at least some form of agreement with the community to enforce it, disagreement will end up causing disruption.
Also, I’d argue that a system requiring enforcement is not the same thing as it being a system of enforcement.
You’re correct. I don’t agree with the original claim that capitalism (itself) is a power structure, nor do I think that power and power structures are inherently bad. But like you said, it’s mostly semantics - my position is that capitalism can’t exist without a power structure of class domination, where the private-property owning class subjugate the rest of society.
As for power structures, these can be surprising flexible. To be clear, I’m not disagreeing with your claim, just exploring assumptions about power structures, like if they’re necessarily hierarchical (anarchists often specify that their objection is to hierarchy, rather than institutions themselves). Consider cases where a militia of citizens, rather than a dominant police force, is used for law enforcement, such as Cherán after they kicked out their corrupt police and cartels. Like jurors in a jury - they have lots of authority and therefore power, but they aren’t a distinct, dominant class.
Do you not need power to enforce personal property?
Absolutely, and further than that, I think it will be necessary for a society with a socialist mode of production* to use power to prevent anyone from forcefully turning public property into private property.
* Unfortunately “a socialist society” is too vague, so enjoy that mouthful.
Other than pure forms of anarchism, don’t all systems require a power structure for enforcement?
Also, I’d argue that a system requiring enforcement is not the same thing as it being a system of enforcement. But that’s mostly semantics… I don’t mind much what you wanna call them.
Do you not need power to enforce personal property? What happens if someone takes and hoards the personal property of others?
I feel every change in the status of property (even if what you want is to abolish some form of property) requires some level of enforcement, and then in order to maintain that established status (or abolishment) you’d need at least some form of agreement with the community to enforce it, disagreement will end up causing disruption.
You’re correct. I don’t agree with the original claim that capitalism (itself) is a power structure, nor do I think that power and power structures are inherently bad. But like you said, it’s mostly semantics - my position is that capitalism can’t exist without a power structure of class domination, where the private-property owning class subjugate the rest of society.
As for power structures, these can be surprising flexible. To be clear, I’m not disagreeing with your claim, just exploring assumptions about power structures, like if they’re necessarily hierarchical (anarchists often specify that their objection is to hierarchy, rather than institutions themselves). Consider cases where a militia of citizens, rather than a dominant police force, is used for law enforcement, such as Cherán after they kicked out their corrupt police and cartels. Like jurors in a jury - they have lots of authority and therefore power, but they aren’t a distinct, dominant class.
Absolutely, and further than that, I think it will be necessary for a society with a socialist mode of production* to use power to prevent anyone from forcefully turning public property into private property.
* Unfortunately “a socialist society” is too vague, so enjoy that mouthful.