“The distinction is most important for land or other means of production, so that “personal possession” and “personal property” are roughly equivalent, and references to “personal property” don’t bug most libertarian socialists like unqualified assertions of “private property” or “state property” can.”

Just curious Mike.

What in your opinion do libertarian socialists make of the distinction between common property (individual equal rights) vs. collective property (joint rights that tend towards unequal the farther abstracted away from consensus one strays) - what you are calling “state property”?

The most common approach distinguishes “possession” from “property.” “Property” can mean any claim of ownership, but most often [in these contexts] “property” refers to absentee claims of ownership, while “possession” refers to occupancy and use.

If precision is more important than brevity, “possessive property” and “non-possessive property” can be used, and “Lockean property” and “non-Lockean property” (or “labor-based property” and “non-labor based property”).

The distinction is most important for land or other means of production, so that “personal possession” and “personal property” are roughly equivalent, and references to “personal property” don’t bug most libertarian socialists like unqualified assertions of “private property” or “state property” can. The exact scope varies. Proudhon’s later works seem to describe using use/possession as the main consideration for land, and original creation [of the goods] as the main consideration for capital. Some anarchocommunist works seem to dismiss original creation [of the goods] entirely.

But - setting aside the exceptions for extra-precise terms and for personal property, the objection is usually to “private PROPERTY” not to “PRIVATE property.”

Mike Erwin

P.S. I don’t mean to suggest there’s a right terminology or a wrong one.