4 ms·

> Private property first appeared as a concept in sacred contexts I can't watch a couple of dogs fighting over a bone and believe that the concept of private p

> Private property first appeared as a concept in sacred contexts I can't watch a couple of dogs fighting over a bone and believe that the concept of private property is a recent or human or even mammalian invention.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lukan 2y ago
This so very much. But of course you could argue that dogs were badly influenced by humans .. but also most other wild animals know the concept of territory and fight over it. But I think was meant with the quote is formalized property. Ownership tied to a piece of paper eventually - and this is indeed something different at some point.
- tonyedgecombe 2y ago
  It varies. Cats are more territorial than dogs for instance.
  - lukan 2y ago
    Surely it does. Also dogs, like wolves are pack animals. So not the single dog, but rather the pack has a territory. (And dogs include humans as their pack).
- pilastr 2y ago
  Sounds like someone could stand to put down the mouse and go read a book.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
AndrewKemendo 2y ago
Are you a dog? What of the cooperation an ant colony? People love finding examples that reinforce their biases
- mecsred 2y ago
  You ever seen two ant colonies fight?
  - AndrewKemendo 2y ago
    Moving the goal posts…it was proposed that two agents (dogs fighting over a bone) is proof of something I can only assume is the position of cooperation being “unnatural” when in fact it’s not. This then moves the goal posts to the claim that multi-agent internally cooperative affinity groups can’t coexist. Dogs don’t fight if there are plenty of bones to go around. Plenty of ant groups coexist in the literature. So, you’re most likely infected with the myth that there’s scarce resources. This idea of the humans are inextricably and unambiguously violent or in a state where we must compete for scarce resources, is a trope that is both wrong and a threat to long term peace
whb101 2y ago
"this is my cheeseburger" is different from "all 100 people in my village need a cheeseburger very badly; this piece of paper says that if any of them lay a finger on it, they get carted off to jail" they're more referring to the latter
pydry 2y ago
Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. I think maybe you're referring to personal property.
queuebert 2y ago
Maybe the dogs should write their own history books.
Agentus 2y ago
from a quick glance at the text i think he means legally institutionalized private property or equivalent. but he as an anthropologist has argued in other venues to revise historical origins of various concepts like currency and debt based on available evidence rather than academic myth. which is an earliest known origins argument based on available archaeological evidence rather than true earliest origins or mythologized origins for propagandized explainability. Of course this isnt relevant to your dog point, but just to contextualize a reoccurring theme of Graeber.
- wahnfrieden 2y ago
  also worth noting they published papers together with wengrow being an archaeologist and taking that perspective. he is friendly on twitter if you want to talk to him...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
shortrounddev2 2y ago
Leftists (Graeber was an Anarchist) distinguish personal property from private property. Personal property are your personal effects. Your clothes, your car, your desk, your pen. Private property is the ownership of land and, later, industrial means of production. Things which have been historically used in an allegedly communal context, or worked on by communities of people, but their product is privatized for the person who provided the capital for the land or industrial tools. I don't agree with this view of economics, but this is generally the line of thought among leftist thinkers
- wahnfrieden 2y ago
  At least in the book this link summarizes, it looks beyond anarchism and isn't written through that lens specifically There's a new film out I just saw at TIFF by Tsangari who produced DOGTOOTH by Yorgos Lanthimos called HARVEST with Caleb Landry Jones, anyhow it's a telling of the early days of the Inclosure Act, an interesting period of transition, performed w anachronistic timelessness
snapcaster 2y ago
I feel like this is an instance of "common senseism" for lack of a better term. You're not really engaging with the concepts presented (legally enshrined concepts of private property in a capitalist system) and dismissing it with some folksy sounding idea. Like others on the thread mentioned, you could pick a different arbitrary animal and come up with the complete opposite "conclusion"
analog31 2y ago
One thing I learned from "the dawn of everything" is that societies have had diverse approaches to property over the millennia. And I've seen that it varies by country and region, even today. Anecdote: My family went on a walking holiday in England. The entire country is crisscrossed by a network of walking paths. Many go through private farms. The same thing is rare, or even nonexistent, in the US. We were told that although we're allowed to use the land, there are certain stipulations, such as taking care not to damage the crops or disturb the livestock. Here in the states, my family "owns" the land that our house is on, but with a variety of limitations.
chairmansteve 2y ago
One difference is that a single dog can't claim to own all the bones in the country.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

lukan 2y ago

This so very much. But of course you could argue that dogs were badly influenced by humans .. but also most other wild animals know the concept of territory and fight over it. But I think was meant with the quote is formalized property. Ownership tied to a piece of paper eventually - and this is indeed something different at some point.

tonyedgecombe 2y ago
It varies. Cats are more territorial than dogs for instance.
- lukan 2y ago
  Surely it does. Also dogs, like wolves are pack animals. So not the single dog, but rather the pack has a territory. (And dogs include humans as their pack).
pilastr 2y ago
Sounds like someone could stand to put down the mouse and go read a book.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

AndrewKemendo 2y ago

Are you a dog? What of the cooperation an ant colony? People love finding examples that reinforce their biases

mecsred 2y ago
You ever seen two ant colonies fight?
- AndrewKemendo 2y ago
  Moving the goal posts…it was proposed that two agents (dogs fighting over a bone) is proof of something I can only assume is the position of cooperation being “unnatural” when in fact it’s not. This then moves the goal posts to the claim that multi-agent internally cooperative affinity groups can’t coexist. Dogs don’t fight if there are plenty of bones to go around. Plenty of ant groups coexist in the literature. So, you’re most likely infected with the myth that there’s scarce resources. This idea of the humans are inextricably and unambiguously violent or in a state where we must compete for scarce resources, is a trope that is both wrong and a threat to long term peace

whb101 2y ago

"this is my cheeseburger" is different from "all 100 people in my village need a cheeseburger very badly; this piece of paper says that if any of them lay a finger on it, they get carted off to jail" they're more referring to the latter

pydry 2y ago

Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities. I think maybe you're referring to personal property.

queuebert 2y ago

Maybe the dogs should write their own history books.

Agentus 2y ago

from a quick glance at the text i think he means legally institutionalized private property or equivalent. but he as an anthropologist has argued in other venues to revise historical origins of various concepts like currency and debt based on available evidence rather than academic myth. which is an earliest known origins argument based on available archaeological evidence rather than true earliest origins or mythologized origins for propagandized explainability. Of course this isnt relevant to your dog point, but just to contextualize a reoccurring theme of Graeber.

wahnfrieden 2y ago
also worth noting they published papers together with wengrow being an archaeologist and taking that perspective. he is friendly on twitter if you want to talk to him...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

shortrounddev2 2y ago

Leftists (Graeber was an Anarchist) distinguish personal property from private property. Personal property are your personal effects. Your clothes, your car, your desk, your pen. Private property is the ownership of land and, later, industrial means of production. Things which have been historically used in an allegedly communal context, or worked on by communities of people, but their product is privatized for the person who provided the capital for the land or industrial tools. I don't agree with this view of economics, but this is generally the line of thought among leftist thinkers

wahnfrieden 2y ago
At least in the book this link summarizes, it looks beyond anarchism and isn't written through that lens specifically There's a new film out I just saw at TIFF by Tsangari who produced DOGTOOTH by Yorgos Lanthimos called HARVEST with Caleb Landry Jones, anyhow it's a telling of the early days of the Inclosure Act, an interesting period of transition, performed w anachronistic timelessness

snapcaster 2y ago

I feel like this is an instance of "common senseism" for lack of a better term. You're not really engaging with the concepts presented (legally enshrined concepts of private property in a capitalist system) and dismissing it with some folksy sounding idea. Like others on the thread mentioned, you could pick a different arbitrary animal and come up with the complete opposite "conclusion"

analog31 2y ago

One thing I learned from "the dawn of everything" is that societies have had diverse approaches to property over the millennia. And I've seen that it varies by country and region, even today. Anecdote: My family went on a walking holiday in England. The entire country is crisscrossed by a network of walking paths. Many go through private farms. The same thing is rare, or even nonexistent, in the US. We were told that although we're allowed to use the land, there are certain stipulations, such as taking care not to damage the crops or disturb the livestock. Here in the states, my family "owns" the land that our house is on, but with a variety of limitations.

chairmansteve 2y ago

One difference is that a single dog can't claim to own all the bones in the country.