There are property rights and property rights. As a socialist, I oppose capitalist "private" property rights (which involve individualized control of resources and reaping of income backed by the force of law but socialized production, plus the power over others which you refer to).
Society is more complicated than hunter-gatherer society and faces much more complicated and dangerous problems. A mere property system can't solve all problems (e.g., global warming). But I favor _democratic_ property rights, which I think would involve democratically-controlled government ownership of the means of production. To some extent, depending on the situation (the type of industry, etc.), control should be devolved to those using these resources (workers' cooperatives and the like), but actual ownership isn't. Ownership should be subordinated to the principle of democratic popular sovereignty.
That doesn't apply to the means of subsistence (consumer goods), most of which are truly private. There should be restrictions on their use (such as the requirement of anti-smog devices on cars or even better the restricted use of cars), of course, as long as people democratically decide that they're needed.
In order to have democracy, we need to have some sort of centralized organization to allow coordination. Some sort of state, despite anarchist wishes. I interpret Marx's bit about the withering away of the state as referring to the end of the separation -- the alienation -- of the people from the state and the end of the domination of the former by the latter. That is, the perfection of democracy.
Brett also writes: >I really like Chomsky's take on anarchism. He answers that anarchists try to identify and abolish unjustified authoritarian structures, whether economic, political, or whatever. This is a simple guiding principle which can be used to compare two societies and to measure, in a rough sense, which one is better. It is also a good practical guide since it suggests ways to move society towards a more anarchistic, i.e. less authoritarian and more free, state.<
I'm also in favor of getting rid of authority of the sort that stands above people and dictates to them. But I am not in favor of abolishing authority if it represents the authority of peers. We need that kind of authority in case the anarcho-syndicalist workers' cooperative across the river decides to set up nukes.
And what is a freedom? We should remember that the state does not simply restrict our freedom (as when it forces us to pay taxes). It also creates _freedom_ -- at a minimum, freedom from a Hobbesian war in which life is nasty, brutish, and short. At a maximum, the state can create freedom from poverty and need and more. If people are allowed to work together for socialism, it's amazing what can be achieved.
Freedom, said Rousseau, means obedience to laws one enacted oneself as part of one's community. That's the kind of freedom we should strive for. Get the state out of the capitalists' hands and subordinate it to democracy.
Jim Devine jdevine at popmail.lmu.edu & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html