Introduction:
The concept of private property is of keen concern in the study of political theory. Most of the philosophers gave considerable attention to this subject. Man claim for the property can be traced back in to ancient times, even the classic Greek Philosopher like Plato and Aristotle talked about the institution of property. Plato explained how the acquisition of private property leads toward corruption and became a hurdle in the way of a just society. He divided the individuals into three different categories and also emphasized for subject and function specialization. Plato was in the favor of Family and Property communism since he believed that they are those institutions who paved the ground for further corruption in the system.
Aristotle believed that property provided psychological satisfaction by fulfilling the human instinct for pleasure, possession and ownership. According to Aristotle
“Property is a part of the household and the art of acquiring property is a part of managing the household; for no man lives well, or indeed live at all unless he is provided with necessaries ”.
However, Modern Political Philosophers gave much importance to private property and consider the role of private property in the structure and maintenance of the state. Some of the modern philosophers are considered property as a natural right of the individual. It can be used as a source of pleasure, power and oppression as the same time. This research will examine the justification of property offered by John Locke, Karl Marx and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. These philosophers were chosen as they all discuss the access to the property according to the need. Further, foundation of property in the context of natural law will be discussed. This...
... middle of paper ...
...more solemn to private property, and identified the vast discrimination that it creates between human being. Rousseau focused almost entirely on a political solution; Marx advocated a more revolutionary cure for society’s ills. Both focused on the needs of the community and not the desires of the individual.
Rousseau’s state of nature resembles what Marx wants communism to be e.g. Rousseau states that the first person to claim something as property engendered society and ended the state of nature. Likewise, Marx wants to rid the world of private property and wants only common property to survive.
Though their concepts weren’t fully applied and encouraged as the system of today’s world is capitalist and totally based on interest of powerful class but still Karl Marx and Rousseau thought is a way to think beyond self interest and self supremacy to collective good.
...s his argument by emphasizing the absolute reason on why property is solely for the use to produce goods and provide services by farming one’s land or building infrastructures; nevertheless the overuse of one’s land exhibits what Locke calls waste, whereas the consumption of goods for the use of trade can result in bartering and wealth. The introduction of wealth creates the motivation for people feel compelled to protect their wealth which leads us back to the concept of entering into a civil or political society for security. Locke believes that civil and political society can ensure the stability, security, and social structure of any given society; but he points out that if the government becomes a tyranny or corrupt only than shall the populace exercise their right to question the authority and overthrow if needed.
Throughout the existence of man debates over property and inequality have always existed. Man has been trying to reach the perfect state of society for as long as they have existed. John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King are three great examples of men who broke down the basics of how property and inequality are related. Each historical figure has their own distinct view on the situation. Some views are similar while others vary greatly. These philosophers and seekers of peace and equality make many great arguments as to how equality and property can impact man and society. Equality and property go hand in hand in creating an equal society. Each authors opinion has its own factors that create a mindset to support that opinion. In this paper we will discuss the writings of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King Jr. and the factors that influenced their opinions on inequality and property.
This paper is about John Locke who was a philosopher in the 17-century. He was an Englishmen and his ideas formed the basic concept for the government and laws, which later allowed colonist to justify revolution. I agree with what Locke is saying because everybody should be able to have their own freedom and still respect the freedom of other people. John said, “Individuals have rights, and their duties are defined in terms of protecting their own rights and respecting those of others”. This paper will present to you information about his enlightenment, personal information, and how we as people feel about his decisions.
Karl Marx 's writing of ‘The Communist Manifesto’ in 1848 has been documented by a vast number of academics as one of the most influential pieces of political texts written in the modern era. Its ideologically driven ideas formed the solid foundation of the Communist movement throughout the 20th century, offering a greater alternative for those who were rapidly becoming disillusioned and frustrated with the growing wealth and social divisions created by capitalism. A feeling not just felt in by a couple of individuals in one society, but a feeling that was spreading throughout various societies worldwide. As Toma highlights in his work, Marx felt that ‘capitalism would produce a crisis-ridden, polarized society destined to be taken over by
In the 1800’s, the social structure of Europe was changing. The industrial revolution brought new technologies and techniques that lead to more production, and a more prosperous European society. With these great changes to society and the way things were produced, changes in the government and how the society was run was imminent. Both The Law by Frederic Bastiat and Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx present new and fresh ideas on how society should be governed, Bastiat going into the concepts of liberalism and Marx the concepts of communism, both of which are oriented to the individual rights of people in these European societies.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was known for his thoughts that humans are basically good and fair in their natural state but were often corrupted by the shared concepts and joint activities like property, agriculture, science, and commerce (Schmalleger, 2012). He felt that the social contract started when civilized people agreed to establish governments and systems of education that would correct the problems and inequalities that were brought on by civilization (Schmalleger, 2012). Rousseau believed in the formation of a social contract where the government system would fight off the corruption that was brought out. He felt that human rights should be applied to laws (Schmalleger,
...believed it kept many in bonds or slavery. While Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that freedom was attained by entering into a social contract with limits established by good will and community participation. Both theories would put restraints on personal property and capital creating ownership relinquished to the state. He believed that laws to protect citizens could not keep up with the changing economic environment. One could conclude that Marx and Rousseau’s theories were relatively close in the role that it plays between citizens and personal property ownership.
Karl Marx is living in a world he is not happy with, and seems to think that he has the perfect solution. I am a strong believer in his ideas. We are living in a time period with a huge class struggle. The Bourgroise exploits and the proletariat are being exploited. Marx did not like the way this society was and searched for a solution. Marx looked for “universal laws of human behavior that would explain and predict the future course of events" (36). He saw an unavoidable growth and change in society, coming not from the difference in opinions, but in the huge difference of opposing classes. He speaks of his ideal society and how he is going to bring about this utopia in his book The Communist Manifesto. I am going to share with you more on his ideas of this “world-wide revolution” (36) that would put an end to social classes and allow people to live with equal sharing which would result in a harmonious and much peaceful world.
In Locke’s state of nature, there was never a need to assume that one must equally divide possessions. Locke’s notion of of the right to property was crucial because it was held on the same accord as rights such as life and liberty respectively. By doing so, property becomes subjected to the whims of political processes just as any similar right would require. This means that Locke was able to justify inequalities in property through the need of political regulation for property. There was also a drastic imbalance in Locke’s civil society due to the two classes that unlimited accumulation of property created. Locke suggested that everyone is a member of society and yet only those who owned property could fully participate in society. Those who did not own property were unable to fully participate, because it could give them the opportunity to use their newfound legitimate power to equalize property ownership, going against Locke’s key belief of unlimited accumulation. In Locke’s views, due to the overwhelming abundance of property, there was never a need for a method to ensure impartiality. The inequality stems from Locke’s inability to realize the discrepancy would become more and more apparent as men used money to expand their possessions. This structure established two different types of class within society, the upper echelon citizens who share in the sovereign power and the second class citizens
... in a way that lead to inequality. Marx similarly argues that private property has led to inequality, because it has put the means of production into the hands of the bourgeoisie, thereby subjugating the proletariat. Even though both men resided in different centuries, their theories are similar because they perceived the singular issue of inequality. As theorists they did differ on where equality would lie; Rousseau believed that man had lost equality as he evolved out of the natural state, whereas Marx believed equality had yet to be realized.
While the problems within civil society may differ for these two thinkers it is uncanny how similar their concepts of freedom are, sometimes even working as a logical expansion of one another. Even in their differences they shed light onto new problems and possible solutions, almost working in tandem to create a freer world. Rousseau may not introduce any process to achieve complete freedom but his theorization of the general will laid the groundwork for much of Marx’s work; similarly Marx’s call for revolution not only strengthens his own argument but also Rousseau’s.
Political philosophers Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx dreamt up and developed unique theories of total revolution. Although similar in their intention to dissolve dividing institutions such as religion and class structure, as well as their shared reluctance to accept the rather less hopeful conclusions of government and man that had been drawn by their predecessors Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, the blueprints Rousseau and Marx had printed were cited to two very different sources. Rousseau approached the problem of oppression from a political standpoint, focusing on the flawed foundation of liberal individualism that has been continually adopted by democracies. Marx on the other hand took an unconventional route of concentrating on economics. By completely eliminating the economic class system, Marx believed there could be a society of which would transcend the realm of politics. Despite their different approaches, both theories conclude in universal equality, a real equality between humans that has never before been observed in any lasting civilization. While both theories operate on reason and seem to be sound, they remain unproven due to their contingency on various factors of time and place, but mainly on their prerequisite of incorruptibility. Now, while both theories may very well have the odds dramatically stacked against their favor, I believe they must be thoroughly dissected for their content before attempting to condemn them to utopianism.
While they both require the consent of the people and active involvement from those citizens, it is Rousseau’s contract that asserts virtue and morals into the government. He does this in his argument against particular will of citizens Rousseau’s social contract requires the general will of the public to be unanimous, so he says, “His absolute and naturally independent existence can lead him to view what he owes to the common cause as a gratuitous contribution, the loss of which will be less harmful to others than its payment is burdensome to him. And considering the moral person that constitutes the state merely as being produced by reason because it is not man, he would enjoy the rights of a citizen without being willing to fulfill the duties of a subject- an injustice whose spread would cause the ruin of the body of politics.”(175) The point made by Rousseau is that a man gives himself to the state. If one does not, he has false morals, and commits injustice. Another point is made that “For such is the condition that, by giving each citizen to the fatherland, guarantees him against all personal dependence- a condition that makes for the ingenuity and the functioning of the political machine and that alone makes legitimate civil engagements which would otherwise be absurd, tyrannical, and liable to the most enormous abuses” (175) This paragraph can be mirroring Locke’s social contract. Locke’s social contract can be said to rely heavily on personal dependence, and tries to put the government as far away from the people as possible. Locke promotes free market and property. Rousseau says that those actions promote tyranny. Aristotle believes tyranny to be the worst form of government. Rousseau has made a point to add morals into the government, and fight tyranny, both very similar to Aristotle’s ideal civil life, but he, also, calls for a lawgiver that plays a role that mirrors Aristotle’s virtuous king.
The right to property, also known as the right to protection of property, is a human right and is understood to institute an entitlement to private property. The right of property is one of the most debated human rights, both in terms of its existence and interpretation. However, according to Karl Marx private property is the inevitable result of alienated labor or the product of the worker who is estranged from himself. It is reputed that the working class labors to produce products that belong to someone else, and that the reimbursement the working class receives is always less than the value of the product they create. The past readings in class have shown the theories in which Marx imposes the disadvantages of private property, and the rent of land in which the proletarian suffers and the bourgeois gains. One of the results of private property that Marx argues that it is the cause of the existence of estranged men, monopolies and alienated labor. The abolition of private property can be a summation of Communism theory, however the nature of this opposition is a controversial subject.
When one thinks of private property, one often takes up the assumption that the word “private”, is equitable with “personal” property. Due to this fact, we tend give a type of personification to the term which leads people to believe that the two terms, are in fact one and the same. The term private, denotes a sense of ownership dictated by a singular entity, as does the term personal, however, there is a nuanced difference between the two – private property is that which can be capitalized upon; ensuring the continued growth of wealth by its owners, often at the hands of those who work within it (Marx and Struik 103-112).