Private Property And Political Theory

2271 Words5 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Karl marxs views on private property

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.

Show More
Related

  • Rousseau's Views Reflected in "The Oath of the Horatii"

    310 Words  | 1 Pages

    Rousseau believes its possible to have both complete freedom and yet also legitimate authority. The essential outline Rousseau paints an equal relation between freedom and the authority of state. He argues that we as naturally free people, if it doesn't detract from our freedom. `If one must obey because of force, one need not do so out of duty; and if one is no longer forced to obey one is no longer obliged' (Rousseau: Cress (ed.), 1987, bk1, ch.3, p.143). Therefore Rousseau has shown that superior power, naked force or power through tradition is not the source of any legitimate authority the state has over us. Rousseau's fundamental problem is to find a solution of structuring the state so that we can live in a state and yet remain as free as possible. Hence, by sacrificing our particular will on major social or national matters in favour of the general will we are ennobled and freed .

    Read More

  • An Introduction to Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind

    1439 Words  | 3 Pages

    4. Freedom and Private Property are intrinsically linked; without private property, the “state is unstoppable.” Redistribution of wealth is not economic progress; “Separate property from private possession, and liberty is erased.” (8)

    Read More

  • Locke, Rousseau, and King

    929 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Influence Of Rousseau And The Constitution

    695 Words  | 2 Pages

    Rousseau, at the time, greatly affected the way some thought, especially thinkers of the Constitution. The reason for this is due to his writings issued in The Social Contract. In it, he expresses his feelings on man being free. The major quote Rousseau uses in it was “man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains.” Rousseau thought that every man should be able to be free but under laws. This meaning that you can have an opinion and do certain things as long as they were within the guide lines of the law enforcers and or government. This gave a great effect on the government because they had followed some things he expressed in The Social Contract. We as Americans felt it was greatly important to be a democracy and for every person’s vote to count. Back then and sometimes now, the way your future was planned out was based and dependent on your class and what you’re born into. (Rousseau, 1)

    Read More

  • Thomas Paine And Thomas Paine's Philosophy Of Justice

    1046 Words  | 3 Pages

    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,

    Read More

  • Rousseau On Inequality Analysis

    121 Words  | 1 Pages

    Some of the philosopher Rousseau’s ideas were mention in Cohen’s Political Philosophy: From Plato to Mao. Rousseau’s theories describe a human in his primitive state (before the formation of societies) as being happier. Society, according to Rousseau, began when humans began to claim property as theirs and settled down in a specific location. Rousseau also supposed that, since the primitive person was happier alone, it must have been some kind of disaster that caused him to live in groups. Cohen then goes on to describe Rousseau’s ideas on inequality, which Rousseau assumed is split to two types. The first is natural or physical inequality, and the second is moral or political inequality. The second one is imaginary even preventative. (Cohen

    Read More

  • Rousseau and Marx: Property and Inequality

    1831 Words  | 4 Pages

    ... 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.

    Read More

  • A Discourse On The Origin Of Inequality Analysis

    1311 Words  | 3 Pages

    Rousseau believes that humans are not sociable by nature because social relations did not exist in the state of nature. Nature did not bring humans together in this state because natural man was robust, physically strong, and independent (Rousseau 2010). But in the state of society, humans start to become dependent on one another and this introduces sociability in humans. The division of labour, the division of classes, and comparison among humans, are the consequences of social relations in the state of society. People are miserable in this state because “social man lives constantly outside himself” (Rousseau 2001: 37). In other words, humans live their life through the eyes of others in this state (Rousseau 2001). On the other hand, both Darwin and Marx show social relations or the sociality of humans as a necessary part of human nature. Darwin sees the sociality of humans as a method of survival; humans need one another in order to survive. Marx, also presents humans as being dependent on one another. For example, the bourgeoisie would not be able to continue to live their lifestyle without the proletariat (Marx 2008). Unlike Darwin, Marx is concerned about the condition of social relations in capitalist society. The bourgeoisie have reduced social relations, such as the family, to economic relations (Marx 2008). He claims that the loss of power in social

    Read More

  • Compare and Contrast Locke and Rousseau

    570 Words  | 2 Pages

    Rousseau and Locke differ slightly on how the question of sovereignty should be addressed. Rousseau believed that men would essentially destroy themselves due to their "mode of existence"(more explanation of what is meant by "mode of existence"?) (Rousseau 39) and therefore must enter into a government that controls them. However, this control is in the form of direct participation in democracy where people have the ability to address their opinions, and thus sovereignty is in the control of the people. Unlike Rousseau, Locke believed firmly in the fact that government should be split up into a legislative branch and a ruling branch, with the legislative branch being appointed as representatives of the people. He contends that people give up the power of their own rule to enter into a more powerful organization that protects life, liberties, property, and fortunes. The two differ significantlyin that Rousseau wanted a direct or absolute form of democracy controlled by the people, while Locke prefered an elected, representative democr...

    Read More

  • Exploring Karl Marx and Jean-Jacque Rousseau's Views on Freedom

    1544 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...ion with the general will. This may sound like a contradiction but, to Rousseau, the only way the body politic can function is by pursuing maximum cohesion of peoples while seeking maximum individuation. For Rousseau, like Marx, the solution to servitude is, in essence, the community itself.

    Read More

  • Differentiating Marx and Rousseau

    2202 Words  | 5 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Difference Between John Locke And Rousseau

    1750 Words  | 4 Pages

    Rousseau presumes that in the beginning, humans were living in a peaceful state of nature and lived in equality, but as civilization progressed it began to change man as challenges became more elaborate, lives became more complicated, development of the possession of property began, and habitually more comparisons were made amongst us. The first law of nature also contributed to our sense of ownership. The first law of nature recognized by Rousseau is self-preservation; we care about ourselves then society and this law is used to defend or prove our own independence. As a result or this change of civility, we shifted to a state of nature that was far from grace, where we desired the suffering of others, only cared about ourselves, and developed the meaning of inequalities. People realized that their natural rights could no longer coexist with their freedom in the state of nature and also that they would perish if they did not leave the state of nature. Therefore, the state of nature no longer became desirable and society restored that motive; in this new societal environment we develop morals to handle conflicts and help preserve ourselves. Locke believes that while in our natural state we all have morals, though Rousseau challenges that belief by claiming that society generates a moral character within us. Rousseau insists that everyone can be free and live

    Read More

  • Rousseau Social Contract Essay

    1963 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Karl Marx And Private Property: The Right To Property

    1146 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Rousseau Adam Smith And Karl Marx Analysis

    100 Words  | 1 Pages

    Three authors, three perspectives, three arguments— Jean Jacques Rousseau, Adam Smith, and Karl Marx all discussion division of labor and Capitalism. Though they have different visions for how history affected the modern system, they are worth to be examined because of the fact that these authors construct their arguments based off of each other’s viewpoints. Rousseau is the precursor to Smith and Marx. In other words, both Smith and Marx commented on Rousseau ideology. Rousseau, Marx, and Smith evaluate present three historical story about the division of labor and its effect, which translates their vision on capitalism, good or bad.

    Read More

More about Private Property And Political Theory

Open Document