Insert name 1

Marxist and Liberal Theories on Property

Marxist and Liberal Theories on Property

Customer Inserts His/Her Name

Customer Inserts Grade Course

Customer Inserts Tutor’s Name

October 27, 2010

Insert name 2

Outline

i. Introduction

Property can be largely termed as any physical or intangible asset owned by an

individual in solitude or in a collective manner.

ii. Marxist Theory on Property

The Marxist theory understands the evolution and development of property through

society’s level of materialism.

iii. Liberal View of Property

The existence of government is motivated by the goal of protecting personal security

and property.

iv. Conclusion

The success of property in creating social order rests in its production and safeguard.
Insert name 3

Introduction

Property can be largely termed as any physical or intangible asset owned by an

individual in solitude or in a collective manner (Kilcullen 1). Considering current systems

in the society, a property owner virtually has all the rights to a property including selling,

renting, exchanging and such like privileges without having to consult anybody.

Common types of property include real, private, intellectual and public properties but

their enforcement in law is very different. Property owners usually establish their

relationship with property through titles but some philosophers are of the opinion that

property owners establish their relationship with property through social convention

(Kilcullen 2).

Some scholars have often viewed property as a resource where monetary

benefits are derived while others consider it as a factor of production. However, most

people relate to property in different ways. This definition is what characterizes property

rights which individuals have towards ownership. Nonetheless, the right to property is

sometimes defined by the societal perception of it. In fact, this is what determines the

law to property because law defined by the kind of perception the society holds towards

property ownership to a large extent. Ownership of property, therefore, illustrates

society’s perception of a people’s relationship to property. However, what is strikingly

interesting, despite the various ways of analyzing property, is the fact that people tend

to lose their control of property if the society’s perception towards the property, what is

unfavorable.
Insert name 4

This study analyzes the origins and evolution of property and how they are

evaluated from the Marxist and liberalist points of views. The Marxist theory is

entrenched on the determination of social stratification through capitalistic systems

while the liberal theory majors on the equality and inequalities of property rights. These

theories are further analyzed.

Marxist Theory on Property

The Marxist theory understands the evolution and development of property

through society’s level of materialism. More or less, this is the kind of relationship

people usually have towards each another while trying to fulfill their material needs and

wants. This may involve the need to supplement daily needs like clothing, food, shelter

and the likes. Proponents of the Marxist theory, therefore, view property as a factor of

production and not an element of an individual or a group ownership (Bottomore 450). In

other words, according to the Marxist theory, private property is a productive resource

which has returns to the owner. Such can be equated to the ownership of slaves

because slaves have a profit element to them, which is service or labor to the master.

With the above facts as its framework, the Marxist theory categorizes the origin and the

evolution of property in several following ways.

First, the Marxist theory identifies the communal sharing of property as one of the

first stages to property ownership. This was identified as one of the most primitive form

of communism which did not acknowledge individual ownership of property, but

acknowledged the communal ownership of property for community survival (Bottomore

450). This stage of property ownership can be attributed to the first stages of humanity

and communal living which was preferred to personalization of resources. This type of
Insert name 5

system, however, succeeded because there was a dismal population in the world at the

time and the survival of humanity largely depended upon the nature. During this time, a

man lived like an animal and he had not devised the ways of making the environment

adjust to his will.

However, with the development of agriculture, private property set in and

communist ownership of property started to slowly fade away (Bottomore 450).

Consequently, productive property was developed which included the ownership of

cattle and even slaves. This new age marked the second step in the Marxist theory

because from here onwards, class differentials set in. Private property later started

becoming quite popular. Class differentials first developed from the ownership of slaves

because there was the class of people who owned slaves while the slaves formed

another lower class of people altogether. This was among the earliest forms of private

property (Bottomore 450). Also, during this time, the state developed and its systems

were more puppet-like because they were used by the elite to justify their actions and

control their property (slaves). Also, at the same time, a man learnt the art of controlling

food production through agriculture in order to feed increased populations through

large-scale farming. This was also another level of private property development.

When all these developments were taking place, democracy and authoritarianism

was also taking shape but they represented different opposites. Democracy evolved out

of the democratization of republic states while authoritarianism developed out of a

failure of democracy to take shape (Bottomore 450). With the advent of private property,

citizens were noted to have a lot of land in their possession when compared to public
Insert name 6

property. This was largely influenced by huge agricultural development necessitated by

the agrarian revolution.

The elite of the society who owned slaves as their secondary property also had a

lot of land in their possession as a primary source of property (where the slaves

worked). This population group, therefore, established its source of production and

created wealth, although a greater majority of the population had nothing in terms of

property. Those who never had any form of property majorly included slaves and

sometimes, they were forced to work for meager or no pay at all. Also, a greater

majority of this population group included women who never had much regard in the

society back then (Smith 250). Slave ownership as a major form of property is analyzed

by the Marxist theory as a system that exhausted itself until its collapse. In fact, there

was an increasing need by the ruling class to acquire more slaves which caused a lot of

problems in the society in controlling the vast empires that consequently arose. Such

was the case with the Roman Empire. In this manner, aristocracy was born and a new

stage of property founded (Bottomore 452).

This point outlines the third stage in property development which was widely

known as feudalism. This system was especially noted in the European Dark Age which

was characterized by a number of societal elements such as aristocracy, theocracy,

hereditary classes, and nation states (Bottomore 452). This period saw the aristocratic

rise to power of individuals through monarchs or intermarriages and also the rise of

religion to control most aspects of economics, social and political compositions of the

society. At the same time, the hereditary class system developed and it retained wealth

and property within specific classes (such was the case with India). Later fallen states
Insert name 7

transitioned into nation-states, like the in the case of England which transitioned from a

province to an empire.

During this period of feudalism, there developed different types of classes in the

society and the top most people were referred to as Lords, Kings, Serfs and the Likes,

but the lowest people were in the slave class (although there was another social class

slightly above the slave population). As the society adopted these new class structures,

the level of trade between nations-states also surged and a new type of class (merchant

class) was formed (Bottomore 452). With the growth of the merchant class, the

capitalistic system developed; still within the feudal system, conflicts started to emerge

within the aristocratic system. These conflicts were primarily brought about by the

development of the capitalistic system which threatened the position of the later ruling

class. Other concerns were not necessarily tied up to property, money or power. The

motive to make property is the main characteristic of the capitalistic society but its goal

of profit making is limited to a significant degree by the feudal system. For instance, the

serf class could not advance into another class and become merchants because their

role was primarily to work on the land. From this point, the Marx theory notes that since

the capitalistic system was restrained from fully achieving its potential (making profit),

there was a series of social revolutions which ensued. This encompassed the French

revolution, the English Civil War and the Glorious revolution (Bottomore 454).

From this point onwards, the Marxist theory notes that capitalism took a deep

approach afterwards. This is where the bulk of the Marxist theory centers on because

the theory thoroughly explores the system by which capitalism developed. Also,

capitalism marks the fourth process in the evolution of property because it is the system
Insert name 8

that followed the feudal system. In the capitalistic system, private property is no longer

in the hands of the monarchs or the Lords who used to hold on to power in the feudal

system but in the hands of capitalists. The capitalists, therefore, hold the power of

property as a means of production but they operate in a free market economy where

market forces determine the power of property. Many economists argue that a high level

of government involvement in this system may prove disastrous in the long run

(Bottomore 456).

Capitalism spreads across countries and societies and it is characterized by the

exertion of influence and authority over people who relate to the factors of production at

a lower level. The Marxist theory identifies that capitalists are always under the urge to

exert their influence in the society and their possession of property is one way to do so

(Bottomore 455). Through their control of property, they can control the state and exert

their influence on others. However, the existence of financial institutions reduces the

influence of capitalists through private property because banks are in the position of

taking large amounts of unused capital and advancing them to poor people in form of

mortgages. The poor can, therefore, have an opportunity to own property just the same

way the rich do. This is a way in which banks and financial lenders are able to improve

the class mobility. However, the Marxist theory purports that in as much as banks and

financial securities increase class mobility, the drive to make more profits is likely to see

the creation of monopolies from the most successful institutions.

In the capitalistic system, property is the tool to which capitalists use to make

profit and exert influence over others while people work for the factor of production

(land) to make a living (wages). The power of capitalists through the control of property
Insert name 9

can then be safeguarded through legislations which are also in the control of capitalists

to protect their wealth (property). A change in tax policy is one way through which the

rich are able to safeguard their wealth. However, the current systems in place, under the

capitalistic system (though meant to have a universal representation), do not

necessarily prevent a universal suffrage. In fact, for a long time, the capitalists have

used the law to exclude a section of people in the society from having access to

property. The population groups which have historically fallen victim to capitalists are

women, children, colored people, poor people and other marginalized groups (Smith

215). In this kind of system, therefore, it is apparently clear that the government works

to protect capitalists’ property because the government is comprised of capitalists at the

first place.

However, in as much as the Marxist theory derives its authenticity from capitalism

systems, it goes without saying that capitalism can also lead to its own downfall. This

happens because capitalism created a new class of working class people whom it made

a profit out of, depending on the relationship with the factors of production. However, the

working class has forced capitalists to lower their profit levels through an increase in

competition and this has created class conflict. Nonetheless, the Marxist theory does

not outline how the working class is able to achieve a state of class-consciousness but

some scholars have noted that they are able to achieve this through suffering in the

hands of capitalists (Bottomore 454). Such sort of resistance can potentially lead to the

emergence of revolutions against capitalism and often, this is expected in the third world

countries. Nonetheless, we can deduce the fact that since most capitalists hold

property, property rights are entitled to them, but the current social consciousness
Insert name 10

demands a transition of these rights so that other people can also control property. If

analyzed critically, this is one of the elements for socialism and it may mark the end of

capitalism through the transfer of property rights to socialist economies.

If the working class is able to cover ground, to the disadvantage of the capitalists,

there may emerge a system of socialism. This is a form of communism. Communism

has been potentially divided into two phases of socialism and stateless communism

(Bottomore 458). Socialism is perceived as the period characterizing the overthrow of

capitalism while stateless communism may be achieved when capitalism has already

died. This will be the period when property is communal. However, by property being

communal, it does not mean that property will be controlled by all, it means that property

will be in the hands of the working class. This will be the new dawn of the democratic

communities because they will now own property as a factor of production (Bottomore

452).

Liberal View of Property

The liberalist view on property is largely based on the principles of John Locke

and Thomas Hobbes who were advanced in the 17 th century (Zucker 27). According to

the liberal view, the existence of government is motivated by the goal of protecting

personal security and property. This function of the government is very important

according to the liberal view because without the protection of property, productive

benefits derived from property would not be worthwhile. In other words, the government

prevents an individual from unlawfully taking someone else’s property without their

consent or taking someone hostage to work as a slave. Everyone is, therefore, a danger

to each other (Zucker 27). Property can never produce returns if people believe that the
Insert name 11

benefits to be derived from it can be potentially taken away. However, the liberalist

theory does not just single out the need to protect productive labor only because it

identifies that people also have to work to stay alive and more work is needed if one

wants to achieve a higher level of civilization or if one wants to enjoy luxuries.

It is, therefore, correct to say that without the presence of government in

protecting property, property would be of no use at all. Life would also seize to be good.

In this regard, Hobbes (cited in Kilcullen 2) notes:

“In such conditions, there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is

uncertain; and consequently no culture of the Earth, neither navigation nor use of

the commodities that may be imported by sea... [consequently] no knowledge of

the face of the Earth; no account of time; no arts, no letters; no society [human

companionship]; and (which is worst of all) continued fear and danger of violent

death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”.

Government can, therefore, be seen as making civilization realizable and even

makes survival possible because it protects the right of people to own property and

indeed even other resources. With this analysis as the framework, the liberal theory

does not, therefore, see how universal suffrage cannot be possible as advanced by the

Marxist theory because the government will protect everyone equally. In the same

manner, civilization can also be realized by all and the well being of the society will also

be upheld (Kilcullen 2).

However, reflecting back to the 19th century in England, the possession of

property did not necessarily mean the safeguard of property to which a person worked

for (Kilcullen 2). The system back then stipulated that since people were employees, the
Insert name 12

fruits of their labor were subjected to their employers’ ownership (Kilcullen 2). However,

proponents of the liberal theory note that this is not essentially true or fair because even

the right of the employer to claim what the employee produces is derived out of the

virtue of owning what one produces (Kilcullen 2). The only way they could, therefore,

own what the employees produced was through voluntary consent because employees

were at liberty of giving away their property or do anything with it. However, inequality is

likely to be created because people have different capabilities in production while others

are in a better position of acquiring more property through gifts or rewards. In this

manner, some people may accumulate so much property that some people would find it

justifiable to work for such people. The liberalists, however, note that the right of the

employer to own property is only derived from his/her privilege in controlling the gifts or

rewards accumulated and this includes voluntary exchange of property, from workers

through voluntary exchange. An interference of a person’s right to exchange property

voluntarily will, therefore, also be a violation of a person’s right to do anything with

his/her property. This is the principle which according to liberalists, the free trade thrives

on.

These factors withstanding, the liberalists were always afraid that with the advent

of democracy, people would not respect the right of the employer to own property, just

like other people (Kilcullen 4). This fear came out of the observation by liberalists that

people were sometimes shortsighted and they would never understand the fact that

employers also had a right to own property. Partially, they attributed this observation to

people’s ignorance, hunger and the strong perception among many people that the

property of the rich should be confiscated and distributed to the poor. The liberalists
Insert name 13

noted that if this were allowed to happen, it would spell disaster to a lot of people and

indeed the society at large (Kilcullen 4). The accumulation of capital would consequently

decrease because people who would have the capability to do so would be discouraged

out of it by socialism. In turn, people would starve or be unable to fend for themselves

because a lack of adequate capital would mean that there would not be enough for

everyone to survive. This is the reason why the liberalists emphasize a lot on the

protection of property by the government.

Political economists also came up with the principle that when input is doubled,

there was no way the same level of double output can be achieved. They, therefore,

noted that if the input were tripled, the output would be less than triple (Kilcullen 4). This

outlined the principle of diminished returns. Its relevance is that it requires more capital

per head in the society for enough capital to be accumulated for everyone’s comfort. If

some part of capital is not allowed to be freely produced because of constraints on

those who have accumulated a lot of capital, then some people would starve. Kilcullen

gives an example that “millions of human beings crowded in a narrow space, deprived

of all those resources which alone had made it possible for them to exist in so a narrow

space" (9).

Capital accumulation is, therefore, very important for everyone in the society

including the rich and the poor but more so, for the poor. The burden of tax on the poor

must therefore be reduced while taxation should also be kept at operable minimums.

Attempts to artificially increase wages should also be totally discouraged. This is true

because if wages were allowed to artificially increase, property ownership would shift

and the prices to own assets would be unreasonable. Unemployment among other
Insert name 14

social unrests would also set in. This is also a part of the reason why proponents of the

liberal theory have been against the existence of trade unions because they often

engage employers in artificial increase of wages which contravenes their principle of

free exchange of labor between employers and employees (Kilcullen 6). However,

political economists note that this attempt will not reduce the inequalities in property

ownership. Instead, they advance the fact that the working class population needs to be

insulated from poverty through the population control (Kilcullen 4).

To a great extent, the liberalists propose that property needs to be protected from

shortsighted people because it is in the great interest of the majority that this is done.

Mill (cited in Kilcullen 10) however notes:

“Since men usually do what they like, often being perfectly aware that it is not for

their ultimate interest, still more often that it is not for the interest of their

posterity; and when they do believe that the object they are seeking is

permanently good for them, almost always overrating its value; it is necessary to

consider, not the permanent interest, but the immediate interests and habitual

feelings that are likely to be most in accordance with the end we seek to obtain”.

(Kilcullen 10).

With a lack of clear foresight among most people, Mill, therefore, proposes that

even if there was a common institution which was to oversee justice to all, and people

did not appreciate its role, it would be more prudent to give political power to the few

who owned property so they might protect themselves from the majority (Kilcullen 10).

This has been the main argument why the liberalists are against the democratization of

property ownership. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the proponents of an anti-

Insert name 15

democratization policy obviously belonged to those few people who owned a lot of

property and they were possibly acting selfishly. However, it is also important to

understand that the institutions they were protecting were to serve the interests of

everyone and not just a given group or class in the society. The protection was also

against only short sighted people in the society who never realized that their interests

were interestingly very similar to the rich or the people who were in possession of a lot

of property.

According to the liberalists, therefore, the right to pursue property should be

limitless for all people because it is a part of their liberal right (Francione 45). This

system is also the best way to create wealth to all people in the society according to the

liberalists. Through the liberty to be given to the people, many will be motivated by the

desire to improve their conditions by engaging in productive utilization of private

property and given the right conditions; many will find it easy to derive a lot of benefits

from it. To create a friendly environment, the movement and security of property ought

to be guaranteed. For this system to work as well, the level of government regulation

also needs to be kept at an operational minimum.

Conclusion

In contemporary policy debates, both the Marxist and liberal theories apply to a

significant extent. The Marxist theory identifies that property moved from the socialist

system to capitalistic systems because of the creation of class barriers. In this regard,

we can be able to deduce the fact that property perpetrates the class differentials and it

majorly serves the wishes of the rich. Also, property seems to be an agent of influence

to which property owners derive their control from. This changes the perception of
Insert name 16

property because in as much as we can see its benefit to other people in the society, it

majorly serves the interest of the rich.

It is, therefore, very difficult to own property because it is a source of wealth

through which the rich keep to themselves and safeguard it through existing laws as

Marx advances. Since property ownership seems to be the key to class progression,

according to the Marxist theory, this concept should be applied to contemporary debates

about property because it is the key to a just society where people of all classes can get

an opportunity to own property. One way of doing so is through the support of financial

institutions which collects unused money especially from the rich and advances it to the

poor so they may also have the opportunity of controlling property and improving their

status. Secondly, a policy change can be advanced through the tax system where the

poor can be taxed less than the rich to empower them more. However, this needs to be

done with tact so that the fears advanced by the liberalists of infringement of property

rights are not witnessed. This system is likely to transfer property rights from oppressive

capitalistic systems to a more social and fair manner of property ownership. In fact,

according to Marx’s evolution of property, this will be the next frontier after the

capitalistic system.

However, as all these factors are being observed, the liberalist theory warns

against a lack of safeguard to private property which also needs to be enhanced or else,

capital creation may fail altogether and massive poverty is created. The liberal theory

can, therefore, contribute to contemporary policy making; in that, certain policies need

to be created to ensure a just property ownership and safeguard programme is realized.

This will also safeguard property rights. Nonetheless, the power of free will is also
Insert name 17

brought to fore and the policy planners should acknowledge the importance of

according independence to property owners to do whatever they want to with their

properties. The success of property policies in creating social order, therefore, rests in

its production and safeguard.

Insert name 18

Works Cited

Bottomore, Thomas. A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. London: Wiley-Blackwell,

1991. Print.

Francione, Lawrence. Animals, Property, and the Law. Temple: Temple University

Press, 1995. Print.

Kilcullen, John. Liberal Democracy: Property. 2005. Web. 27 October. 2010.

<http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y67xb.html#mozTocId392477>

Smith, Barbara. The Reader's Companion to U.S. Women's History. London: Houghton

Mifflin Harcourt, 1999. Print.

Zucker, Ross. Democratic Distributive Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2003. Print.