ASSIGNMENT

TOPIC: RIGHT TO PROPERTY

SUBJECT:- STATE AND POILTICAL THEORY

DATE-14.10.2024.
SUBMITTED BY
DEVIPRIYA S
ROLL NO-2402005014
MA FIRST YEAR, FIRST SEM
DEPT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
AND POLICY STUDIES
INTRODUCTION

The right to property stems from the general theory of individual rights, yet it remains a highly complex

and debated issue. Unlike other rights, such as liberty, where conflicts between individuals can be more

easily identified, the boundaries of property rights are harder to define. Property refers to the possession

of material things that are open to personal or selfish use. These material possessions can include

physical objects, documents such as promissory notes, patents, and shares, which represent an

individual's entitlement to property—even if the property is not in their immediate possession.

Additionally, animals or birds may be considered property, though modern society has rejected the idea

that human beings can be owned as property, unlike in the past when slavery was legally recognized.

Modern consciousness now views all humans as ends in themselves, deserving of dignity and freedom,

and not as means to another's benefit.

The distribution of property is often influenced by external factors like market forces, pre-existing

ownership, and technological advancement, rather than by the actual contribution of individuals. This

results in unequal distributions of wealth, creating opportunities for exploitation. As wealth concentrates

in the hands of a few, society becomes divided into 'haves' and 'have-nots.' Pseudo-religious beliefs that

justify such disparities are rejected by modern thinking, which demands a re-examination of property

rights.

In modern political theory, the right to property has been analyzed through various lenses, with the

liberal, social-democratic, and Marxist perspectives being particularly significant. Each perspective
offers different views on how property rights should function within society and how they can be

balanced with broader goals of fairness and equality.

PERSPECTIVES ON RIGHT TO PROPERTY

1. Liberal Perspective

Liberal theory has traditionally viewed the right to private property as a fundamental component

of individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Machiavelli (1469-1527), in “The Prince”,

pointed out humanity's profound attachment to property, stating, "Men sooner forget the death of

their father than the loss of their patrimony." This sentiment reflects a long-standing belief that

the security of property is vital for human existence.

Philosophers such as Hobbes (1588-1679) argued that the state was established primarily to

safeguard individuals' property. Locke (1632-1704) considered the right to "life, liberty, and

property" as fundamental natural rights, asserting that the state's role is to protect these

entitlements. Similarly, Rousseau (1712-78) emphasized that the security of property is a crucial

aspect of civil liberty provided by the state.

Figures like Adam Smith (1723-90) and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) further reinforced the

notion of private property as an essential instrument for social progress. According to Benn and

Peters in “Social Principles and the Democratic State” (1975), classical economic theory posited

that an individual entrepreneur's primary aim was to maximize profit from their property. This

pursuit not only served personal interests but also satisfied consumer demand, ultimately
benefiting the community as a whole. Thus, the right to property became foundational to the

market economy and the capitalist system.

Early liberal political theory associated property ownership with an individual's stake in the state

and their political acumen, leading to the requirement of property qualifications for voting rights.

In essence, early liberalism sought to glorify and defend property rights in both economic and

political contexts.

However, modern liberal theory has evolved, particularly in light of the harsh realities of the

capitalist system and the rise of socialist thought. It no longer views the right to private property

as sacred or absolute. J.S. Mill (1806-73), who initially advocated for property security, later

recognized that the right to property is not inviolable. He proposed significant restrictions on

inheritance and bequest rights and critiqued private land ownership, arguing for the taxation of

rent. Mill contended that the appreciation of land value—often without any effort from

landlords—justified taxing land income to redirect a portion of this wealth to the community,

particularly for the welfare of the working class, the true producers of wealth.

T.H. Green (1836-82) acknowledged the right to property as a means of exercising moral

freedom. Still, he argued that when unrestricted property rights lead to excessive accumulation

by some and hinder others from acquiring necessary resources for self-realization, such as land,

this right becomes an impediment to societal freedom. Green thus advocated for reasonable

limitations on property rights in the interest of the social good.

property, defining taxation as a means of ensuring that society retains wealth generated by social

efforts—not merely the product of individual labor, particularly that of current property owners.

H.J. Laski (1893-1950) argued that property rights should be linked to the functions performed

by their owners and the contributions made to the common welfare.

Morris Ginsberg, in his book “On Justice in Society” (1965), identifies three distinct but not mutually

exclusive theories regarding the right to property: natural rights theories, theories of modes of origin

(including the labor theory), and theories of contribution to the public good.

(a) Natural Rights Theories

Natural rights theories regard property as a fundamental right that exists independently of specific

institutions, although some institutions may better align with natural law than others. The notion of

property as a natural right is relatively recent. Ginsberg notes that neither Stoic nor Patristic doctrines

recognized private property as a natural right. The Stoics argued that "by nature, all things are held in

common," while the Patristic view suggested that, "before the Fall," distinctions of ownership did not

exist. Private property emerged as a necessity to curb human greed and avarice.

In medieval natural law theory, private property was not deemed part of that law but was not contrary

to it either. In modern scholastic writings, private property is acknowledged as a "secondary natural

right," to be exercised under the conditions of natural law. William Blackstone (1723-80), a proponent
of natural rights theory, categorized property as an absolute right, though he applied this concept

more to possession than to ownership, particularly when inheritance and bequest are involved. Locke's

interpretation of natural rights diverges from this perspective, as he links natural rights to moral

conscience and reason. For Locke, the right to "life, liberty, and property" is inherent and not granted

by the state, which is obligated to protect it. However, he also associates property rights with human

labour, which aligns with the labour theory of property.

(b) theories of modes of origin

The theories of modes of origin focus on how property is acquired, such as through first occupation,

inheritance, or labour. While the basis of first occupation is largely historical and not directly applicable

to contemporary property acquisition, the notion of property as the "fruit of labour" holds significant

importance. Although this idea is rooted in liberal theory, it has not been fully developed, particularly

compared to its interpretation in socialist theory.

Locke serves as a key figure in this discourse, positing that every individual has a natural property in

their own person and that their labour produces ownership of the resources they mix with their efforts.

He asserts that, provided there is enough left for others, whatever one removes from nature and mixes

with their labor becomes their property. Despite advocating for property as the product of labor, Locke's

reasoning ultimately justifies existing inequalities, attributing them to consent rather than any inherent

natural principles. C.B. Macpherson describes Locke’s view as "possessive individualism," which

positions the individual as the sole proprietor of their capacities, free to pursue satisfaction without

societal obligation.
The implications of Locke's theory suggest that society is merely a collection of individuals defined by

their possessions, with political society serving primarily to protect property rights. The invention of

money exacerbated this situation, enabling individuals to accumulate property beyond their immediate

needs. Consequently, this legitimization of inequality has contributed to the development of capitalism,

characterized by vast disparities in wealth and power.

© Theories of Contribution to the Public Good

The third category of theories proposes that the right to property should be evaluated based on its

contribution to the public good. This perspective is increasingly relevant in today's world, particularly

following the industrial revolution, which resulted in significant capital concentration. There is a

growing recognition that property often serves as a means of control over the labor and lives of others.

Theories focused on public good advocate for property rights to be subordinate to social justice rather

than mere personal gratification. This viewpoint aligns closely with social-democratic perspectives,

which emphasize the need for property to contribute positively to society and support equitable

distribution of resources.

2.Social-Democratic perspective
The social-democratic perspective on property seeks to balance the right to property with the

principles of socialism and democracy. This viewpoint maintains that while socialist principles advocate

for social ownership and control of production means to fulfill social purposes, democratic principles

emphasize securing individual property rights as essential to personal freedom. Achieving a synthesis

of these principles can be challenging. One potential approach is to permit individual ownership of

property under regulations that ensure its use aligns with social objectives.

This perspective is notably represented by English philosophers L.T. Hobhouse (1864-1929) and R.H.

Tawney (1880-1962).

Hobhouse on the Right to Property

In his book Liberalism (1911), L.T. Hobhouse illustrates the social origins of property. He argues that

the organized force of society is what maintains owners' rights by protecting them against theft and

harm. Without this societal protection, he contends, an individual's property rights would be

meaningless. Hobhouse states:

"The prosperous businessman who thinks that he has made his fortune entirely by self-help does not

pause to consider what single step he could have taken on the road to his success but for the ordered

tranquility which has made commercial development possible."

He emphasizes that the demand for goods supplied by businesses is generated by the overall progress

of society. The modern production process relies on the collective inventions and efforts of
generations of scientists and industrial organizers. Thus, Hobhouse posits that society is not only

essential for maintaining property rights but is also a crucial partner in the creation of wealth.

In his later work, The Elements of Social Justice (1922), Hobhouse critiques the use of property as an

instrument of power that disregards social needs. He highlights that property can confer significant

power over others, particularly when ownership is concentrated or unequally distributed. He notes:

"The owner of land may be in a position to determine the means by which many people can earn their

living... If the property is important and limited, ownership may involve a partial or complete

monopoly, carrying with it a considerable, perhaps a fundamental, power over the lives of many."

Hobhouse argues that the concentration of control in modern industry allows capitalists to dictate

terms to workers and reap significant profits, thus exacerbating disparities between the wealthy and

the impoverished. He concludes that the right to property must be subject to two key qualifications:

1. It should not be used as an instrument of power over others.

2. It must be exercised with consideration for community needs.

Tawney on the Acquisitive Society

R.H. Tawney, in The Acquisitive Society (1920), criticizes the tyranny of "functionless property" and

advocates for the subordination of property rights to social service. He suggests that:

"Functionless property appears natural to those who believe that society should be organized for the

acquisition of private wealth... Those who hold that social unity and effective work are possible only if
society is organized and wealth distributed on the basis of function will ask of an institution not, 'What

dividends does it pay?' but 'What service does it perform?'"

Tawney's perspective reinforces the idea that property should serve the collective good rather than

merely function as a tool for individual gain. By prioritizing social service over mere wealth acquisition,

Tawney highlights the necessity for property rights to align with broader societal objectives.

LASKI'S VIEWS ON THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY

Harold J. Laski, a prominent advocate of positive liberalism, developed a theory of property that

emphasizes moral limitations based on the function it serves to society. His approach modifies

traditional liberal views by integrating socialist principles, ultimately proposing a framework that aligns

the right to private property with the common good.

In his work A Grammar of Politics (1938), Laski asserts that the right to property is

contingent upon its contribution to society. He states:

"I have the right to property if what I own is, broadly speaking, important for the service I perform."

For Laski, property is not an absolute right; instead, it must relate directly to the functions performed in

society. He argues that:

"No man has a moral right to property except as a return for function performed."

He critiques the concept of "functionless property," emphasizing that individuals should not possess

property simply because it exists; they must contribute to its value. Those who benefit from property

acquired through the efforts of others are deemed parasitic to society.

security and foster creative development, he critiques the concentration of property ownership in

capitalist systems. He argues that:

"The ownership of property involves the control of capital... and a regime of private property makes the

State very largely an institution dominated by the owners of private property."

Laski highlights the negative impacts of capitalism, where property owners prioritize

profit over social needs, leading to inequitable distribution of resources. He points out the wasteful

expenditure of the wealthy while propertyless workers struggle for basic sustenance.

Critique of Traditional Theories of Property

Laski systematically examines various traditional defenses of property and finds them lacking:

1. Psychological Theory: Claims property incentivizes labour but often leads to private profit rather than

community benefit.

2. Ethical Theory: Argues property is a reward for effort; however, rewards are often based on profit

manipulation rather than actual contributions to society.

3. Demand-Supply Theory: Laski contends that responding to market demand does not justify immoral

or harmful practices, such as slavery or the sale of obscene literature.

4. Historical Argument: Suggests that historical progress is tied to private property; however, he asserts

that the concept of property has evolved and should not be used as a blanket justification.
 Laski advocates for significant reforms in the capitalist system to align property rights with

social justice:

Limitations on Inheritance: He argues for curtailing inheritance rights, positing that property should only

be justified if it results from socially useful functions.

Theory of Reward: Laski proposes a system where rewards are based on the value of services rendered

to society rather than arbitrary market forces. He argues that individuals should receive enough to thrive

while also contributing to the social good.

Industrial Organization: He envisions a transformation of industry to emphasize public service over

profit. This includes fixed dividends for capital owners, democratic control in workplaces, and a focus

on socialized production for essential goods.

3.Marxist perspective

Marxist theory views "private property" not as an individual right, but as a condition that determines

relations of production based on the stage of historical development. Private property, like the state, has

not existed eternally, nor can it be considered a natural right. The origin of private property coincided

with the beginning of exploitation in society. The state was created by the class of property owners to

protect its private property, serving as an instrument of exploitation for the dependent class, which lacks

property. Under the early social stage—known as "primitive communism"—private property did not

exist. During this period, the means of production were rudimentary and held in common ownership,

with all production intended for communal consumption, just sufficient for the community's survival.
It was only with the development of the forces of production that surplus production became feasible,

leading to the institution of private property and the division of society into antagonistic classes—

masters and slaves. Friedrich Engels, in his work. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the

State* (1884), notes that the increase of production in various fields—such as cattle breeding,

agriculture, and domestic handicrafts—enabled human labour to produce more than was necessary for

maintenance. This increase in production created a desire for additional labour power, which was often

obtained through war, resulting in captives being made slaves. Thus, the first significant social division

of labour, by enhancing labour productivity, led to the emergence of the first class divisions: masters and

slaves, exploiters and exploited.

Property as the Basis of Class Division

The origin of private property is linked to the division of society into these antagonistic classes.

Although private property may be owned by individuals, these individuals represent specific interests,

which create a class. Their interests are inherently opposed to those of the propertyless class. The form

of private property evolves with the development of productive forces and changes in the mode of

production. However, as long as private property exists, its exploitative character remains. This division

manifests in various forms: in ancient societies, as masters and slaves; in medieval societies, as lords and

serfs; and in modern capitalist societies, as bourgeoisie and proletariat. The division is most pronounced

under capitalism, where the proletariat, by definition, is propertyless and reliant on wage labour.

Marx and Engels, in their Communist Manifesto (1848), assert, "Does wage labour create any property

for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage labour and

which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting new supply of wage labour for fresh
exploitation." Property, in its current form, is founded on the antagonism between capital and wage

labour. Thus, according to Marxism, private property is a divisive factor—a source of conflict rather

than harmony; a mode of exploitation instead of cooperation. In this context, private property signifies

the means of production, as the mode of ownership of these means determines how the "have-nots" will

earn their livelihood, thereby perpetuating their subjugation.

Marxism advocates the abolition of private property in this sense, not the abolition of personal property.

Marx emphasizes that the fruit of a man's own labour is what property is claimed to be—the foundation

of personal freedom, activity, and independence. He argues that when capital is transformed into

common property, representing all members of society, personal property is not turned into social

property. Instead, it is only the social character of the property that changes, losing its class character.

Property as the Cause of Alienation

Marxist theory holds the system of private property responsible for the erosion of human values. In his

earlier work, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx presented a searching analysis of

the capitalist system of private property from a humanist perspective. This work, often associated with

the thought of Young Marx, aligns closely with mainstream Marxist theory and contributes significantly

to the Marxist theory of alienation, representing its humanist aspect. Marx argues that under capitalism,

human labour is reduced to a mere commodity. The more wealth the worker produces, the poorer he

becomes. As Marx observes:

“The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. With the increasing

value of the world of things proceeds in direct proportion the devaluation of the world of men. Labour
produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a commodity—and does so in the

proportion in which it produces commodities generally” (Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of

1844).

Under the capitalist system, the worker has no say in the policies or processes of production. The acute

division of labour deprives the worker of the creative joy of production. In the feudal system, if a worker

produced a shirt, he could derive satisfaction from creating a useful item. However, in the capitalist

system, he might produce only a collar, pocket, or some other small portion of the shirt, rendering him

unable to discern his role in the creative process. This division leads to a loss of purpose, as the worker's

own product confronts him as something alien, a power independent of the producer.

The process of self-estrangement or alienation under capitalism occurs at four levels: (a) man is

alienated from his own product and work process; (b) man is alienated from nature, as he is forced to

work in the artificial atmosphere of a factory; (c) man is alienated from fellow men due to the

competitive nature of capitalism and sharp class divisions; and (d) finally, man is alienated from

himself, reduced to an animal existence where his biological needs are met, but his human faculties,

including a taste for literature, art, and music, evaporate.

In his other works, particularly ‘Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right’ (1843) and ‘On the Jewish

Question’ (1844), Marx argues that the constitution of modern representative states is, in reality, the

“constitution of private property.” Modern society is characterized by the real domination of private

property. As Lucio Colletti sums up in his ‘Introduction to Karl Marx: Early Writings’ (1975):
“Property ought to be a manifestation, an attribute, of man, but becomes the subject; man ought to be the

real subject, but becomes the property of private property. The social side of human beings appears as a

characteristic or property of things; on the other hand, things appear to be endowed with social or human

attributes.”

This idea foreshadows the argument that Marx later develops in ‘Capital’ as “the fetishism of

commodities.” Fetishism of commodities implies that social relations among different producers are

reduced to relations between the products of their labour. It equates various types of skills and quantities

of labour in terms of market values. Thus, the social relationship between a tailor and a carpenter

appears as a relationship between a coat and a table in terms of their exchange value, rather than the

labour and skills embodied in these products. In this context, the commodity becomes an embodiment of

value under capitalism, while the human being, as the worker and real producer of value, is reduced to a

commodity governed by market forces of demand, supply, and competition. The result is an overall

dehumanization of man, leading to self-estrangement and alienation.

Abolition of Private Property

Under the capitalist system, private property takes the form of bourgeois property, which dominates

society through the blind laws of market forces. It is devoid of human sense or appeal and acts as a

dehumanizing force; attempting to humanize it is futile. Marxist theory does not seek to appeal to the

good sense of property owners; they are enslaved by their private property, just as workers are. If human

values are to be restored, human freedom secured, and a rational system of production and distribution

evolved to satisfy social needs, the obvious course is the abolition of private property itself.
The mass of workers suffers the most under the capitalist system, facing oppression, exploitation, and

injustice. Their emancipation requires the abolition of the private property system. Although property

owners are also enslaved by the system, they do not feel the impact because they occupy a dominant

position. They would never be willing to relinquish their private property unless overthrown by a violent

revolution. Therefore, Marx appeals to the revolutionary zeal of the working class to abolish the system

of private property and socialize all major means of production, thereby restoring human sense and

values.

With the abolition of private property comes the end of exploitation. However, this does not mean the

abolition of property itself; it involves changing the pattern of ownership from bourgeois to social

ownership, transitioning from class ownership to common ownership. Although, in the transitional

phase of the "dictatorship of the proletariat," property may temporarily be held in class ownership by the

proletariat until a classless society emerges.

The capitalist system of private property distorts the concept of property itself, representing a condition

under which the product of collective effort is appropriated by a few and used as an instrument of

domination over society. As Marx and Engels elucidate:

“To be a capitalist is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a

collective product, and only through the united action of many members—nay, in the last resort, only by

the united action of all members of society—can it be set in motion. Capital is, therefore, not a personal,

but a social power. Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all

it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriation.”
In short, Marxist theory views the system of private property as the foundation of capitalism,

characterized by the exploitation of man by man. It advocates the abolition of private property in the

major means of production to pave the way for a humanistic reorganization of production and

distribution while maintaining personal property—a genuine fruit of an individual's labour and an

instrument of his freedom.

Marxist theory of property draws a significant distinction between "personal property" and "private

property." It favours the full protection of personal property, which is essential for individual security,

and advocates for the abolition of private property, which serves as an instrument for controlling the

lives of others. This distinction is a commendable idea; however, it raises some challenges in practice.

Marxist theory of property is applicable in societies divided into clear-cut classes—haves and have-nots.

However, in contemporary society, the size of the middle class has significantly increased and continues

to grow. Its problems cannot be fully analysed through the lens of Marxist theory. When a large number

of shareholders invest their hard-earned money and savings in big businesses and industries, the

situation becomes more complex. When a middle-class person raises personal property through talent

and effort and invests savings in shares for future security, the dividing line between personal property

and private property, in the Marxian sense, starts to blur. In such scenarios, advocating for a violent

revolution to abolish private property loses its rationale. An important suggestion from Marxist theory is

that no form of property should become an instrument of exploitation and control over the lives of

others.
Gandhi's Philosophy on Property and Morality

Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948), an Indian philosopher, sought to assess the role of property in both social

and personal morality. His principles of non-possession (renunciation or aparigraha) and non-stealing

(abstention from theft or asteya) address personal morality. According to Gandhi, a person should not

acquire material possessions beyond their immediate needs, as amassing wealth is bound to degrade

one's character. Accumulating excess wealth also amounts to theft, as it deprives others of their due

share. Gandhi famously stated that the earth has enough to satisfy everyone's needs, but not enough to

satisfy anyone's greed.

The Gandhian principle of "bread labour" requires that everyone should engage in physical labour, in

addition to their usual duties, to contribute to the production of material goods. This practice serves to

compensate for one's consumption, ensuring that the scarcity of resources in society does not worsen

due to continuous consumption. Moreover, Gandhi commended "bread labour" as an instrument of self-

purification, which fosters both personal and social morality.

Finally, Gandhi's doctrine of trusteeship largely pertains to social morality. It asserts that the owners of

capital and large estates should view their possessions as a trust for humanity, using them for social

service rather than personal gratification or private profit. If these principles are adopted, the tyranny of

property will automatically diminish, leading to a general uplift in both the material and moral life of

society.

CONCLUSION

The right to property encompasses a rich tapestry of perspectives, each contributing to a comprehensive

understanding of its implications for society. The liberal perspective views private property as a
fundamental human right essential for individual freedom and economic prosperity. Liberals argue that

property rights protect personal autonomy, incentivize responsible behavior, and promote investment

and innovation. The sanctity of property underpins capitalist frameworks, where individuals are free to

acquire, use, and transfer property. However, liberals also recognize the necessity of regulations to

prevent abuses and ensure that property ownership does not infringe on the rights of others.

Social democrats, while valuing the right to private property, advocate for a mixed economy that

balances individual ownership with social welfare. They support policies aimed at redistributing wealth

to reduce inequality and ensure access to basic needs and opportunities for all. Social democracy

emphasizes the role of the state in regulating the economy and providing social safety nets,

acknowledging that unregulated capitalism can lead to social injustices. This perspective promotes

property rights that coexist with a commitment to social justice, emphasizing the need for responsible

ownership that contributes to the common good.

Conversely, the Marxist perspective critiques private property as a source of social inequality and

exploitation. Marx and Engels contend that capitalism, built on private property, inherently divides

society into antagonistic classes, perpetuating the alienation of the working class. They argue that

abolishing private property is essential not only for the liberation of the proletariat but also for creating a

just society where production serves collective human needs rather than individual greed.

Mahatma Gandhi offers a moral critique of property, emphasizing principles such as non-possession

(aparigraha) and social trusteeship. He asserts that excessive accumulation leads to character

degradation and social injustice, advocating for property viewed as a responsibility toward humanity

rather than personal gain. Gandhi’s vision promotes ethical stewardship, where wealth arises from

contributions to the common good and physical labor, fostering self-purification and social morality.
Contemporary discussions on property rights must also address the evolving economic landscape and

the increasing size of the middle class, complicating the Marxist dichotomy of haves and have-nots. As

individuals invest their resources and efforts in property, the distinctions between personal and private

property blur. The rise of shared economies and cooperative ownership models further challenges

traditional notions of property, highlighting the need for a nuanced understanding of ownership that

accounts for diverse socio-economic realities.

Ultimately, the right to property should be understood as a dynamic concept that balances individual

rights with collective responsibilities. The integration of liberal advocacy for personal freedom, social

democratic emphasis on equity, Marxist critiques of exploitation, and Gandhian ideals of ethical

ownership provides a framework for reimagining property rights. This framework promotes social

justice and human dignity, fostering a system where property serves as a means of enhancing human life

rather than a tool of oppression. By prioritizing communal welfare and responsible stewardship over

mere possession, society can strive for a more equitable and harmonious future.

REFERENCES

1. Gauba, O. P. (2009). An introduction to political theory (5th ed.). Macmillan.