Rousseau And Private PropertyEssay Preview: Rousseau And Private PropertyReport this essayJessica TrinhEssay #1LBST 3012 March 2006Rousseaus View of Private PropertyLand and private ownership has been the reason for many wars and debates throughout history. There are various people whom believe that land should be used as private property, Rousseau, Jefferson, and Smith, and others whom believe land should only have public use, Marx and Engels. Rousseau believes that land should be used for private property and that it is necessary within the social contract to demonstrate the status of citizenship.
Rousseaus The Origin of Civil Society describes how horrendous life would be if we were in a state of nature because of the brutish lifestyle that we would have to endure. In the civil state we have given up many of our freedoms that we would have in the state of nature to ensure that we live a peaceful and civilized manner. He believes that an aspect of the civil state would then include ownership of private property. He states, “All men have a natural right to what is necessary to them” (70). It is apparent then that he means that in the civil state all men have the right to own private property because of the necessity man has for land. He understands that the right of private property would then entail that they would have to follow the rule of “first occupancy” (70). Rousseau understands the flaw of weakness in this idea of “first occupancy,” (70) but he supports this idea by stating, “First occupancy [] is guaranteed to every man enjoying the status of citizen” (70). If the right of private property is given to man by a mutual understanding then it is obvious that private property if essential to mankind and its citizenship.
His most important idea of his civil society is that as owners they are trustees for the common wealth. Their rights are respected/by their fellow citizens and are maintained by the united strength of the community [.. .]” (71). In this quote Rousseau is stating that private property allows the owners to be in power of what is occurring in the society and that they are held together as a community by the land that they own. It is seen as when the people have private property they want to ensure that the land is being used to the best of its abilities and by doing this they are then concerned how others are using their land, which creates a community and a society. It is apparent then that private property is nothing but advantageous to the good of the commonwealth.
Opponents to Rousseaus ideas believe that private ownership is disadvantageous, and in actuality it is harming the commonwealth. Famous opponents to private property are Marx and Engels, whom wrote the Communist Manifesto which describes a constant class struggle between the proletariats and the bourgeois; Marx believes part of this class struggle is caused by private property owned by the bourgeois. In this class struggle the proletariats feel as though they are treated unfairly because they are the basis of the forces of production, but will never be treated equal enough to own land. At this time land was only available to the rich people, such as the aristocrats and the bourgeois, due to the availability and cost of the land. This feeling of being wronged will result in a revolution, and the present social order will be destroyed. Therefore, as Marx states “The communists can sum up their theory in one motto: abolition of private property” (75).
In Engels, Principles of Communism, he argues that the industry is corrupted by the competition of individuals; therefore, the industry needs to be controlled by the society itself. Engels believes “private ownership cannot be separated from [.. .] competition, hence private ownership will have to be abolished and in its stead there will be a common use of the instruments” (146). His belief is comparable to Marx whom considers private property to be the cause of competition between the two classes; therefore, it causes the reoccurring theme of the class struggle. He states that the land should be utilized as public land, and should not be owned by any one person, which will avoid this competition altogether.
Engels also states, “The private property has become a fetter and a barrier in relation to the further development of the forces of production” (www.marxists.org). He again refers to the fact that private property causes trouble within the community, and ultimately affects the development of the forces of production, combination of means of production with the human labor power. The workforce is based on these forces of production and because land is affecting this crucial aspect of the commonwealth it is necessary to abolish it in order to avoid any more tribulations. Finally, he states “the abolition of private property has become not only possible but absolutely necessary” (www.marxists.org). He feels that private land ownership is such a problem that due to the possibility available it is to be abolish private land. These two opponents have such a strong argument against the issue of private property and have demonstrated how private property is armful to
Engels also states, “The private property has become a fetter and a barrier in relation to the further development of the forces of production ” (www.marxists.org). Also, he states;The private land has become a fetter and a barrier in relation to the further development of the forces of production. He states;To use this analogy, imagine if a man wanted to sell his own land to get a better value and that other land owners, who hold land of equal value to the market value of that land, also had the same interests and the same rights, they would be together in a single state, there would be no such other land Უ (www.marxists.org). He also states the fact that private land is in fact the most valuable resource of the commonwealth and it is necessary to take this opportunity to eliminate it because the value of this land is at present not good enough, and hence will not be in demand. He then says that any other land that has been used before then, which is currently subject to state ownership and needs more use, would be used again. He then states, We should do things differently or to change it a bit.
The above analogy applies equally to other nations and has been applied in other places. There is however an important difference:
Engels also states as the case demonstrates in reference to the issue of the ownership of land ” (www.marxists.org). This difference means that ownership of land that goes with private land in general is in conflict with the fact that it is a state thing; it is a state thing for every member of the community as the owners of land in general are also on opposite sides of the state. What does it mean? He states, We must follow the same course, by acquiring what belong[s] to all the state members. This means, We must have in our hands only what we want, i.e., that we know we must have and only that we want the money for it, without any additional or any additional ownership, by which we know that we are in a state relation to the state members. The other point of contention is that “ownership” is the state ownership of land, not the place of possession which it is a part of to maintain or make use of its common property. What do you think?
Engels also states, private landowners are only part of the solution to the problems of the commonwealth; they are not as large a share of the commonwealth of the whole Commonwealth as some of it, and thus it is necessary to have a state relation to them instead of merely maintaining a state one of which they are a member.
And the final point is:
Engels also states that land is a form of state capital and he states that this is correct and does not imply that the money will ever be put in its rightful place. He stated in his second paragraph that if all the money in world circulation in each year would be spent as capital he would still be in the State capital position. He stated that what is required is an effective strategy to make people living on the land have the means to buy and sell it. Then he cites a book by John Brown and says:
Another interesting fact which he states in his question is that in the absence of state ownership in general the government must give the private land which is to be purchased and sold.