This paper argues that private property is an enduring than a universal feature of our existence as are other elements such as migration, markets, and the State. Private property is both the cause and result of capital and labour in an individualistic society. This description means that it serves both as the cause and consequence of alienated labor. The form of object ownership is one of the enduring aspects of humanity. Throughout history and ages, humans have acquired and valued objects as well as ideas to advance their existence. This realization shows that property is a vital part of their experience. It remains as such with the rise in persistent academic inquiries into the causes, factors, and the extent of its categorization as enduring as opposed to universality. (Macpherson 1978: 1-2)
Virtually, all activities that humans perform such as hunting and gathering, education, shelter, marriage, health, as well as social and child reproduction have close ties with property ownership. It would be appropriate to recognize this connection by accounting for the major trends, themes, nature of private property based on human evolution and revolution. Though revolutionary periods and forms of governance vary along trend, every member of the human race seems to have an equal view of the value of a property. This framework shows that private property ownership is important in helping understand the path traced and endured by humans as a species (Macpherson 1978: 1-6).
On the global front, drawn from evolution, private property has achieved a reputation for being an enduring feature of human history. In any case, everyone in a social formation belongs to a string of ancestors who hunted and gathered to establish systems aimed at wealth collection. Their intentions have been to protect and advance the notion that private property is essential for success and survival. Such ideologies further dispel the argument that private property is more a universal than an enduring entity of humanity. The following are three the trends that will help demystify this argument (Myers 1997: 52-55).
First, evolutionary anthropological records are proof that individuals make themselves. According to Myers, evolution started out as a process of self-creation which helped in establishing and private and social production. Evolution helped shape early civilization and economic activities for individual benefits. In the process, societies established new concepts of class-based identification for private property ownership. For instance, the resultant various forms of labor confirmed and extended the basic notion of historical materialism identified under the property. That is, different production modes help in determining human consciousness. This consciousness of ownership stems from the individual dependence on private production (Myers 1997).
Second, the hunter-gatherer phase in every human society formed the basis for a primitive order and need for property acquisition. Indeed, Bloch (1975) addresses the idea that modern humans are direct descendants a communist first society. Therefore, the current private connotations to property ownership exist as a result of several years of adaptation to communism. Throughout history, humanity has favoured individualism over collectivism to escape potential drawbacks associated with communities that adhere to the latter form of governance. On an individual level, people can now advance their freedoms and rights, search for prosperity, and establish a desirable social class for their families (Bloch 1975:219-220).
Third, all current generations may be different from their early ancestors but remain equally human. Bloch (1975: 221) uses this idea to imply that there exist no primitive languages, races, familial patterns, sexes, and properties. Also noted is the fact that their technology was less efficient than its current equivalent. However, it served and endured the human generation for many years throughout the abandonment of public property ownership and the adoption of private property. The idea to acquire as much private property as possible embraces the view of wealth as a significant step towards opportunity and freedom. Often, additional private property ownership introduces a perceived status associated with economic might and freedom.
Ideally, a society that treasures private property ownership places emphasis on material possession. In essence, they view things as price possessions of appropriation. Hann offers a clear example of such an appropriation in their ethnographical review of land ownership in contemporary Hungary. The author finds that rural Hungary finds it hard shifting from collectivism to individualism when it comes to family land ownership. The value Hann’s peasant farmers place on the family lands reflects the economic environment that allows an individual the experience of objects observed as part of the economic structure. Particularly, under such capitalism, individuals see the community regarding object appropriation. Thus, they tend to place value on sole acquisitions and use them to conduct their daily activities (1993: 299-304).
In contrast, communism views property as universal in nature. It senses societies as social and having the need to operate from a collective perspective. According to Hann (1993: 303), a collective economic relation supports the fundamental drivers of life and wealth utilization, namely consumption and production. Therefore, private property becomes the centre of attraction in forging a relationship of the universal capitalist to the society of things. In such a case, the concept strays from single ownership to universal ownership. Those advocating for universal property ownership tend to criticize the acquisition and ownership of the private property through labor. Notably, however, labourers may not acquire property through their hard work rather have the resultant capital exploit their needs. Such property, controlled by those in government, represents a universal than an enduring feature.
In short, humans are creatures of superior intelligence who interact on a social front just like other social organisms such as insects and other social mammals. They live in groups and create organized forms of activity as Myers illustrates with the Aboriginals. Somewhere along their evolutionary path, humans began to specialize across duties through labor division as would mammals and insects. For instance, like termites and their ant hills, humans now have the ability to build skyscrapers. Both creatures can now build structures that are relatively higher to their sizes. This paper views labor, one of the forms of property acquisition, as a genetic predetermination. Thus, the ants work on their hills because nature and requirement from the queen. They know that their duties and responsibilities end with the exhaustion of a structured roster thus avoiding duplication of tasks (Myers 1997: 54-57).
This very nature of ants allows them to participate in the construction and maintenance of their colonies without questioning their functions. While genetics remain equally important to human activity, language and property serve as the unique elements of organized human cultures. As social creatures, every member of this society needs their neighbour as well as their system of governance. However, their ability to join a cooperative association for collective coexistence rely, to a high level, on language, property-oriented relationships, and visible institutions. For instance, our social nature would require the accommodation of peace and productivity within the community by private property generated relationships (Macpherson 1978: 2-6).
While the social nature of humans threatens to skew private property towards universalism, it also shows the inequalities in behavior that emerges and expands with changing times. Capitalism and individualism are concepts brought by time and era to reveal the very nature of humans as selfish creatures. Given such cases, private property becomes an idea caused and experienced through the natural individual relationship between capital and alienated labor. As a result, to understand property ownership, one must examine the periods and factors that drive individuals into favouring individualism over communism. For instance, the past three to four decades have witnessed the transformation of economics from collectivism to individualism. This transformation shows that individuals have the ability to seek profits, otherwise private property, by exploiting the imbalances that exist between labor and capital (Macpherson 1978: 2-6).
In conclusion, throughout this paper, the central objective was to offer an informed interpretation of private property. The discussion recognizes that private property has undergone a dramatic evolution over the years and opened up ideas for individualism as opposed to collectivism. Unlike the latter, individualism helps in building private property ownership as an enduring feature of human history. Such an insight is adequate for the conclusion that individuals first act as lone then social agents when acquiring property for private then societal consumption. That is, individuals are selfish enough to worry about how tasks benefit themselves and immediate family before thinking of their neighbours and colleagues.
References
Bloch, M. 1975. Property and the end of affinity.
Hann, M. C. 1993. From Production to Property: Decollectivisation and the Family-Land Relationship in Contemporary Hungary. Man, New Series, Vol. 28, No. 2, 299-320.
Macpherson, B. 1978. Property, Mainstream and Critical Positions. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Myers, F. 1997. Burning the truck and holding the country: property, time, and the negotiation identity among Pintupi Aborigines. In D. Riches, T. Ingold, & J. Woodburn, Hunters and Gatherers, Volume II: Property, Power and Ideology (pp. 52-74). London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic.
