People often think about property as about an economic understanding or as about something, which can be sold, bought, exchanged, etc. All that makes sense, but it is only a part and absolutely not a determinative part of the general phenomenon of property. Truth is that property is essentially a social category, because there is no property without its foundation on power and coercion. Without at least some degree of power, not only we would be unable to acquire and to hold any property, but also even our very own life would belong to other powerful people – we would simply be slaves without any bit of power. Any proprietorship is, first of all, based on power; power is a foundation of proprietorship. There is no any proprietorship apart from its reliance on power. What kind of property and to what extent particular private individual in any particular society can possess and use is being determined by two factors – his personal power or his personal relation to social mechanisms of coercion and a balance of power in this particular society based on counteraction between all private interests. Whatever system of property rights and property relations we are having in modern times in economically developed countries, it is based exclusively on the balance of power in our society, and only thanks to that particular balance of power we are able to acquire property, to use and to hold it. People are not struggling and fighting in society just on their own; quite often they are grouping or formally and informally uniting for promotion of their special interests. Because of that and also because of the general commonness and uniformity of basic human needs and basic human interests a person does not have to fight for his rights and privileges only on his own, he can do it in association with the other people with similar interests. Even more than that, as we all know, sometimes he even can be a “free rider”. Therefore, besides a private component of our social power, there is also an inbuilt or embedded in every person – group component of power, which is uniting particular private individual with a particular power group, with a particular interest promotion group or with a particular social group. 

Usually we think about property as about something, which belongs to concrete people or to groups of people. This can be attributed to understanding of property in economic or in legal sense and at economic level. At the economic level property rights are realized by their direct proprietors who are simultaneously their main beneficiaries – beneficiaries, first of all, in terms of income. From economic point of view, any economic proprietor is realizing his property rights through different types of economic activity. Property rights include, as well, a right to freely manage one’s property and to use according to his wish any benefits arising from utilization of this particular type of property. Economic or legal property rights, their applications and appropriations are the most explicit ones not only for professionals and practitioners, but for a general public as well. They are lying on a surface of everyday economic activity and of everyday social life. On the other hand, owing to their interconnection with real tangible economic interests, economic property rights are often stimulating significant controversy, discussions and quite often even more severe types of social counteraction. They are also directly connected with a distribution of income and property in any particular society.

At the social level things are relatively different and first of all what concerns a definition of property. Economic property rights and connected with them distribution of income are realized by their economic, private or lawful proprietors only up to a degree limited by achieved in society at particular point in time balance of power or balance of counteraction between all private interests expressed in a system of societal or property relations. Without an understanding of social - based on mechanisms of power and coercion - property rights we cannot describe different types of historic social formations such as slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism and communism. On the other hand, without understanding of property relations at social or societal level we cannot describe any social phenomenon generally, because property relations are determining not only particular fixed in time social processes, but also social processes in their evolution or social evolution as well. We can go even further and say that economic or legal definition of property is not enough for understanding of property and property relations and therefore is not enough for general comprehension of social relations in any society and as a matter of fact without the notion of "social” property rights we cannot describe anything in society. A feeling of multidimensionality of societal relations related to production of material wealth occurs far back in history, while most explicitly it is pronounced by Franz Oppenheimer.

“There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one's own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others…

I propose … to call one's own labor and the equivalent exchange of one's own labor for the labor of others, the “economic means" for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the "political means."”  ¹

Property is a very complex and exceptionally determinative category what concerns social and economic processes and what concerns social and economic behavior. Property is having a double nature. First part of its nature is connected with personal consumption and property’s utilization for satisfaction of personal needs. In such quality property serves as a reproduction factor for labor force or for entrepreneurial capacities. Its second part is connected with industrial or economic consumption and in this quality property serves as a reproduction factor for capital. Property as labor force reproduction factor is used in personal or private consumption, which under normal circumstances never troubles other people either socially or economically. In this sense few limitations can be attributable to personal consumption or to this aspect of property utilization. On the contrary, production utilization of particular property or more precisely its utilization in value creation process is directly connected with the interests of other people and because of that it is acquiring a shadow of social phenomenon. Uniting and linking diverse private interests, production utilization of any property is bearing a seal of social counteraction and potential of becoming a social phenomenon.

Entering into production or economic relations, property is loosing its personalized or personified character and starting to be related, in addition to its direct proprietors, to a certain number of other people. Any act of property exchange represents at least two-dimensional or two-sided deal. Simple exchange transaction can at least be considered from the point of view of buyer and from the point of view of seller.

“The buyer depends on the seller and the seller on the buyer” ²

Every one of them is having his egocentric interest in particular exchange transaction and tends to extract from such transaction as much benefits as possible. Despite this fact, the main visible outcome of the economic utilization of private property is a reduction of a general level of real prices or an increase in aggregate level of income in society. From the point of view of property relations such outcome represents a process of property accumulation. Only if we have more property today than we used to have yesterday we can speak about property or capital accumulation. And the only intensive way for capital accumulation is connected either with the decrease in prices or with the growth of aggregate income, which are the two different effects of the very same economic process, as we shall see.

Property, especially in its application to economic activity is not something fixed, constant or steady. Quite opposite, the very logic and reason for any economic activity is to make property work and move. If from the legal point of view or from the point of view of common understanding of property, it probably more corresponds to the former characteristics, from economic point of view property rather represents a constant process of movement, flows and reallocation of resources. It influences and concerns not only separate economic proprietor, but rather closely fits into the network of macroeconomic and societal relations. Any social (based on mechanisms of power and coercion) obstacle on the way of free property flows is allowing certain people and social groups to obtain exclusive property rights and is bringing along both inefficiency and appropriation of monopolistic income. Based on that, economic operations are under a great deal of social pressure and quite often also represent a social phenomenon, which is uniting, counteracting or cooperating more than one interest. Economic property possessions as well as capital or property flows can be limited or restricted at the societal level or by certain social (based on mechanisms of power and coercion) property claims. Since property is not something fixed, but vice-a-versa is something, which must constantly move and flow in order to bring any vale - universal declaration of social property rights presumes unrestricted property flows in correspondence with the maximum economic efficiency requirements. If somebody does not have an access to any particular property, it means that somebody else is utilizing this property on exclusive basis and is benefiting from such utilization in an exclusive way. Any non-exclusive economic property possession and moreover economic utilization of such property also represents an act of socialization. Any non-exclusive economic property possession is beneficial both for its proprietor and for society as a whole or for every single member of society. Economic non-exclusive utilization of property is not a private process (even though property is called “private”) because it involves and concerns a certain number of people and because it is realized without creating particular exclusive property rights at social level with implication of the mechanisms of power and coercion.

“Private property of the material factors of production is a public mandate, as it were, which is withdrawn as soon as the consumers think that other people would employ the capital goods more efficiently for their, viz., the consumers', benefit” ³

Economic utilization of property is nobody’s merit or nobody’s accomplishment from the point of view of moral or justice. Proprietor is benefiting in terms of income and therefore already is receiving from people an award for his deeds. On the other hand, people are benefiting in terms of new products and in terms of lower prices or in terms of growth in aggregate income or what is the same in terms of growth in aggregate property's value. Consequently a non-monopolized property is not only allowing property accumulation for the owner of this particular property, but under its economic utilization is also increasing a value of property of the other members of society. This is the highest economic expression of socialization of the private interest. Under perfect competition or under monopoly-free environment, any member of society has an access to the same production factors as all other people, and if somebody does not succeed, it is merely because he is not so smart or lazy. Therefore, nobody can say that the winner is getting an unfair or exclusive reward (income) on account of the other people. On the other hand, under monopoly free environment, proprietor always has to think about his customers or about every particular individual, because only serving their preferences to their satisfaction he can benefit from his property possessions. Permanent dependence and interconnection with the other economic property rights are keeping private interest within a framework of interests of the other people or simply are socializing it.

“The market does not directly prevent anybody from arbitrarily inflicting harm on his fellow citizens; it only puts a penalty upon such conduct. The shopkeeper is free to be rude to his customers provided he is ready to bear the consequences” ⁴

We have a completely different picture if somebody manages to obtain particular exclusive property rights, exclusive social property claims or exclusive privileges based upon social mechanisms of power and coercion. Such rights and privileges are liberating particular proprietor from economic interconnection and interrelation with the rest of society. First of all, this proprietor simply has fewer incentives to satisfy demands of every particular individual in this particular society, because people do not have a choice anymore in terms of procurement or utilization of particular property. From the other side, exclusive proprietor is becoming to be independent from the rest of society in evaluation of his property in terms of the other people’s property and therefore is becoming to be able to evaluate both his property and other people’s property and economic contribution in relation to his property on his own. This is another big step away from socialization. These factors are bringing self-interest oriented human nature of exclusive proprietor in contradiction with the interests of particular individuals and moreover with the requirements of macroeconomic and social efficiency. Carrying human self-interest all the way to exclusive social property rights, such statement of things creates disturbances in the entire system of property relations.

Social property rights are closely connected with and relying upon macroeconomic or social evaluation of property or upon price influence situation. Marx, for example, has demonstrated in the most explicit way that the process of exchange represents a complex social relation⁵. Process of exchange is not just a matter of seller and buyer. It goes much deeper in its social essence and determination. Every particular transaction is inseparable from an overall societal process of exchange. Clearly, those are the compound claims of all market operators upon any particular commodity what is driving and determining exchange ratios and not just the narrow preferences of particular seller and buyer. On these basis an exchange value of any particular commodity is established. This suppose that all individuals have an influence or have a right to vote on any particular exchange transaction according to their preferences, being at the same time able to repeat it, if they wish, with their own financial resources in the very same way. This also implies, that if somebody for one reason or another is unable to reproduce desirable kind of transaction owing to social (based on mechanisms of power and coercion) factors, he is automatically excluded from particular process of economic bargaining or from economic formation of a price of particular commodity or of particular production factor. Speaking otherwise, this person is becoming unequal or inferior in his economic voting rights to express his consumer preference. Not only he is unable to “vote” on the price of particular property (commodity) of certain other people, but he is equally unable to participate in formation of a price of his own property in terms of certain other people’s property as well. Those “other people” acquiring exclusive property rights based on power and coercion are violating his social property rights and are determining the price or economic contribution of his property in terms of their property instead of him. This is a major underlying reason of monopolistic injustice (which we will consider a little bit later) from the point of view of economic exchange.

Generally speaking, any commodities are not subject to their exclusive utilization since the entire economic network by and large is directed towards maximization of revenues and therefore towards maximization of sales. Only certain specific commodities can be subject to exclusion from the market and to their exclusive utilization. These commodities are called production factors. What is so special about them that make them so desirable in terms of their exclusive utilization? First of all, it is their nature based on impossibility of any economic, social and therefore of any life supporting activity without their implication. And if this is the case, then their withdrawal from exchange relations will give their proprietors exclusive rights on their utilization and first all will provide them with a possibility to receive exclusive or monopolistic income. Accordingly, it will make other people, who are left out of price voting influence upon economic contribution of these factors, to pay certain exclusive prices, which exceed economic or market value of these resources.

Let us consider a simple case of monopoly – monopoly of matches’ production and distribution in particular city, which has emerged, for example, as a result of bribing of city council officer by matches’ production and distribution company. Such situation is making people in this particular community to pay monopolistic price for matches. However, exclusive income is not distributed equally among owners of each production factor, which has participated in manufacturing of matches. Since production of matches is quite simple and does not require any sophisticated qualification, workers who are employed to produce matches are easily exchangeable for another people. Value of labor in this case is determined by the market or by the price voting mechanism with participation of every single city resident. Particular employee cannot influence the price of his labor. Let us suppose, that land affiliated to this factory is rented from a local landowner. There are hundreds of other plots of land and hundreds of other landowners in town or in its vicinities. Price of land, therefore, is also determined solely by the market. Consequently all production factors employed in this particular economic activity, with an exception of capital, are subject to formation of their value through market exchange process. In other words, an overall economic voting is involved in a process of price formation for all production factors employed except for the capital. It is not only the voting of particular people engaged in these particular transactions what counts. Every member of society is voting on values in this particular economic activity. Price or value formation process involves all people in this community in equal manner even if due to certain reasons they do not want to or simply cannot buy particular commodities. All land market’s participants determine a price of land in this community including a price of land for this particular project. All labor market participants are determining a price of particular labor input at our matches’ factory. Speaking otherwise, every member of society is taking part in determination of economic value of the deal. Here lies a connection between economic and social nature of value identification process. If every single member of society is able to participate in price formation for any particular exchange transaction, we have a case of economic and social justice and we do not have any exclusive property rights. On the other hand, if only particular individuals or only particular social groups are able to determine economic and social value of particular property or of particular economic transaction on their own, discriminating or excluding the rest of society, appear exclusive rights and associated economic injustice. In our example of the matches’ factory, concrete economic process of value identification is violated. People (except for matches’ factory proprietor) are not able to adequately participate in the process of price formation for matches or more precisely in identification of economic value of capital as of production resource for this particular commodity or for this particular economic agent. Access to matches’ capital is closed for the rest of society. Nobody can use capital to produce matches. Social property rights of every particular individual are violated and simultaneously exclusive social property rights are appropriated by the proprietor of matches’ factory. People are excluded from the market voting process or from the process of value identification for this particular commodity. They are also excluded from identification of the value of participation of this particular structural capital in overall economic activity - of its general economic contribution. Exclusive property rights represent in this case a social phenomenon - imperfection in the system of property rights, which arises as a result of self-realization of egocentric interest through utilization of the mechanisms of power and coercion (City Council) and not owing to any economic factors. These particular exclusive property rights are not emerging from economic competition, but vice a versa they are appearing owing to direct violation of such competition and therefore this kind of property rights is bearing purely social and not an economic nature. Nature of social monopolization is essentially different from the nature of economic monopolization - those are two absolutely different types of monopolization.

Price of property or commodity is not a private matter of buyer and seller or even of both of them - it is rather an economic phenomenon, which influences and depends upon every member of society. Every particular individual is evaluating his property in terms of other people’ property. He does not mark price just in terms of monetary units, but rather marks it in terms of a certain amount of other people’s property. If people afterwards accept his price, by selling his property (commodities) he is acquiring economic claims upon their property as well. The same is valid in terms of other individuals’ claims upon his property.

“This is what is meant by those who call the market economy a democracy in which every penny gives a right to vote” ⁶

Even if somebody does not want to buy or does not have enough money to buy particular property he is also voting by saying “this price is too high for me and I vote it should be reduced” or even “I generally do not need this commodity even for free”. This is his influence upon property of the other people or his social property right. Although he is not participating in a particular transaction and may not even own any property (which is very unlikely) nevertheless he has a social right to vote just like anybody else. Through economic voting he is acquiring the right on evaluation of anybody’s property in terms of his own property. One’s own property, at the end of the day, is not expressed in some mythical or mysterious monetary units, but only in terms of other people’s property. If a large number of people will articulate their claims upon particular property in the same negative way, then under the pressure of market competition owner of particular property or of particular commodity will have to reevaluate his price. By doing so, he will contribute to economic efficiency requirements, which claim that the price of his commodity is too high and therefore the cost of his property to society is too high as well. Society or any actor on behalf of society within a process of exchange neither have any ability nor any justification to coercively persuade the owner to reevaluate a price of his property. If the owner does not want to respond to social property claims of the other people and to reevaluate his price and therefore also to reevaluate cost of his property for other people, then his competitor or proprietor of similar commodity will reduce a price of his property in order to increase sales and profits. By doing so, he will be able to enlarge his property possessions, because buyers will now vote for his price and therefore for his commodity. By responding to social property claims of the other people this particular proprietor will be able to sell more or what is the same will be able to increase an amount of his property.

But what if in the system of property rights and property relations appear some kind of imperfections and owing to certain social factors, which we will consider later, there are no more any substituting property possessions while the proprietor of certain commodity is becoming to be a single supplier of this particular commodity on the market? Consequently this particular proprietor is acquiring exclusive social property claims accompanied by a violation of the price voting mechanism. Price voting mechanism and social property rights cannot influence anymore the value of his property and its cost to every particular individual in society, simply because there is no any other price and no any other similar property offered. There is no any alternative price option; there is only one option established by exclusive proprietor. People loose their social rights upon this particular property, even though they are still able to acquire this property (commodity) within the process of exchange through a simple exchange transaction. On the other hand, people are not able anymore to participate in evaluation of their own property in terms of this particular proprietor’s property. Therefore their rights on evaluation of their own property or their own social property rights are violated. In other words, if somebody is acquiring a possibility to determine price of his property on his own, it means that he is not only denying for other people a possibility to participate in value formation process for his property or to determine his economic contribution, but simultaneously he makes it impossible for them to evaluate their own property in terms of his particular property. Such phenomenon, which we call price influence situation, is very important for understanding of the nature of problems and imperfections arising in the system of property rights and property relations – very important not on account of its characteristics in terms of general morality, but on account of associated patterns of income distribution.

Normally, any proprietor is eager to obtain exclusive rights for utilization of his property and for associated appropriation of exclusive income or, otherwise, to limit an influence of the other members of society upon evaluation of his particular property and upon the consequential pattern of income appropriation. Since it is quite difficult to accomplish this task on one’s own, sometimes it is more profitable for a group of exclusive proprietors to unite their efforts and to form a social group in order to acquire and to maintain exclusive property rights on utilization of particular property. Such incentive moreover exists in the case of monopolization of the entire production factor.

Exclusivity of social property rights is a rather quantitative phenomenon. Whenever certain social groups manage to obtain exclusive property rights, we are having a case of social property rights violation or a case of appropriation of exclusive social property rights. Such situation generally means restricted social (based on mechanisms of power and coercion) access for certain individuals and social groups to certain type of property. Violation of social property rights simultaneously implies that particular individuals or social groups owing to certain social circumstances together with ordinary economic property rights are also acquiring certain exclusive social property rights. In order to realize their exclusive social property rights, proprietors need some kind of macroeconomic or social entity – a source of coercion - for protection of their exclusive privileges as well as for facilitation and enforcement of the distribution of associated exclusive income. Consequently, exclusive social property rights for one particular social group and property rights violations for other members of society are normally realized together and at the social or societal level with direct participation of the State – main social entity empowered with coercion and social persuasion.

Unlike economic property rights, exclusive property claims can be realized only on account of the other individuals and social groups and objectively against their interests. It is exactly the social or societal level where exclusive property rights are generated and the main reason for their emergence is power, while the main tool for their maintenance is coercion, both of them existing only at the societal or mostly at the State level. Perfect competition simply means that nobody in society is having exclusive social property rights based on power and coercion or otherwise that everyone is having full-fledged unlimited social property rights based on universal price voting mechanism. Unrestricted non-exclusive social property rights suppose equal opportunities for realization of socialized interests through various types of economic activities. Under economic property rights we will understand rights, which are not having any determinative influence upon societal processes, which are not based upon mechanisms of power and coercion and which do not lead to emergence of any exclusive privileges and benefits. Under social property rights we will understand property or income claims associated with a general social accessibility of particular type of property for every particular individual in society. Social property rights have to be appropriated by all people and by every single individual separately. Unfortunately, they are not fallen from sky and never belong to people automatically. Initially, only the most fitted, the strongest and the most powerful individuals directly associated with the mechanisms of coercion are acquiring them. While if property rights are appropriated only by a certain group of individuals or by a certain social group, they are becoming to be exclusive and inaccessible for other members of society. Originally exclusive property rights are very strong and therefore social property rights violations are very strong as well. And only with the time passing by, those “other people” counteracting exclusive rights are gaining their own social property rights little by little - they have to fight for them permanently and continuously. Social property rights just like exclusive social property rights imply underlying them power and coercion - this is why we call them “social”. Violation of social property rights based upon utilization of the mechanisms of power and coercion creates exclusive social property rights and simultaneously generates social opposition or social counteraction to any exclusive rights

If at the economic level we have one particular property beneficiary – a proprietor, at societal level the situation is rather different and we can identify other beneficiaries of the same property, which owing to certain social circumstances, in one way or another, are able to profit from concrete possessions of the other people. Exclusive social property rights represent therefore another way of benefiting from economic property possessions. However, on the contrary to non-exclusive private property rights and to non-exclusive social property rights, particular individuals and social groups are benefiting from exclusive social property rights only on account of the other individuals and social groups. Particular individuals and social groups are becoming social beneficiaries of property possessions of the other people due to existence of exclusive property rights, which are established and maintained with utilization of the mechanisms of power and coercion. Only the socially strongest and the most fitted individuals usually united in social groups are acquiring exclusive property rights based on mechanisms of power and coercion and are becoming property and income beneficiaries on account of the other members of society as well as on account of the general economic efficiency.

Besides direct social beneficiaries sometimes we can also identify indirect social beneficiaries, who are benefiting from income redistribution, rather than from income distribution. They are nevertheless social beneficiaries, because redistribution of once earned income is only possible through application of the mechanisms of power and coercion. Difference between income distribution and income redistribution is very simple and straightforward. Income expropriated from its direct proprietors and received in a “non-market” way through application of the mechanisms of power and coercion represents income redistribution or unearned income. Indirect social beneficiaries can be of a very different nature, origin and social characteristics, beginning from kings’ mistress and up to the elder people, disabled, unemployed and different other groups of population varying throughout particular countries and particular historical periods. Together with globalization and with the growth of international aid emerges even a process of income redistribution at international level where beneficiaries are not only particular individuals and social organizations, but much rather particular governments and States. Any income redistribution similar to distribution of exclusive or monopolistic income can only be realized relying on force, power and coercion. In order to redistribute resources it is necessary to possess certain power and to be able to persuade and to punish those who do not want to give up their property. Even if we are considering certain types of income redistribution necessary, we must always remember what they are based upon, what are their underlying interests and to what outcomes do they lead. Income redistribution being possible only through application of power and coercion is always coming along with associated exclusive rights on utilization of the instruments of coercion, with appropriation of exclusive or monopolistic income and therefore with imperfections in overall system of property relations.

Social groups are generally defined according to a relation of particular individuals to certain types of property possessions and to certain income appropriation patterns. Since property or income appropriation is the most significant and the most determinative part of property rights, definition of social groups, first of all, has to rely upon property relations and exclusivity of property rights. Exclusive property rights and especially exclusive property rights upon particular production factor are a single reason for any social groups to exist. Exclusive property rights on production factor are determining and differentiating social formations – slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism and communism. Within every social formation we can identify two fundamental types of social groups – monopolistic social group, which possesses exclusive property rights on particular production factor and monopoly dependent social group, which has to pay for these exclusive property rights of the first group in terms of property and income. Besides financial or monetary payments per se, usually monopoly dependent individuals and social groups have to pay in terms of their social or human rights, in terms of their freedom and liberty. It is very difficult to maintain exclusive property rights without at least some limitation of social rights for monopoly dependent individuals and social groups. One needs to rely heavily on mechanisms of power, coercion and forcible persuasion in order to make people pay for his exclusive rights. Otherwise, nobody will voluntarily agree to pay exclusive or monopolistic price. In order to acquire exclusive property rights from one side and in order to persuade monopoly dependent social groups to pay some extra price from the other, one would need extraordinary power as well as immense material and financial resources.

Income received from utilization of non-monopolized property is not making people to unite in social groups - at most in special interest groups (which typically form in order to fight for certain exclusive rights and privileges - not in order to maintain already gained rights). What creates social groups is either a necessity to support and to preserve existing patterns of income appropriation or, vice a versa, a need to counteract exclusive income appropriation rights of the others. In the first case social groups are monopolistic (ex. slave-owners) while in the second - monopoly dependent (ex. slaves). Usually nobody in society can escape direct or indirect payments for existence of exclusive property rights. However, besides monopolistic and monopoly dependent social groups normally there are certain other groups of people in any society, which are neither really paying monopolistic price from one side nor having any exclusive rights from the other. These people (for ex. doctors and lawyers under feudalism) in fact do not represent any social group, because their property and income appropriation patterns are not associated with any exclusive rights while their social rights are not always and not directly limited by the mechanisms of power and coercion.

Only income appropriation and income distribution connected with exclusive property rights is a key factor for identification of social groups. We cannot define social groups according to their line of occupation or to their relation to particular non-monopolized property. Writers, lawyers, doctors, farmers, entrepreneurs cannot be considered as social groups. At most they might form professional interest groups, which usually (though not always) are not organizationally designed in order to manage exclusive economic or exclusive income interests and in order to organizationally influence or even manage instruments of coercion. Taken separately people of particular profession within their professional mode of income appropriation do not even have any reasonable common interest to fight for - in their non-monopolistic nature they are simply selling their services as anybody else. More than that, they are competitors. However, if only those people are somehow uniting in order to impose certain pressure towards definite patterns of income distribution and redistribution in society and if they are succeeding in that, they are automatically acquiring exclusive property rights. Any exclusive income or any exclusive property rights are automatically generating social opposition or social counteraction. Social counteraction is what social groups are all about. Any social structure based upon exclusive property rights, power and coercion is leading to social counteraction and simultaneously generates social groups.

“Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another” ⁷

Definition of social group does not imply any caste alike stubborn system of social relations. Generally speaking, what makes people’s transition from one social group to another more difficult is the level of exclusivity of property rights. Pursuit of exclusive rights is making monopolistic proprietors eager to limit an overall number of the owners of monopolistic property and therefore to increase their personal share in total monopolistic income. Monopolistic social groups simply do not like to share their exclusive income with the other people. Such statement of things is explaining rigidity and inflexibility of social groups. However, certain opportunities for transition from one social group to another or rather from non-monopolistic and monopoly dependent social groups to monopolistic ones exist even under the most severe types of exclusive property rights. The less exclusive are property rights - the larger are the possibilities for such transition.

In order to assure long-term social privileges, permanent wealth or even means of subsistence at the earliest stages of formation of human society, socially stronger individuals, which afterwards formed a foundation of ruling social groups, were not only eager to possess some kind of property on exclusive basis, but also to assure this possession to be of a long-term hereditary character with possibility of its constant promulgation with next generations. It is exactly exclusive property rights, what is creating social groups and not people's relation to private property as Marx once assumed. The closer is an aggregate national market to perfect competition or the lower is domination of exclusive property rights in particular society, the less significant are economic, social and even cultural differences between social groups. Social groups are basically distinguished based on their relation to certain types of exclusive property rights and not based on their relation to different types of property or even to different types of production factors. Particular individuals are beginning to recognize their common interests as a social group whenever they have something in common to hide, to protect and to maintain (for example exclusive property rights and privileges) on the one hand or whenever they have something in common to fight for, on the other hand. Whenever people are under monopoly free environment or under perfect competition, every person is having his own, quite independent from other people, interests. There is no need or what is more important there is no sense to unite such interests in one common social interest. Generally speaking, any political and social interests are uniting, first of all, owing to common ideas about income distribution and redistribution, i.e. owing to purely economic reasons even though they are uniting socially i.e. based on mechanisms of power and coercion.

General declaration of non-exclusive social property rights can be referred to something like - to assure for every member of society a social opportunity to benefit from every single property possession through unrestricted non-exclusive social access to any kind of production factor and to any type of property. Under the non-exclusive property regime, every member of society is benefiting from every single property possession of all other people through economic and production activity and simultaneously is participating in an overall property evaluation process. In order for this statement to hold, every person or every business organization must have a possibility to realize their social property rights through the free flows of economic resources in any economic sector or in any type of business activity according to maximum economic efficiency requirements and in correspondence with market indicators. If for certain people an access to some particular property or moreover to particular production factor, for one reason or another is restricted or denied, or otherwise, if capital flows are limited, then their social property rights are violated. While certain other people in this case are automatically acquiring exclusive property rights.

“The principal cause of the evil lay in the accumulation and immobility of capital of all sorts, -- an immobility which prevented labor, enslaved and subalternized by haughty idleness, from ever acquiring it” ⁸

 

¹ Franz Oppenheimer. The State

² Ludwig Von Mises. Economic Freedom and Interventionism

³ Ludwig Von Mises. Economic Freedom and Interventionism

⁴ Ludwig Von Mises. Economic Freedom and Interventionism

⁵ Karl Marx. The Capital

⁶ Ludwig Von Mises. Economic Freedom and Interventionism

⁷ Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Manifesto of the Communist Party

⁸ Proudhon. What Is Property? An Inquiry Into The Principle Of Right And Of Government

<<Previous                        Table of Contents                        Full text in PDF                       Next>> Practical applications On the nature of property Introduction into the nature of State Property State as Conventional Commercial Enterprise Manifesto of the State's Nature Frequently Asked Questions about State and Society social parasitism An Addition to the Theory of Human SocietyNEW!!!   Search THIS SITE and the WEB with Google Thank You for visiting this page! This page is an integrated and interrelated part of one cohesive conception proposed on this site - only in their interconnection pages are revealing the entire unified conception. ©   All rights reserved All writings from this site are available for free download in PDF format here