If everything in society would be based only on economy, a pure definition of property would prevail and would be enough for understanding of any societal phenomenon. Since besides economy unfortunately and predominantly we are having in society such unpleasant thing as mechanisms of power and coercion, the pure understanding of property is not enough in order to explain anything in society. Any private proprietor is able to utilize his property rights only up to a level allowed by existing societal balance of power. For example, in our days any enterprise is having significantly less rights and a way much more restrictions in realization of its commercial activity than it used to have in 19th century. This may be good or may be bad, but private property rights in this case are definitely restricted. At the same time mechanisms of power and coercion in addition to conventional microeconomic property rights are allowing to acquire and to control certain exclusive rights generated at macroeconomic or at the societal level. For example, income exclusive property rights upon slaves’ labor in ancient Rome being based entirely on the mechanisms of power and coercion in no way can be explained employing merely economic theory.

In economics generally we are quite happy with property definitions given by law. Not so in social sciences concerned with mechanisms of power and coercion. Law just like any other element of social infrastructure is not determining anything in society – it is merely marking down on paper current social and property realities or is marking down on paper societal balance of power. In social sciences we cannot be satisfied with any declarations made by social infrastructure because of the two fundamental considerations. First of all, social infrastructure is very far from being something neutral, objective and impartial. Its basic function is to preserve, no matter what, existing social order and existing property relations whatever inefficient and unfair they might be. Second, much more important is that social infrastructure is not a determinative part of societal processes in any imaginable way, but vice-a-versa it absolutely depends upon the system of social and property relations or what is basically the same - absolutely depends on mechanisms of power and coercion. Therefore only in the mechanisms of power and coercion we must look for societal or sociological definition of property. Economic or rather legal definition of property does not embrace and fails to explain the following fundamental aspects of property rights and property relations:

1.  Exclusive property rights based upon mechanisms of power and coercion (social monopolies) - economic definition of property even fails to identify such rights

2.  Real proprietors of property based upon mechanisms of power and coercion, usually identifying false or superficial symbolic proprietors

3.  System of management and control of the exclusive property rights.

4.  Mechanism of income appropriation by the real proprietors of exclusive property rights

5.  Social formations or social constructions, power mechanisms, nature of property relations and social domination under such systems of exclusive property rights as slavery, feudalism, capitalism, communism and modern socialism of economically developed nations

6.  Forcible property expropriations, revolutions, wars, nationalizations and any revolts against existing property regimes

7.  Historical evolution of property rights and property relations

8.  Quantitative characteristics of property rights (who is bigger proprietor of company, which pays 50% of its revenues in various taxes and is totally dependent upon bureaucratic State regulation – the State or the shareholders?)

9.  The nature of social agents and social institutions

10.But above all - the nature of the State

Sociological or social definition of property relates to social (based upon power and coercion) opportunities to own any type of property by any particular proprietor. Moreover such definition is applicable to exclusive property rights, which are based solely on power and coercion. Even more than that, since power is a rather quantitative phenomenon, such definition also raises quantitative characteristics of property - not just who owns this or that type of property, but also to what degree somebody owns particular type of property or who controls particular type of property more and who controls it less. Amount of restrictions imposed at societal level upon pure property ownership might be and in fact often (including in modern world dominated by socialist ideas) is extraordinarily large. In order to adequately describe any societal process and any social phenomenon we must always take into account triple characteristics of property – economic, social and property rights in their evolution.

General understanding of monopoly in modern economics and social science is also quite superficial and inadequate. We are basically familiar only with economic monopoly, which is of no interest and of no use for us in social sciences. Economic monopoly is relatively simple, comprehensively explored by economics and mostly of no use for understanding of societal processes and of society generally. In social science we should first of all concern ourselves with social monopolies – monopolies based upon mechanisms of power and coercion. Power and coercion are the most dangerous and quite unpleasant phenomena generally and not only in terms of their direct consequences. Power and coercion are finally what society is all about. Without power and coercion – everything is just pure economy and that is an outcome we should all wish for. If somebody thinks that society is not just about power and coercion, it only means that in this particular society predominantly governs economy and very little social (based on mechanisms of power and coercion) left. Usually, however, such impression is a naive misapprehension of reality. Without power and coercion social sciences except economics are irrelevant, they simply have nothing to study, because at the end of the day social sciences are about mechanisms of power and coercion and about their applications – nothing more, nothing less. At the same time we must make it crystal clear that power is not yet the final essence of human social interest or is not yet an absolute human objective per se, even though some people prefer power to everything else. The single value of power and coercion as well as the single value of any exclusive rights stands in associated opportunities to appropriate an exclusive income - non-market-driven income or income not determined by all people, but exclusively or socially determined by certain exclusive people relying on mechanisms of power and coercion. People are motivated by the notions of “exclusive rights” and “exclusive income” as long as they are pursuing their interests. Exclusive rights are allowing realization of those interests in the most complete way, to the highest degree of comfort and in the longer time span.

Power and coercion are finding their fundamental expression in economics through particular exclusive rights for those people and social groups, which manage to utilize mechanisms of power and coercion to their utmost personal advantage and first of all in order to receive an exclusive income.

Nature of the State and the entire nature of State property are very much based on the fact that State is a monopolistic economic and social agent with exclusive social and property rights on particular territory. The State is monopoly because on particular territory it is a single (especially in modern economically developed countries) source of power and coercion. The State is a monopoly because on any particular territory there is no any alternative regulatory services’ providing entity. The State is also a very specific type of monopoly. First of all it is a structural monopoly. There is nothing of a kind on particular market of the State services including also what concerns income redistribution in society. But this is only part of its story and probably not yet the most important part. Much more sophisticated and influential part of the nature of State monopoly is represented by the fact that the State is a production factor monopoly. The State is a production factor because any economic or production activity so far is impossible without some kind of regulatory entity at macroeconomic or societal level. And since under the definition of production factor we exactly understand economic resources essentially important and indispensable for an overall process of production or wealth creation we can easily and probably without much of a controversy refer to this category the State as well. Just like any production activity is impossible without capital, labor and land, which we understand under a basic definition of production factor or of fundamental group of economic resources, in the very same way any production activity is impossible without the State.

Exclusive property rights associated with the State, first of all, imply that whoever is the true real State proprietor  - he/she/they are receiving from this particular property an exclusive, monopolistic, based upon coercion, not freely determined by the people, beyond and above the market, non-socialized and mostly unearned income.