Property as a form of social relations, On the diversity...

Property as a form of social relations

The content of the institution of property is determined by the concepts of ownership, use, and order of the things the subject has over the object. In this case, it is not just about actual possession, use and disposal, but about the right, ie. a legally sanctioned opportunity to own, use and dispose of, recognized not only by the subject of ownership, but also by the society in which he lives. It is because of this that property acts as a form of social relations.

General and private social ties take place in different areas of life; we observe them, for example, in the economy, and it is inseparable from legal relations. Thus, the conclusion of a contract between people is a typical example of a private or general legal relationship. Property is also a typical example of legal relations. Anyone who has the right to own something - a piece of land, a house, etc., believes that every other person or society as a whole is obliged to refrain from interfering in his power over what he owns. Thus, property is not a purely individual relation of a citizen to a thing or through the medium of this thing to another person, say, to the buyer. If someone who lives like Robinson, on an uninhabited island, considers his property to be property, then only imagining an indefinite number of some persons obliged to respect his right, not to interfere with him, tolerate domination and disposal of the objects belonging to him. But if there is no society on the uninhabited island, then there are no legal relations either. Therefore, in this case, it makes no sense to talk about ownership in the true meaning of the word.

Property is a social phenomenon not in the sense that it presupposes the real existence of at least a few people, but in the deeper sense that the very idea of ​​property logically includes the assumption of a certain social connection, without which it is absolutely impossible to conceive either the idea of ​​property, nor the being of the latter.

Property assumes the moment of public-law limitations, ie. implies a whole series of social obligations that society places on the owner, since it can not tolerate a clear abuse of the owner by his right, which harms the interests of society, or the failure of the duties that lie on the owner. In this case, the state can interfere with the rights of the owner, can limit his freedom and even deprive him of this right, for example, if the environment is polluted.

On the diversity of forms of ownership

On the question of what property we need, we can definitely answer: "Varied! One that is designed to meet the needs and interests of citizens and society as a whole in the most reasonable manner ". The property law is reasonable and morally sanctioned if it is built on the principle of the most rationally set pyramid: it is based on a person with his interests, and at the top - the state as something derivative. Everything from the foundation of the pyramid, from the interests of the individual.

Speaking about the variety of forms of ownership, we have in mind fairly well-known things. Who does not know what personal property is? This is all that belongs to me as a person - my clothes, shoes, my briefcase, my desk, etc. It has already been mentioned that individuals belong to both its physical and spiritual principles. This is something that no one can claim as something common, even within the framework of private property. In personal property, my will is personal: I own, own and use this property, for example my clothes, shoes, books, typewriter, etc. By private property means everything that belongs to the family, it is family-private property. Private may be the property of any group of owners, including any company. A large array of property is public, ie. owned by the state. This is something that belongs to everyone in general and no one in particular, as was the case under Soviet power, and now the land, for example, is basically still public, i.e. state, property.

Private property is closely connected with the very nature of man, his body and soul organization, his urgent needs and value orientations, with the motives that compel him to work, to have his family, his family, his household; this is what he finds his self-affirmation, the meaning of his life. Private property is a powerful source of productive work and free economic initiative; it contributes to the self-realization of the physical and spiritual forces of the individual. Private property and market relations give people property independence, develop personal initiative, stimulate and improve amateur entrepreneurial skills, bring up a sense of responsibility in their business and in general in life. Finally, private property strengthens the sense of justice, the culture of law-abiding. The real being of a person is manifested in his property. Anyone who rejects private property, he belittles and even humiliates the personal principle, initiative, the self-worth of the creative principle in the individual, its free search and the ability to take risks. And this undermines interests, including economic interests, societies, states.

In our country, the Bolshevik coup deprived people of private property. But time proved the irrationality of this step.

Characterizing a false path towards the destruction of the very idea of ​​private property, IA Il'in, somewhat thickening, wrote that a person really received from God a special way of bodily existence and spiritual-spiritual life-an individual. And any theory, any pedagogy or politics that are not considered with it, are doomed. The individual mode of being does not at all exclude neither communication, nor unity, nor the compatibility of people, but all communication, all unity and all human compatibility, which try to ignore the personal separation, self-activity and self-worth of the human being, go along a false and doomed path. The falseness of this path is found in the oncoming decrease in the level and quality of all aspects of life: the level of external existence (food, clothing, housing, health) decreases, the level of mental differentiation (complexity, versatility, subtlety and flexibility) decreases, the quality of labor, product, creativity and especially morality, sense of justice, art and science. Every culture - material and spiritual-spiritual - is decomposed and distorted. There is a kind of failure in simplicity, which will be created artificially and therefore devoid of all past merits. Creative differences disappear from life, giving way to monotonous identity, equal emptiness, general impoverishment.

Private property is not original: my and your appeared in the course of history. "The use of natural objects can not by its nature become private, become an object of private ownership. The Roman agrarian laws reflect the struggle between general and private property on land; private property as a more reasonable moment was to prevail. " And she won the right of her reason.

In connection with the consideration of the property problem, one can not circumvent such a "ticklish" question, as equality. It is well known that there is no equality of people from nature. Therefore, there can not be equality in the sphere of property. In addition, the equality that would be desirable to introduce into the distribution of property would still be broken in a short time. What can not be done, should not be and try to implement. " For people are really equal, but only before the law. "The assertion that justice requires that the property of everyone be equal to the property of another is false, for justice requires only that every person has property." Here Hegel had in mind private property, for the truly understood principle of justice says: "not everyone is the same," and "to each his own". This is clear, since each person, each family is unique in every respect: both biological and property inheritance and inheritance are initially different.

Private property implies its inheritance. According to VS Soloviev, hereditary property is the abiding realization of the moral relationship in the closest, but in the most fundamental social sphere - the family one. The hereditary state is, on the one hand, the embodiment of the experiencing, over-grave pity for children, and on the other - the real fulcrum for the godly memory of the departed parents. But with this, at least in the most important department of property - land, the third moral moment is also connected - the relation of man to the external nature, i.e. the earth. For most people, this moment can become moral only under the condition of immediate land ownership. To understand earthly nature and to love it for its own sake is given to few; but everyone, of course, is attached to his native corner of the earth, to his native graves and cradles. This connection is moral and, at the same time, spreading human solidarity to nature and this is the starting point of its spiritualization. It is not enough to recognize in this property the inherent ideal property inherent in it, but it is necessary to strengthen and educate this property, protecting it from the excessively low, self-motivated incentives that are too natural in this state of mankind. Strong obstacles should be put to the treatment of land as an indifferent tool of predatory exploitation, and in principle the inalienability of hereditary land plots, sufficient to maintain in every moral relation to the land, must be established.

Hegel, claiming that the idea of ​​the Platonic state contains as a general principle is not right in relation to a person - depriving him of his private property. The idea of ​​a pious or friendly and even violent brotherhood of people in which there is a commonality of property and the principle of private property is eliminated can easily seem acceptable to those who are unaware of the understanding of the nature of freedom of spirit and law and the comprehension of them in their specific moments. Marxism denied private property and fought for public, state property. In pei saw the magic key of all social ills, all efforts were directed toward the peer, for her punitive organs exiled and shot millions of innocent people. But which economist has convincingly proved that this particular form of property will bring benefits to all people and even to all mankind? What exactly is this form of property is the most reasonable and economically productive means of creating the material well-being of the people? What is the most productive form of ownership of the means of production? That only it will quickly lead to abundance and wealth, most effectively contributing to higher productivity? This no one has ever proved and could not prove!

And all that was written and said on this score was either an error of the revolutionary inflamed mind, or simple lies, and often simply ignorance. However, we squandered a lot of energy in order to prove to the whole world that the abolition of private property, the "expropriation of expropriators", the reduction of ownership to collective and state, ie, social, and social, and the management of exactly this type of management is the best that can be invented from all types of management in world history. Constantly asserting that the only true criterion of truth is practice and only practice, we ignored this criterion with reference to which form of property contributes to high labor productivity and is a precondition for the well-being of the people. After all, for every conscientious person it was clear that with all the so-called communist regimes people live if not complete, then in obvious poverty. In their economy, they are completely skewed. Life denied the idea of ​​the uniqueness of public property, but other "theorists" and still cling to this idea.

It is clear that the root of all our economic and legal problems (and hence political ones) is related to the nature of ownership. For decades we had the only form of ownership - state property, but it was declared that the property belongs to all the people, which means that everything is nobody's. Hence the corresponding attitude to property and labor arose (now, it seems, we have another extreme: we think that if we find the owner everything and everywhere, the economy will immediately blossom).

Let's look at highly developed and prosperous countries. There the worker, engineer, manager is not at all eager to become the owner of the enterprise. Whether workers are alienated from the means of production, from the finished product - nobody cares about these questions: everyone is interested in the measure of their material well-being, and whether he is an employee or the owner of the enterprise - this already depends on the circumstances, on the case, on the inheritance, on savvy and m. As for the exploitation of man by man, we all have a striking example (based on our experience) of how a state is able to exploit a person, a people in a more cruel, uncontrolled form than any modern capitalist, even if he is a cruel person by nature: trade unions will not be allowed to do so.

Subjecting the Marxist views on property to sharp criticism, IA Il'in wrote: "He needs to socialize not only property, but the entire way of human life, feelings and thoughts; he needs to socialize the human soul and, for this, to develop a new type - a primitive being with an etched personality and extinct spirituality, a creature that is incapable of personal creativity, but inclined to live in a herd's confluence. " The bitter experience of building socialism has shown how history decisively heals from the idolatry that is characteristic of proponents of supposedly "only advisable" public and only public property.

thematic pictures

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)