Starting at the beginning: private property
The whole basis on which our Capitalist society is constructed is the exclusive ownership of private property. Not the day-to-day stuff one owns but the wherewith by which more of this stuff can be acquired without working: stocks and shares, capital, real estate. The entire edifice of Capitalism rests on this foundation, yet since the political eclipse of Socialism the idea of private property has been allowed to remain unexamined, as if the notion is somehow sacrosanct.
Yet private property is not divinely ordained, nor is it a natural right. It is a social construct, a human institution. Firstly, wealth - its very definition - is socially determined. Secondly, its continuance is utterly dependent on the willingness of those without or with very little property to allow others theirs, with all that means.
In those elements of conservative thought which accept an understanding of property as a social construct, it is portrayed mythologically as a consensual, organic growth, whereas in fact it reflects the remnants of power structures of past generations overlain with those of the present day. Most of those holding significant private property have played no significant part in acquiring it, many indeed have gained it entirely through birth. According to Marxist theory, of course, the productive use of private property within the Capitalist system necessarily creates a relationship of exploitation and the impoverishment of those without property. Even if this is not accepted, the holding of exclusive private property by some necessarily deprives others of opportunities and possession in itself can secure increasing wealth without the need to work.
One could argue that as a social construct, the institution of private property is a useful one that can benefit society at large. Perhaps it can. However, this does not mean it should be treated any differently from all the other social constructs which we have. At the very least, the price that has to be paid by those who particularly benefit from the institution of private property must be to have a greater proportion of the fruits of that property put towards the common good. And at a time of hardship, such as now, it is even more important that the rich should not only be paying as much as the poor, who are the first victims and far more vulnerable, but much more.
All sorts of questions arise. Why is unemployment (the denial of the right through work to earn a share of the Earth's abundance) considered acceptable? Why do we allow the inheritance of massive quantities of wealth across generations? Why do we pride ourselves on equality in politics and the law, and condemn the corruption of multiple voting or preferential legal treatment, but allow grotesque economic inequalities?
Yet private property is not divinely ordained, nor is it a natural right. It is a social construct, a human institution. Firstly, wealth - its very definition - is socially determined. Secondly, its continuance is utterly dependent on the willingness of those without or with very little property to allow others theirs, with all that means.
In those elements of conservative thought which accept an understanding of property as a social construct, it is portrayed mythologically as a consensual, organic growth, whereas in fact it reflects the remnants of power structures of past generations overlain with those of the present day. Most of those holding significant private property have played no significant part in acquiring it, many indeed have gained it entirely through birth. According to Marxist theory, of course, the productive use of private property within the Capitalist system necessarily creates a relationship of exploitation and the impoverishment of those without property. Even if this is not accepted, the holding of exclusive private property by some necessarily deprives others of opportunities and possession in itself can secure increasing wealth without the need to work.
One could argue that as a social construct, the institution of private property is a useful one that can benefit society at large. Perhaps it can. However, this does not mean it should be treated any differently from all the other social constructs which we have. At the very least, the price that has to be paid by those who particularly benefit from the institution of private property must be to have a greater proportion of the fruits of that property put towards the common good. And at a time of hardship, such as now, it is even more important that the rich should not only be paying as much as the poor, who are the first victims and far more vulnerable, but much more.
All sorts of questions arise. Why is unemployment (the denial of the right through work to earn a share of the Earth's abundance) considered acceptable? Why do we allow the inheritance of massive quantities of wealth across generations? Why do we pride ourselves on equality in politics and the law, and condemn the corruption of multiple voting or preferential legal treatment, but allow grotesque economic inequalities?
