At any historical stage of the development of society, in any economic system, questions invariably arise: who is the master in the economy? Who owns the means of production and the goods created? Who has the economic power? The answers to these and similar questions should be sought in one property or another.
Property has long been understood simply: it is power over a thing (mine or not mine). But when the French petty-bourgeois socialist Pierre Joseph Proudhon in his work “What is Property?” (1840) concluded that “property is theft”, the original idea of property began to change. After all, if one person owns a thing, then another is thereby deprived of such an opportunity. Property only at first glance seems (i.e. takes the appearance) of a person’s relationship to a thing (watches are mine, I am the owner of a watch). But in reality, property is a relationship between people, between the owner and the non-owner. So, the property (the same hours) has both the owner (this is me) and the non-owner (this is you). Therefore, the main thing here is the relationship between people, and not the thing itself. K. Marx directly emphasized this when he noted: “An isolated individual could not have property … as he could not speak.”
The main features of property relations include:
the presence of two or many actors between whom there is a relationship; the existence between people of relations related to the appropriation of any goods; the direct connection of these relations with the alienation of these goods from other subjects; appropriation in property relations concerns not only goods (material and spiritual), but also the activity of creating such goods, i.e. the very process of creating goods; the dependence of the income received by the subject on the goods belonging to him (means of production, real estate, etc.).
Based on the foregoing, we can conclude that property is a historically formed relationship between people but about the appropriation and alienation of vital goods, manifested in the objectively different economic position of subjects in a given society. Or, more briefly, property is a relationship between people to appropriate goods in a specific social form.
Such an approach to the understanding of property means that it is property that is the defining, basic element of the economic system and the whole society, since different economic and social status of certain subjects, groups and strata of society depend on property.
Moreover, from property relations, as from a mighty root, the whole “tree” of economic relations grows: relations directly in production between its participants, and relations in the distribution of the produced product, and relations in exchange, and relations in the accumulation and consumption of created goods.
Property in the economic sense is a historically defined relationship between people regarding the appropriation and alienation of the means and results of production in a specific social form. |
This view of property leads to the conclusion that since property is a historical relationship between people, the forms of ownership change with the course of history and they can be different.
The essential basis of property relations are the relations of appropriation, which are intersubjective relations regarding the ways and forms of inclusion of material goods as their own (appropriated) in the life of individual business entities or society and the whole. The mode of appropriation is constantly affected by changes in the mode of production, the development of exchange and distribution, and the forms of appropriation are more conservative. Under certain conditions, the form of appropriation may even be artificially delayed at the level of undeveloped modes of production. The method of appropriation may not coincide with the specific type of property. Against this background, the effect of objective laws of property and laws of appropriation is manifested.
There are two laws of property and two laws of appropriation, which operate in pairs, in interrelation. The first is the law of ownership of the product of one’s labor. It corresponds to the law of appropriation: labor is the original method of appropriation. He creates the property and its price.
On the basis of the first law of property, natural and simple commodity production functions. Appropriation here is carried out in two ways: directly through labor and through the exchange of the products of one’s labor in the market. Ownership of the created product appears in such appropriation as directly arising from the labor of its owner. It’s labor property. The so-called labor law is based on this type of property. For example, according to Russian concepts, the cultivator of the land had the right to the plot of land cultivated by him, regardless of who officially owned the land. A peasant who lived in such a possession retained the right to his plot as long as he cultivated it, and could only be expelled by a court decision. He was free to leave his allotment, thus losing his rights to it. The need to move to new lands was determined most often by slash-and-burn agriculture.
The modern market economy owes its origin to hired labor and capital. The transformation of labor private property into capitalist property takes place on the basis of the transition of the first law of property into the second – the law of ownership of the product of other people’s labor. Another law of appropriation corresponds to it: commodity circulation is the original method of appropriation. On the basis of these laws, large-scale social production is based. Appropriation here is also carried out in two ways, but through other forms – commodity circulation and distribution of income.
Assignment relationships are of two main types:
relations regarding the appropriation of the conditions (means) of production; relations regarding the appropriation of production results.
The main reason for the emergence and development of relations of appropriation and alienation, which are the essence of property, is the social division of labor, which means the isolation of different types of labor activity in the process of development of production. Its consequence is the development and multiplication of forces and skills, knowledge and ingenuity, i.e. the growth of labor productivity, a certain progress in economic life.
However, with the division of labor (for the labor, say, of a shoemaker, a baker, etc.), a contradiction appeared: in order to provide oneself with a variety of goods, one must provide oneself with the benefits of others. This contradiction could not be resolved without the emergence of property: in order to obtain other goods that are produced by others, one must produce some goods oneself and make them one’s own, i.e. appropriate. Appropriated goods can be exchanged for others.
This is how property arises, and its form is predetermined by the existing division of the pile and the level of development of the productive forces. The course of historical development then leads to the emergence of other, increasingly diverse forms of ownership.
Depending on the completeness (or depth) of appropriation in economic theory, the completeness of ownership is also distinguished. Thus, with incomplete appropriation, expressed only in the use of the object, there is incomplete ownership. If the appropriation is deeper and manifests itself in the use and possession of the object, then this corresponds to a greater completeness of ownership. For example, the lease of land or housing is in some cases sufficient to meet certain needs for the use and ownership of these objects, but it means incomplete ownership. Only having the opportunity (right) to dispose of the fate of land or housing (sell, donate, etc.), the subject will become a full owner. Consequently, when full appropriation is carried out, expressed not only in use and possession, but also in the disposal of this object, this means full ownership.
These connections and differences are more pronounced when using the concepts of use value and value. Hegel in his work “Philosophy of Law” noted that the full owner is the owner of both the use value and the value of this thing. And the owner is an incomplete owner, because he owns only the use value of the thing, but not its value: he cannot sell this thing or otherwise alienate it.
The Civil Code of the Republic of Belarus discloses the content of the right of ownership through a triad of rights of the owner. “The owner has the right to possess, use and dispose of his property” (clause 1 of Article 210 of the Civil Code of 1998).
The right of possession is the legally secured possibility of economic domination over a thing. This does not mean that the owner has direct contact with the property all the time. It is enough that he can directly affect the thing at any time. For example, the owner of a garden house in a horticultural association owns it, although he was not in it throughout the winter.
The right of use is a legally secured opportunity to extract from the property its useful properties in the process of personal or economic consumption of property.
The power of disposal is a legally secured opportunity to determine the fate of the property.
The rights of possession, use, and in some cases disposal of property can be exercised not only by the owner, but also by other persons. A specific feature of the rights of the owner is that the owner exercises them of his own free will, relying only on the legislation, while other persons can exercise them depending not only on the requirements of the legislation, but also on the will of the owner.
As a rule, the owner owns the property, but by virtue of an act of legislation, an administrative act or a contract, a non-owner can also own it.
The right of possession is differentiated between the possession of the owner and the possession of a non-owner, legal (title) and illegal, bona fide and unscrupulous. Ownership of the owner has as its basis (title) the right of ownership and is legal. The possession of a non-owner can be based on a certain legal basis (title), and then it is legal. The title of legal possession may be an act of law, an administrative act or a contract. The possession of a non-owner who has no legal basis is illegal. An example of such possession may be the possession of property stolen or otherwise disposed of by the owner against his will, the possession of leased property at the end of the lease term.
Illegal possession can be bona fide or unscrupulous. A bona fide owner is an illegal owner who did not know and should not have known about the illegality of his possession. An unscrupulous owner is someone who knew or should have known about the illegality of his possession.
The right of use is the ability to exploit property, extract useful natural properties from it, receive fruits and income. It ensures that people’s needs are met. The methods of use of property are determined by its purpose. The owner has the right of use, but it can also be exercised by a non-owner by virtue of an act of legislation, an administrative act or a contract.
Usually the ownership and use is carried out by one person and coincides in time, for example, the tenant of the property both owns and uses it in accordance with the lease agreement. However, the owner of the property does not always have the right to use it, for example, the custodian is not entitled without the consent of the depositor to use the thing transferred for storage, as well as to provide the opportunity to use it to third parties, except in cases where the use of the stored thing is necessary to ensure its safety and does not contradict the contract. It is also possible to use property, although its possession belongs to another person, for example, the use of a musical instrument in the premises of the owner to whom the instrument belongs.
The possession and use of a non-owner may be temporary (granted to him indefinitely or for a certain period) and permanent or lifelong. Property is transferred to temporary possession and use under a contract for the gratuitous use of property, under a lease agreement. Plots of land to kolkhozes, sovkhozes and other agricultural enterprises, institutions and organizations are transferred to permanent ownership for the conduct of social agricultural production. Land plots are provided to citizens of Belarus for lifelong hereditary possession for peasant farming, country construction, construction and maintenance of a residential house, individual gardening.
The non-owner owns and uses other people’s property himself. As a rule, he does not have the right to transfer these powers to other persons. However, in cases provided for by law or contract, he has the right to transfer property with the consent of the owner or other title holder to the possession and use of other persons. In particular, the tenant has the right, with the consent of the landlord, to sublease the leased property (sublease), to provide the leased property for gratuitous use.
The power of disposal belongs to the owner, the subject of the right of economic management or the right of operational management. This is the most important right of the owner, the subject of the right of economic management or the right of operational management. The exercise of this power may entail the termination of the right of ownership (for example, due to the conclusion of a contract of sale, gift, loan) or a change in the legal relationship (for example, in the case of the lease of property). The disposal of a thing is also its consumption by the owner or its destruction, if he deems it appropriate, as well as the waiver of the right of ownership.
The power of disposal may also belong to a non-owner on the basis of a contract with the owner, for example to a commissioner, and also in accordance with the law, for example, the disposal of the property of an incapacitated person is carried out by his parents or guardians and guardianship authorities. Without the consent of the owner, his property may be disposed of by the bailiff.
The new Civil Code grants additional powers to the owner of the property and imposes obligations on him. He has the right to perform in respect of his property any actions that do not contradict the law, public benefit and security, do not harm the environment, historical and cultural values and do not infringe on the rights and legally protected interests of other persons, including alienating his property to other persons, transferring to them, remaining the owner, the rights of possession, use and disposal of property, to pledge property and burden it by other means, and otherwise dispose of it.
New to our legislation is the right of the owner to transfer his property into trust management to another person (trustee), who is obliged to manage the property in the interests of the owner or a third party (beneficiary) specified by him. Such a transfer does not entail a transfer of ownership to the trustee. It ensures a more efficient use of property and generates a legal relationship of obligation between the owner of the property and the trustee.
The owner also has certain responsibilities. He bears the burden of maintaining the property belonging to him, the risk of accidental death, accidental damage or accidental damage to property, unless otherwise provided by law or contract. In addition, it must not go beyond the exercise of civil rights established by Art. 9 of the Civil Code. In cases, under the conditions and within the limits provided for by law, the owner of immovable property (land plot, other real estate) is obliged to grant the right of limited use of his property to other persons.
The degree of completeness of property and the concentration of its objects makes a certain economic entity (a person or a group of people) the bearer of economic power. Such power makes it possible to dispose of the created product, the income received, and often the position of the direct producer. So, there are thousands of people who own shares, but not all of them manage the product and income of the joint-stock company, but those who own a controlling stake.
The opposite of economic power is economic dependence.
The importance of understanding property is also predetermined by the fact that this economic phenomenon is closely related to the economic interests of people. Through this or that economic interest, true property relations are discovered and expressed. Adam Smith spoke of the great motivational importance of economic interests: “It is not from the benevolence of a butcher, a brewer or a baker that we expect to receive our dinner, but from the observance of their own interests.”
Property relations (i.e. property in the economic sense) perform the following basic functions:
the connection of the means of production with the labour force, which leads to the emergence and development on this basis of the production of material goods, and the nature and form of such a combination depend on the nature and form of such a combination depend on the nature and forms of the distribution of goods, as well as their exchange and consumption; organization and management of objects owned by the owner, which means the allocation of goals, planning, coordination, regulation, etc .; the distribution of goods, in particular the distribution of newly created value in production; the preservation of goods on the basis of their ownership of them; the accumulation of the goods owned to further expand production and multiply property; stimulation, i.e. familiarization of the owner with a more productive and profitable use of his resources, with a more rational application of what belongs to him to income; Prestige, since the possession and disposal of a large amount of goods cause a sense of satisfaction and pride in the effective use of their property.
In Western economic theory, there is another approach to property. It can be attributed to a legal or behavioral approach. Its essence is that the object of property is not certain goods or resources, but a “bundle of rights” to them. Such rights include: (1) the right of possession; 2) the right of use; 3) the right to govern; (4) the right to income; (5) the right to perpetuity of tenure; 6) liability of possession (the possibility of withdrawal in the account of debt collection); 7) the right of alienation.
With this approach, it is not the fundamental relations between people that come to the fore, but the behavior of the human owner, in accordance with the law. There is no answer to the question of why such rights, what this law objectively relies on. This is understandable, because legal science should not consider, unlike economic science, the economic conditionality of the process of appropriation in the process of production of goods, as well as why some subjects are super-owners, while others are essentially deprived of it.
So, the main characteristics of property as a scientific economic category are the following provisions.
1. Property is a general economic phenomenon, which means the existence of a particular property in any society.
2. Property is a system-forming relation, because it is it that “binds” individual and different production relations into a system, into integrity.
Property is not a frozen, but a historically developing attitude, changing its types and forms.