Public vs. Private Property

The contradiction of public vs. private property is one of the great contradictions throughout human and natural history. I saw that David Harvey mentioned this contradiction as one of the foundational contradictions of capitalism. I have not had a chance to read the book on ‘The 17 Contradictions of Capital’ as yet but I am sure he must have mentioned that this contradiction is one of the foundational contradictions of capitalism because it preceded capitalism. All of his contradictions are based primarily on Marxist analysis. Ernest Mandel in his work Late Capitalism was very helpful in understanding this contradiction.  I already mentioned this contradiction in my review of Dr. Strangelove (Film reviews by Karl Watts: Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love The Bomb: Mankind in all its foolish glory) and Gone with the Wind (The Decline of the Old South, part 1: Gone with the Wind (1939)) in 2011 and always wanted to develop the points I made there in a separate blogpost. This contradiction will still exist once the system of capitalism disintegrates. The point of this piece, however, is not to focus on this contradiction simply as a contradiction of capitalism but to discuss it from a general basis i.e. to discuss how this social contradiction came about and how it evolves. Marx acknowledged this contradiction by emphasizing the class struggle throughout human history. This ‘class struggle’ began with the emergence of private property within the context of public property and created certain social divisions which allowed a select few to assume control over the many that came to assume characteristics of the public or what is commonly called the masses. This contradiction is not only a contradiction among humans but for other animals throughout nature. This means that there is a biological basis for this division. This contradiction also implies that it is not possible for the concept of full unity to ever take place in the social sphere of humans and animals. This is because unity has only taken place on the basis  through the association of  particular groups that have staked some claim in the public domain.  The idea of full unity is a concept that falls by the wayside as material determinants become more effective in understanding the ramifications of this contradiction.

Let me just say that most of the information in this blogpost is based on world historical events. (See the book Traditions and Encounters for a thorough discussion on the development of human societies from the days of the cave man) . This is also a work in progress and there is much to discuss and to alter.

‘The Garden of Eden’ and the concept of Public Property

Before humans became the dominant social animal on the planet they were preceded by other dominant  terrestrial animals. They encountered these dominant animals from the perspective of their biological inferiority. They were biologically inferior because they could not secure their group physically against the other dominant animals. In this state man would have been much more inferior to the giant mammals and reptiles that roamed the earth or the seas particularly as humans, on average, are one of the weakest mammals in termsstrength in the natural world. The dominant terrestrial mammals and reptiles, that preceded humankind as the dominant species, controlled several spaces of the land even if they were not permanently settled in one area. The point is that once these dominant animals occupied a particular space they could only be challenged by another dominant physical species not an inferior one like a human being. For the time that they occupied that particular space they laid claim to it as their property or their domain. This would mean that control of the land was paramount for the dominant species because if you can’t control a particular space then you will not be able to settle and develop. Weaker animals also staked their claims in the more marginal areas or by burrowing underground and settling in spaces that could not be accessed by the more dominant species.  

The land, however, preceded all the dominant species that emerged throughout the natural history of the earth; from the great race of the dinosaurs (the most dominant biological species to have ever existed) to humans. I exclude the sea because, apart from the fictional world of Atlantis, humans do not settle on or in  the sea although they do exploit its resources.    When humans became the dominant social animal through invention,  social cooperation in communal abodes and domesticated habits the land became the basis for the development of civilization through various forms of economic development and warfare. The basis for the development of civilization was the exploitation of labour in various forms however the surplus eventually only benefited a few individuals who controlled most of the land.  How did it come to this point where man exploits man especially as human beings were originally communal in their outlook? This will be discussed in the next section but suffice to say man had to first seize control of certain land spaces that would guarantee some form of settlement that would lead to the growth of the economy.

The biblical fable about the garden of eden ( The Garden of Eden and the Rise of man )

 gives some insight into this dilemma. When man began to emerge as a species that could control significant spaces of land and defend it from the more dominant physical animals, with the use of weapons, ideas about the land must have emerged. This great physical space must have been a significant source of inspiration as man now began to emerge from the caves where they probably isolated themselves from the dominant terrestrial species. Political leadership was also paramount because to capture the land required warfare or ambitions of conquest in order to secure or expand boundaries which would preserve a particular settlement. Regardless of these ambitions of conquest man must have asked ‘where did all of this land come from?’ All of this land that was there for the taking must have come from somewhere. By questioning where the land came from man must have also questioned the origin of other natural elements such as the sun, water, the stars, the moon, the air, plants and trees,  other animals and human beings as a species. This is where ideas about a greater being must have emerged. Man, as a species,  would not have had such questions when the other dominant species roamed the earth and his level consciousness was no better than some of the lowest animals. He (man as a species) acquired these thoughts as his conquests of land increased and the other dominant animal species were no longer as large as once thought. With his weapons he could cut down even the strongest sabre tooth tiger or the largest mammoth. He no longer walked on all fours and could utilize his hands to manipulate objects of the earth for his use. As man achieved this level of consciousness as a result of his material gains he came to the conclusion that there must have been a time when he was no better than the weaker animals and he existed on a more instinctual level under the command of a greater force who had domain over all of these natural elements. Man must have been ordained by supreme being to take control. We begin to see how religion becomes the opium of the people (Marx). The natural elements never belonged to man but he discovered that he could use these natural elements for his benefit. His consciousness of the great being that seemingly controlled all of these natural elements has remained with human beings to this day. To this day in the poorer, more backward countries the belief still exists that the sea and the land remain the  property of god. It is this belief however that encouraged a more communal outlook as humans, initially, cooperated in service of this god that was, seemingly, responsible for the creation of all these fantastic natural elements.

This is why religion remains the social  foundation of most societies and is difficult to dislodge. Religion is tied up, in some societies, to the political way of life or the justification for others to submit to a particular religion that claims its god as the basis for all natural things. The opium becomes a die hard addiction. This is why people wage war for religion, conquer for the sake of religion and die for the sake of religion. If the property belongs to god then it belongs to no one. The property of god or the Supreme Being becomes public property in such an instance particularly as every human works to preserve it in the name of their god or Supreme Being. This form of public property lays the foundation for the creation of a moral order that binds a particular group of humans together in service to their god. People rise through society by being exemplary moral citizens or conquering for the sake of their people and their god. Various political leaders throughout history have claimed their ‘god given’ right to rule. This ‘god given’ right becomes the basis for power in several societies. When various leaders assume this ‘god given’ right it lays the basis for conquest and subjugation of other groups not aligned with their beliefs  or the teachings of their god. The pharaohs, kings and emperors of old subjugated the territories they had conquered for the glory of their kingdoms. The pharaohs have gone down in history for the conscription of slave labour that built mighty pyramids on the grounds of religion. Some of these pyramids were considered suitable resting places for the pharaohs that were seen as  representatives of god.  The political leader is able to mobilize large armies for purposes of conquest for the benefit of the society that will also be to the glory of god or the religion that laid down the moral order. This is why religion remains such a major influence to this day because it lays the basis for social cohesion in many societies. It becomes the basis for unification in those societies. The world in 2015 has billions of people that are split up into several religions and these several religions represent the moral basis for the many communal societies that grew to be nations. These societies are inevitably pitted against one another as each try to assert their right to rule based on the moral order of their civilization that promotes certain values. History has shown how the Muslims and the Christians, the two most dominant religions for  several hundreds of years, have subjugated other smaller  cultural groups, with different beliefs,  by having them submit to their religious code which they consider superior. The culture of the smaller communities are considered pagan or backward because they have not allowed for the extent of domination exhibited by the supporters of these two religious groups. It must be the god given right of these two religious groups to conquer and expand in the name of their god. Conquer and expand the landed property at their disposal. Conquest and expansion in such a fashion also reveals that the control of land remains the fundamental economic determinant in the development of a society from a national, cultural or moral basis. This national, cultural or moral basis reinforces the point that this land is still public property because the land originally belongs to the god of those that are determined to preserve its integrity.

When one also looks at the family in times of great poverty, or where the priority of public property supersedes all, the head of the family, patriarch or matriarch, acts as an extension of the dictates of society.  They are respected by the family as the one that ensures that the family maintains their subservience to god or the state that represents god. All of the actions of the family become determined by the values of the matriarch or patriarch that transmit these values which help to preserve authority on a micro level. Within the context of public property the heads of the various families ensure that the actions of all its members are in service to god or the state that is supposed to represent god.

In the times of great poverty most societies are patriarchal at a macro and micro level and this stems directly from biological determinants where the superior physicality of males, on average, was more important in securing and expanding territory or in protecting the community from invaders. In these harsh circumstances female strength was not considered sufficient for the purpose of leadership as they were the settlers of society that would preserve the identity of the males in power. There are matriarchal societies, however, where the values of the females supersede those of the males but these are clearly in the minority. No matriarchal society has ever risen to the heights of patriarchal dominated societies. The focus here will remain on the patriarchal societies.  From a biological basis therefore the values transmitted were not just religious but patriarchal where the head male would command the society. The biological basis for this is no different from other animals where the male secures the territory which includes the females under his protection. It becomes public property but based on the requirements of the head male  who assumes a god like position for the submissive males, either conquered in battle or willing to be cooperative because they are incapable of challenging the dominant male, and the females that will reproduce the line of the head male and his supporters. The ideological basis for public property therefore assumes a more masculine identity than simply a religious one but for the successors of the head males to ensure solidarity within the community many of them assume a divine element as a form of justification. The root cause remains the successful conquest of the original head males.  In this case one can see this as a form of private property of the head male but as the society expands the justification for solidarity remains religious. In some cases the original male leader is deified through myth and legend (check King Arthur, the pharaohs etc). The public property of society therefore is representative of the values of the original male leader or the founding fathers that conquered a particular land space and overtime everyone eventually works in order to preserve this land space for the sake of the values of the original male that now assumes god like proportions. When you look now at how al Baghdadi, the leader of Isis, recruits his followers or justifies his position of leadership (he claims to be descended from the caliphs of old) one can gain some insight into how men justified their conquests in the past from both a religious and patriarchal perspective. The times of great poverty. The ruling patriarchal families in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are also a reflection of this deification of patriarchal ideals.   We won’t see a female pope in the Roman Catholic Church nor a female archbishop in the Anglican Church for another millennia.

In this context a nationalist agenda then becomes the basis for public property with the religious and patriarchal beliefs ( in most societies) at its core. The nationalist basis emerges through years of settlement and the considerable expansion of the population. Man does not leave the garden of eden from this point of view but certain economic and scientific developments do occur that make certain inroads and challenge these mystical beliefs. These developments place the economy of humans, powered by human labour, at the centre of the social order and form the basis, or justify the basis, for the accumulation of wealth on a private basis within the confines of the public domain. This is due to long periods of consolidation and settlement.

The origins  of Private Property and the Accumulation of Wealth in the public domain

The consolidation of public property involves, firstly, the control of landed property. Landed property without the application of labour for the purpose of production is an empty vessel that holds little or no value. The land is the basis for production of the basic needs of a society such as food and is the primary basis for settlement. With landed property as the original basis of wealth the original elements to be produced were agricultural. With humans now ousted from the garden of eden human society also developed to the point where humans could domesticate certain animals for the purposes of amusement, to aid in human activity (means of communication or transport, hauling heavy loads) and the preservation of the settlement or for the purpose of food such as livestock. The original human settlements were impoverished as the individuals were held together by religious and patriarchal ideals as a particular settlement reached the relative limits of conquest. The relative limits of conquest  allowed the community to grow internally from an economic point of view particularly as humans no longer needed to be nomadic like most animals. Humans would naturally settle in the more fertile regions of the earth. Most of the ancient civilizations developed on the more fertile land spaces which were close to water supplies that would fuel agricultural production particularly as their meat sources were usually located close to areas of water. The economic growth of a particular society can only take place once there are established, definable limits or once there is the consolidation of public landed property which would preserve its integrity from a material and cultural point of view. The basis for conquest and the construction of a society is a political objective which secures public property whereas the economic structure of a society is primarily an internal element that allows the material basis of society to thrive through the exploitation of  land and labour. The land is the mother and labour is the father with regard to economic development like Marx said in Capital Vol. 1. The land represents the foundational basis of society because it is public property secured by conquest in the name of a particular cultural group but the laboring aspect is representative of the human agents that comprise society and represent and put into play the forces of production.

The original basis for the emergence of private property is that no one individual or corporation will supersede the society as a whole. Bill Gates might have a wealth of US$70 billion but the GDP of the USA, his country of residence and origin, is US$16 trillion. His wealth however would allow him to dominate a small economy such as Jamaica with a GDP (PPP), of US$23 billion. It is clear that Bill Gates could not have made his fortune in such a country by utilizing the resources and local markets of Jamaica before he expanded his product internationally. Bill Gates would have been facilitated by other individuals in the US such as his partner that helped him develop and implement the software from a rational/scientific basis, the computer manufacturers that produced the hardware, the engineers that implemented the product on a large scale, the access to credit, and a local market that was capable of supporting the product. This is just a general example from a national perspective but obviously with the global reach of capitalism one must now consider the world market. I was illustrating the point to demonstrate that no one individual can supersede, in terms of wealth, the public property of the nation of his or her origin if they use it as a basis for economic growth because it is the public property of the nation that will facilitate his or her growth as an individual. The individual would have to rely on the resources of that nation, raw material, capital and labour, to generate some form of growth. If the nation is not capable of supporting that individual in terms of the wealth they wish to accumulate (on the level of a Bill Gates) they would have to rely on a country that is capable of supporting that sort of ambition like the US. They might supersede Jamaica but Jamaica is no longer the basis for their wealth. Any country that is the basis for their wealth they cannot supersede it. In the days where landed property was the basis of wealth no aristocrat/ noble/lord could supersede the monarch or the chief because the monarch represented the entire land area and all the people saw the monarch as the leader of the nation or a representative of the interests of public property.

Private property, therefore, presupposes the accumulation of some particular element within the public domain for the benefit of that particular individual or corporation. This element is created and maintained by the labour process i.e. with the labour of the proprietor or the labour of others that produce on behalf of the proprietor or the owner of the property. The reason for production in the days of the more communal societies was to cater to basic needs such as food to eat and the various elements that would allow members of the community to build a hut or house. It was strictly for the benefit of the community or the society that represented the dictates of god or the deified patriarchal head and satisfied the economic and cultural demands of the populace. With the development of society there is the growth in population numbers. (The growth in the population corresponds with a society that has been clearly defined and is settled. This would mean that external threats from invaders or natural disasters and the internal threats from civil strife are not present. Rapid population growth normally occurs when a nation or community is young or expanding economically and conversely as the nation becomes ever more settled then this growth slows because of the limits of the borders and the economic demands of the population become too much. This would mean that the society facilitates the growth in such population numbers up until the point where the economy can continue to support such numbers from a public basis.  If areas of the society are not properly settled then this will affect the growth in the population because the security issue is weak and this allows for the creation of several factions seeking their own stake in those parts of the society that are not settled. This means that the leader of the nation has not properly secured the nation and does not command effectively. This is why politicians continue to emphasize some nominal sense of unity in a nation despite the growth in private property relations as several individuals stake their claims to society.)

The growth in population numbers in the original communal societies meant that there was an increase in the productive capacity of the workers. This meant that there was an agricultural surplus beyond the immediate needs of the producers. In the old days the needs were basic such as food, shelter and clothing. This agricultural surplus could only be generated once the society grew beyond the minuscule  hunter and gatherer type societies where humans still existed in the garden of eden and everything was at its most basic and the demands were  equal to the requirements of a cave man and the societies were nomadic or semi-nomadic. A surplus would not be necessary in such a case. The surplus only comes about once there is a significant demand beyond the immediate needs of the producer, his or her family and the community. When the agricultural surplus grew then who appropriated this surplus? Naturally the surplus was appropriated firstly by the community because the labour that produced this surplus was conducted on a communal basis. In these communities, however, there was an authoritative patriarchal figure that would have determined how this surplus was distributed and consumed. This meant that this figure would have appropriated the surplus beyond the immediate needs of the community. This figure would have gained legitimacy due to the early days of settlement. In most early human settlements this authoritative figure would have been considered a religious figure or  the strongest male that proved himself in battle to create the settlement in question. It is clear that this head male, his family, and his supporters would have appropriated this surplus. Is this the beginning private property within the public space? This would be the case if the male head and his supporters were not ordained for the creation and preservation of a certain space from a political point of view. The original creation of the settlement was originally for the benefit of the conqueror and his supporters but with the expansion of this settlement beyond their immediate needs to include their descendants they did not represent the forces of production as their role was to determine the preservation of the public space in question which was preserved by a religious and a patriarchal order that consolidated the society. The original justification for their appropriation of such a surplus was that it was due to the glory of god or the Supreme Being or it was his blessing that resulted in the creation of such a surplus.  In the original communal societies, therefore, people still worked for their basic needs while producing this great surplus for the benefit of the community or for the glory of the religious figure that controlled the community. The head religious figure was to use this surplus for the benefit of the community or for the glory of god. If he was considered god’s representative, such as many emperors, monarchs, sultans and pharaohs of old, then he had the right to appropriate this surplus for the benefit of himself, his family and supporters. 

If one strips away the fantastic imaginings then these rulers and their supporters, who claimed to be representatives of a supreme being, were gross exploiters of the productive forces in the society. In this case it could be considered private property because as the communal societies, in terms of population numbers increase (not just through economy but through conquest), then all activities were under the direct supervision of the ruler and his supporters. This was because everything belonged to the supreme ruler who was the representative of the values of public property which were his property. People would fight for the glory of their ruler, a representative of god, although the conquest of new territory allowed the ruler to exploit his new subjects who had to render a surplus onto god or his representative.  Even the greatest warriors in the kingdom were no match for the sway of the ruler and all their feats of strength were for his benefit unless they could conquer him and his army of supporters physically and so remove the religious illusion from the eyes of his followers.  This is what happened to the pharaohs of Egypt at some point although they were conquered by external invaders. This must have meant that they did not buy into the illusion created by the pharaohs that they were gods on earth. (see the book Traditions and Encounters)

The growth in this surplus came as a result of settlement but it was also a surplus extracted by force by a depression of the laboring faction in society. The poor laboring faction also represented the bulk of the armed forces. This has always been the case throughout history. This laboring faction was depressed to the point where slave labour was the norm in the ancient civilizations. People subsisted on the bare minimum for the glory of god or his representatives on earth.  This surplus did mean that humans became more productive when compared with their previous nomadic lifestyle. The  surplus extracted from the working class, which eventually subsisted in a state of slavery, led to the growth and consolidation of various human societies. The surplus did not include only agriculture but the building of infrastructure to facilitate the population numbers. Infrastructure, such as borders, was now built with metal and stone instead of wood from the trees and required significant exertion on the part of the workers. There was also the creation of citadels, elaborate religious structures, sewage and irrigation systems, the extraction of   metals such as iron,  gold, silver, bronze and copper, and the growth in the arts, language and the means of communication in general. This surplus also allowed for the creation of a domestic industry in the form of handicrafts or and the growth in the class of artisans who were initially tied to agriculture but eventually became more prominent in the urban centres. The concept of the journeyman began with this group as well as the guild system in the Middle Ages of Europe. The basis for these developments was the surplus extracted from the, primarily, slave laboring population. The construction of the pyramids in Egypt is a testament not only to their grand design but to the labour of, primarily, slaves. ‘Let my people go’ said Moses.

The emergence of the precious metals as a form of currency and symbol of wealth in the ancient kingdoms also corresponded to the growth in this agricultural/mining surplus. With the growth in the agricultural surplus there was some division of labour in the more dominant ancient civilizations. 

Most of the occupations however were geared towards serving the state. The growth of a surplus beyond your own needs implies that there must be some exchange value if the surplus is not going to be just disposable. The production of a surplus by an individual or a group of individuals, beyond their immediate needs, means that there is the possibility that they can exchange their goods with others for some equivalent. With more people producing a surplus or not producing for their immediate needs then there must be a universal equivalent called money. Even though the precious metals did represent universal wealth the production of agricultural surplus in the days of the ancient kingdoms still represented the basis for exchange. A man in those days  would be more likely to pay you with wheat than gold or silver. Only when these goods were circulated in the markets, which along with the citadels and places of worship represented the urban centres, would the precious metals become important and in the form of taxation to the religious, patriarchal state or rent to the landlords. What would a ruler do with everyone continuously paying him in wheat or barley? It was still a surplus but not a surplus that would correspond to the needs of everyone particularly if most people were engaged in agriculture.  This would explain why the rulers were always ordained in such fine jewels or ornate jewelry made of gold,  silver, bronze and copper. This accumulation of wealth suggested that there was a surplus being generated from the labour of others on their behalf. Of course there was also trade with other nations that would facilitate this accumulation of gold, silver, bronze and copper and other products that did not represent basic needs like agricultural products but luxury or a surplus. This gold would then flow into the territory and begin circulating through the markets once the ruler received his share. The lavish outlay of luxurious jewelry by the rulers of the ancient kingdom lays the basis for the fetish for these precious metals and the reason why their value remains so high. Apart from their ability to last long as a store of wealth, once they are refined, these precious materials particularly gold, platinum and silver are seen as a luxurious component and represent the main form of adornment even to this day. This all began with those great patriarchal rulers of the past.  From the perspective of a particular local economy, however, the majority of people still only produced enough for their own needs with the surplus going to their rulers and their supporters that reinforced the military and religious tradition. The rulers and their supporters would have controlled the land that reaped the surplus. Ownership would have been considered nominal and most of the labour was more or less slave labour. This was until the rise of the peasantry in areas like Europe where several individuals owned small portions of the land.  Regardless, the religious tradition ensured political legitimacy while the military ensured preservation of the territory or the ability to conquer other states or communities.

This agricultural surplus explains why the first  major ancient civilizations were so dominant. They were dominant because they existed in very fertile regions that allowed them to produce   such a massive surplus. Egypt along the Nile, Mesopotamia between the two rivers, the Harappan society was ‘developed in the valley of a river, the Indus whose waters were available for irrigation of crops’ (See the book Traditions and Encounters, p. 58). This fertility made production costs low and the accumulation of wealth significant when compared to the smaller or poorer societies that subsisted on the worst types of land that required more effort to extract or to grow. The surplus was so massive in comparison to smaller communities that the leaders could divert labour from agriculture to the wasteful construction of massive structures like pyramids. The surplus was seen as blessings, literally, from the heavens. This surplus then went into these wasteful projects  as a homage to man’s grand design and his folly.  What they called pagans or barbarians were simply those individuals whose communities that existed in regions that did not allow them the opportunity to produce on such a large scale. It soon became the case where the conquest of a particular region was considered futile if it did not possess a valuable product which would be a testament to its fertility. What’s  the point of conquering rocky land or barren land? The development of science has allowed for some of the worst lands to be cultivated today but it was not so in the distant past. It is still the case today though where natural fertility allows for some regions to be blessed with resources that are in high demand such as oil thereby making their production costs low which allows for the generation os surplus value as a result of the exploitation of wage labour that produces surplus value for the owners of the means of production. Oil has resurrected some states from oblivion as a result, such as Dubai. When the fertile oil regions begin to run out and production costs start to rise and align with the governing market price other fertile regions take over until the supply of the now worst land is no longer necessary (See Karl Marx Capital Vol. 3 and his discussion on differential rent and absolute rent).

The point of this reference to the agricultural surplus, as the foundation for the growth of human civilizations throughout history, is that private property originally began with landed property as a result. Once the leader and his supporters took control of the land it allowed them to exact a surplus in the form of a  tribute, tax or a rent from those who have to produce on the land. The more producers you have the more that accrues to this class of landowners particularly if the regions are fertile or their lands can produce significantly more than other areas of land because of low production costs.   The concept of landed property within particular civilizations begins as a form of political administration but for the purposes of bureaucratic control the leader rewards his supporters, who rise to the rank of nobles or elites in the political structure, with land within the kingdom which will ensure their cooperation and support. This bureaucratic structure of control was implemented on a significant basis by Hammurabi of Babylon.  These landed proprietors do not necessarily know how to work the land and this work, as ever, is still carried out by the poorer classes who find their access to such land limited. They therefore agree to work the land as farmers in return for providing a rent or payment of the lease to the landlord. The workers still remain in the sphere of impoverishment as their tributes, taxes, or rent, either  in the commodity or money form. They must extract some form of surplus. This is why, according to marx,  rent appears as the first form of surplus value because the workers had to produce a surplus beyond their means of subsistence. This acknowledgement of the role played by rent as a  representation of surplus value was acknowledged by the classical economists such as William Petty and the Physiocrats.  The landlords, through years of ownership become an entrenched feature of the economic and political landscape while those that tilled the soil and produce the surplus are still regarded as the lowest elements in society. The production of this surplus by those that tilled the soil allowed the landlords and the political leaders to live lavishly. Even if an individual was allowed to stake his claim to some portion of the soil he had to pay a tax if not a rent. The rent would go to the landlord as private property but to the state as a contribution by this individual to the development or maintenance of public property represented by the state ordained by god.

Private Property and the growth of Capital

Landed property, due to the production of a significant agricultural surplus, was the basis of wealth for the older civilizations but not for modern civilizations. The wealth of the great modern civilizations is due to the growth of capitalism as a particular mode of production. Capitalism grows through the exploitation of wage labour/paid labour time that produces surplus value/unpaid labour time which forms the basis  for the profit of the owners of the means of production and the rent of the landlord. Wages, profits and rents are the primary sources of revenue in modern society.   Landed property is still very important from a foundational point of view because the individuals that control the land are still able to lay claim to the surplus product. With capitalism, that developed firstly in England, the basis for private property in contrast to public property. Whereas the classical civilizations were content with extracting a agricultural surplus from the working population capitalism presupposes a continous expansion of the use values at the disposal of society. Profit remains the basis for capitalism as it seeks to extract as much surplus from the wage earners. This profit is based on commodity production. Commodity production, which is the primary feature of capitalism as a productive force, means that the workforce of the capitalists produces products that have nothing to do with the direct needs of the owners of the means of production. The commodity is an alienable product that is produced primarily for sale in the markets in order to accumulate the universal exchange equivalent known as money (see Karl Marx Capital Vols 1, 2 & 3, David Ricardo Principles of Political Economy and Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations).

The concept of money is nothing unique to capitalism nor is its claim to being the universal equivalent in the capitalist sphere. This began from the days of the ancient civilizations. The mercantilist school that encouraged to the accumulation of bullion for the purpose of the national economy was also significantly tied into this tradition. It is commodity production that distinguishes capitalism. Money is accumulated because it is acknowledged as the universal equivalent but with capitalism money grew because of an increase in commodity production. The use value of the commodity is produced for exchange in the market. The product cannot be exchanged in the market without having some use for the consumer.  Depending on the extent of demand in the market then the supply is met not because there is some left over for sale but because the product is produced strictly for sale. Before capitalism most individuals would simply produce enough for their needs and then produce a surplus for the basis of the state or the landlord. This is clear in petty bourgeois economies that are dominated by the peasantry.  The capitalist mode of production now presupposes that you produce a commodity strictly for circulation in the market. The elements of production under capitalism remain private, within the confines of the public sphere,  but the sphere of consumption, the market, is public or comprised of several individuals in need of a product. The private sphere is also socialized because the work is conducted primarily by the wage labour of the proletariat or the working class that work on behalf of the capitalist, who owns the means of production, that extracts surplus value. There are also several elements that suggest that the accumulation of capital has been facilitated by the promotion of interests in expanding public property.

Whereas in the previous modes of production private property did develop from the basis of landed property this was due to the  fact that the basis for production was primarily about satisfying one’s needs. You worked only enough for your own subsistence. The surplus  you produced would go towards taxes or rent but some could be left over which would allow you to accumulate. This encouraged some of early capitalist farmers in England that benefitted from external circumstances that accelerated the pace of money accumulation such as the devaluation of gold and silver as a result of the extraction from the mines in central and south America. There was also the expansion of the local market as a result of the growth in the  income base as a result of increased production in the manufacturing sector as a result of the colonial expansion and the discovery of new markets as a result of mercantilist policy. The mercantilist policy facilitated accumulation for the purpose of public wealth with the state leading the way or acting as a benefactor.

Outside of the manufacturing base in England  most of the world remained agricultural from the 17^th to the first half of the 19^th century and the colonial expansion was on the basis of acquiring public property for some of the Western European nations. This mercantilist policy thereby set the stage for this form of private accumulation in the form of money for the benefit of the state. Conquest as the basis of expansion still remained a political agenda with the land utilized in the name of the state. We see this clearly with the growth of the sugar industry, built on the backs of African slave labour, in the West Indies during the 18^th century and mercantilist policy , with its protectionist measures, that facilitated massive accumulation as a result of the high prices that would be later ended by the free trade agenda. The same occurred in the local English economy with the high price of corn as a result of protectionist measures before the 1840s. The growth in the textile industry was also tied into the agricultural production of the raw materials such as cotton, silk etc.

It is clear that in the early stages of capitalism the production of the major industries were facilitated by the links between increased agricultural production and manufacturing that then blossomed into the factory system. Agriculture begins to take a back seat because its products represent primarily raw materials to produce industrial products or more refined products which incorporate more value. The colonial expansion facilitated this linkage significantly and eventually ended up dividing the world into those that produce raw materials and those that produce high end industrial products. Those that produce, primarily, raw materials still do so on the basis of the former colonial expeditions by the Europeans. The rise of other dominant capitalist nations such as the US, China, and Japan have also reinforced this tradition and it does seem as if the accumulation of capital  is done on behalf of the nation that accumulates capital on a private basis. The private base for accumulation is still patronized by the state. This is the case for an economy that is considered as highly capitalistic as the US.

The private sphere of capital becomes increasingly based on the development of high end industrial products and the increased financialization of the economy. The production of agricultural raw materials is still very important because people have to eat and wear clothes, or need their coffee, rubber for their car tyres, gas for their vehicles etc but these have to be produced on a large scale for any national economy to be competitive. People have to eat before they can engage in other activities. This is true of capitalism as it was in the days of Egypt but a recent report showed that US$400 billion is wasted yearly in food yet many individuals in the poorer agricultural nations are starving. Those nations that can afford to waste food in such plenty divert their resources to other activities, productive or unproductive. People still build modern day pyramids for example. It reaches a point where acquiring money becomes more important than food which is taken for granted. The increased commoditization of  a dominant capitalist economy means that accumulation of capital in its money form becomes more significant and this money no longer has to be represented by precious metals as in the past.  The highest development of capitalism becomes manifested in extensive commodity production where every element of life is commoditized and the stores of monetary wealth become so great that wealth becomes prospective or based on credit money. Money breaks through the barriers of production from an industrial basis but the revenues are still derivatives of the industrial heartland. The state also becomes capitalized because of the great stores of wealth it accumulates in the money form as a result of debt and taxes or where the central banks of most nations become the banker of last resort. Money can then be transferred in order to encourage production.  The public property of the state still ends up providing the security of the nation as a result and still ends up being the dominant accumulator because no one private individual can supersede it and must be subject to its dictates as a result. The US government collects US$2.2 trillion in taxes annually. No individual corporation is worth that much.   Just as land was issued in the old days to encourage agricultural production the state facilitates the growth of capital in order to encourage the growth of capital in its money form. The state actively encourages commodity production on a private basis because it contributes to the growth of the national state because it extracts a portion of the surplus product in the form of taxes.  The stores of wealth remain in the monetary form but the monetary form is only nominal as a means of exchange or means of payment for the commodity.

The development of commodity production and monetary circulation and accumulation means that the use values of individuals increase and with it their income. Private property has moved beyond the basis of landed property which relied primarily on the production of food, construction of buildings, and rudimentary art forms. The high development of commodity production on a private basis also means that all activities become commoditized or can be monetized. This means that whatever is noble becomes subject to  cash or credit money payments. All professional and physical  activities become a means to facilitate the growth of  capitalism instead of being done for the glory of god or the state as it was in the past. In the past when you pursued your activities for the purpose of god or the state you ended up impoverished. Individuals commoditize themselves or their images. The selfie generation believes that by exposing themselves to the public sphere or the market place they can attract enough attention in order to accumulate money as a result of their image being the commodity. This is especially pointed for those that have no means of producing significant social use values. It is a superficial escapade in such an instance.

Private property under capitalism also reaches a stage where most of public property comes into the possession of those individuals called capitalists or land lords. The majority of people must render unto them plus the state. Before the worker only had to render onto the landlord and the state but he or she must now render onto the capitalist who extracts profit. The  majority of wage earners, therefore, exist in a state of subjugation where they only exist to sell their labour for a price or the means of their subsistence or upkeep. Their labour power becomes the main basis of their survival as they are compelled to increase productivity to a point where they are devalued as the technical base or constant capital increases. The constant capital absorbs their high labour productivity and many are dispossessed of the ability to utilize their labour and are driven to the fringes of society as the constant element increases. They must either upgrade through education, becoming a celebrity or by starting their own business or seek jobs in other industries that are growing at a high rate which means that labour is in high demand.   Obviously the wages are high in some cases  but this does not represent the majority. The high salaried professionals are the petty bourgeois class/middle class that do not supersede the dominant capitalists. It corresponds to the division of labour in any society that produces a massive surplus. The high salaried professionals stand in the same position as the high priests or nobles in the old civilizations. In this case however a lot of these salaried individuals do not work on behalf of the state but on behalf of dominant capitalists that have managed to accumulate a massive surplus product through the exploitation of wage labour or the working class. The technical requirement of the professional classes has also increased substantially whereas the high priests specialized in a noble, dogmatic, religious tradition. The massive increase in the productive forces of a capitalist based society means that the scientific component also increases significantly because scientific research and discoveries provides the basis for a more rational understanding of the natural world. Eventually it is discovered that god does not exist and that god is not the basis for the growth of civilization. Scientific discoveries reveal that the labour is the most important element in the growth of society and not blessings from god. Science allows for certain developments to further increase the productivity of labour and the technical requirements that come with it. Capitalism does a great service to humanity by unleashing human potential in its most productive form.

The capitalist class reaches a stage whereby the  surplus product in the form of profit and interest, that is associated with prices of production or the money form of value, allows them to dominate other poorer agricultural nations with their significant monetary resources and their product offering which is normally an advanced industrial product. the massive surplus accrues to several private individuals that can offer a particular product for use by several individuals in the market, nationally and internationally. The private element therefore has allowed several individuals to stake a significant claim to a surplus product that is measured in a very liquid form such as money or a form that facilitates easy transfers. This surplus product is no longer tied to agricultural production on the land although the landlords still exist to collect rent in its money form. Capital is easily transferable in its monetary form but its monetary form only exists to produce surplus value/unpaid labour time from the workers. The surplus value becomes the basis for an increase in the profit rate.

Capitalism is simply a more refined form of private property production that was originally tied inextricably to the land. This system has found a way to provide use values that are not linked directly to agriculture or mining. This is clear because the original agricultural basis is now just considered a raw material for the development of significant industrial products formed from the basis of tools once used to fashion certain products in the distant past when industry was in its infancy. The development of these use values for exchange in the market also represent the growth of labour productivity and the extraction of a surplus product not tied to only  agriculture but to scientifically developed industrial products. This is done for the benefit of society on a public basis in so far as individuals in the society utilize these products for their own benefit in order to improve their productivity and this utilization remains the basis for profit accumulation. The continuous production of more advanced use values increases labour productivity from a social basis and the growth of capitalism does spill over for the benefit of society as a whole as the needs of individuals increases due to the increased technical component. The productive base however goes far beyond the needs of one individual and eventually becomes socialized because the company is kept in motion by the workers.  This becomes more significant when an owner and his heirs die out or when a corporation becomes publicly traded. It becomes publicly traded and so the profits are not only accumulated just on the basis of the one individual that may have created the use value for exchange but for several individuals that now have a stake in the company. This is the case when any company expands and extra capitalization can only come from outside. In some cases, like in some of the developed capitalist, Asian states, the workers also have a stake in the companies they work for. This clearly means that most industries will eventually be socialized or cater more to public demands from both a production and consumption side. The workers and other members of the public will have an increased stake in several companies particularly as their success becomes tied up in the fortunes of a particular company. Once the public interest fades in a current product as a result of the growth of a new industry or by the ravages of competition then the company or industry, that produces the current product, is no longer sustainable.

The issue is that private property becomes prized by most individuals working to increase their wealth for their own benefit whereas before it was primarily for the benefit of public property, the state or the glory of god. Now people are motivated by increasing the surplus product so that they can increase their own share or for their own purposes. In order to increase their stake, however, they will have to take on workers willing to sell their labour. They will have to become exploiters of wage labour to expand the production of their product. In order for this to happen the commodity has to have some use value or be socially relevant. If it’s not relevant then the individual may find it difficult to encourage people to come and work for them because they have no wages to pay to expand or money to spend on constant capital which grows as labour productivity in a particular industry increases.  In the end however it is still  only a few individuals that benefit because the majority must work for the few that control the means of production and so the stake of the public remains limited. The majority of the public, as it was from the beginning of civilization,  is largely represented by the working class  that becomes devalued as capital, in the form of means of production, increases its technical or constant component. The surplus is massive but no individual can significantly expand without exploiting a labour force because the scale is too much for one person to handle. The consciousness in the working class will eventually arise because they will understand that they are not working for the glory of god but the glory of other human beings.  Human kind controls its own destiny from a social point of view. The surplus product eventually becomes a bone of contention from a societal point of view because instead of building pyramids people want an increase in public spending on behalf of society in general. This becomes ever more important as the state grows with the increase of the surplus product through taxation measures. The more private businesses in operation the more they are capable of exploiting a particular group of wage earners.  In order for the state to do this they must take more from either the worker, capitalists or the landlords. The great surplus accrued by the capitalists make them a prime target for taxation particularly as it is clear that they would not have achieved this benefit without the work of people that were originally outside of their private domain. It has been revealed that US corporations have US$2.1 trillion in cash stashed away overseas and away from the confines of public property or the area that facilitated their initial growth. They are now multinational but they can only conduct business in other countries that facilitate their investment. They have to subscribe to the dictates of the public property of those nations unless it’s a really poor state that is so desperate that the corporation can be so influential.  It shows that the surplus product attained by some individuals has become so massive that some individuals believe that they no longer require the security of the state which means that they no longer have to contribute to the  security and maintenance of public  property. This is reflective of the fact that some corporations are larger than some national economies which is a testament to the amount they have accumulated.

The question is: does it remain private property when an individual requires the support of others in order to increase the surplus product even if they were the original creators of the commodity in question? This is not the case in a peasant dominated economy where the individual works for himself with his own small portion of the means of the production to procure his and his family’s means of subsistence. With the case of capitalism the enormous surplus value produced cannot be done by one individual but by a large workforce from outside the confines of a particular private property.  Also the surplus product accrues on behalf of this particular individual although he or she no longer takes part in the labour process yet still receive the majority share of the profit. Also the surplus value must be realized in the market place although it is produced in the production sphere. In the market sphere  it is the citizens outside the confines of the private abode that will decide whether or not to support the product of a particular capitalist. A product is supported because it has some sort of use value that will be significant from a social point of view. This means that capitalists are driven to produce commodities that have a benefit not just for him or her but for people in the public domain or those that have no stake in the company that produces a particular commodity.  This means that the surplus  value generated in the sphere of production is realized from a material basis in the sphere of consumption or for the benefit of society whereas the proceeds are received as a result of exchange value accumulated in the money form, by only a few individuals. It is a contradiction that will rest with capitalism until a higher form of society is created. Will the contradiction be resolved in a more advanced stage of human civilization which will have to decide whether or not a few people should be the recipients of such a massive surplus product generated by the work of others.

The Future of Private and Public interests

What is the future of private vs. public interests? There are many alternatives to consider. Of course the most influential alternative put forward was by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels in The Communist Manifesto (1848). The most striking thing about this alternative is the overwhelming emphasis placed on the interests of public property when compared with those of private property. In fact Marx and Engels proposed that private property should be abolished entirely. Is this possible though? The growth of various human societies has suggested the opposite: an initial public or communal style of living followed by the interests  of private property. Private property has achieved its perfect manifestation in capitalism that is not necessarily tied to the land as in previous modes of production because the surplus product is manifested primarily in the form of money which allows it a lot of flexibility and mobility thanks to growth in the computing industry. In previous modes of production wealth was tied primarily to the amount of land you owned. Real Estate is important from the perspective of capital. A capitalist builds a house like any other commodity and sells it in order to receive a profit.

Is the Marx and Engels alternative possible in this age of capitalism? The major benefit of capitalism is that it has encouraged people to grow  by increasing their labour productivity and so increasing their surplus product to magnificent proportions. This growth in the surplus product therefore allows many people to stake their claim to a share in this product. We see that in the public traded companies or the workers that can  claim a large portion of the product in the form of wages because they are a commodity that is in high demand. There are also the consumers that more or less regulate whether or not the commodity or use value  produced on private property will be realized in the form of an exchange value.  Regardless of how radical Marx and Engels sounded their primary argument was that public property represented primarily by the working class or the proletariat should seize a majority of the surplus and use it for the public benefit. This is no more radical than what took place in the past where the interests of public property superseded the interest of private property because landed property was the main determinant of wealth. Under capitalism commodity production, not necessarily tied to agriculture, as well as monetary circulation and accumulation are the main representations of wealth although owning the land is still important for raw material production which lays the basis for industrial production. the growth in industrial production increases the surplus product to the point where its monetary form becomes a commodity to be traded and shuffled around through the stock market.

One thing Marx and Engels underestimated is the lifeline of capitalism and the growth in its technical or constant component. As we know it capitalism has not reached its peak in  this regard although at this point it does seem that technological innovation is at a high level. The main justification for technological innovation is the increase in labour productivity. May be a 100 years from now the technical component will increase to the point where one man can do the work of 2 million people. What becomes of those 2 million that are  not required by a particular corporation? Marx and Engels still underestimated the extent of adoption of capitalism in other nation states. No nation state can lead a revolution if they have not developed their own capitalist mode of production. This is why Marx and Engels correctly stated that the revolution can only take place in the advanced states. Their timeline was way off the mark, however,  because capitalism is still to be fully adopted on a wide scale from an international point of view. Many countries still exist in peasant dominated economies or where the state is ever so influential which does not allow for individuals to make the effort to increase their surplus product. These peasant based economies and their semi colonial type of economies offer a market but not a substantial one. For capitalism to receive its full development it has to develop internationally and this is reflective of the surplus product that is represented primarily in the money form. These peasant based economies do embrace the virtue of private property but they are limited by low levels of labour productivity which makes them less competitive and so not enough of their commodity product can be realized in the monetary form.

The growth in the technical component of capitalism must also reach a high level and it is clear that there are many avenues for continued growth in this regard. The growth in the robotics industry will represent a seismic shift in capitalism particularly artificial intelligence. If we leave aside the possibility that A.I will take over we must still believe that this will improve our own labour productivity. There are still revolutions to be made in the means of communication and transport where a worker will never have an excuse for being late. The growth of capital also means that most areas of life are commoditized. This has yet to be manifested in the peasant based economies of the world. Capital will, therefore, have to be internationalized before it can be fully developed. There are many culturally based commodities to be  produced or commodities produced with the influence of the culture of a particular sphere which will allow for significant national  capital accumulation.

High levels of labour productivity naturally increase level of cooperation in the social sphere. A low level of labour productivity normally corresponds with low levels of social cooperation from a productive point of view. It is this growth in labour productivity facilitated by the growth in technology that will increase the public participation in production. This has occurred in the advanced industrial states but is yet to occur in the poor peasant based economies. The peasant based economies function, internationally, in the sphere of circulation instead of production and so financial services and trade are the dominant features of those economies instead of high levels of industrial production. Most of these states are also highly indebted or the state is very influential without promoting efficient production or capital accumulation. This is why these economies are highly indebted because most of the major industries are tied into agricultural type of production of raw materials but they have to trade internationally with industrial products that have a higher value component. Industrial production represents higher levels of capital accumulation because it represents higher levels of labour productivity.  

A high level of labour productivity therefore increases the level of public participation in production. High levels of consumption are normally a reflection of a growth in incomes. The growth in per capita income is also reflection of growth in productivity even if you’re working for someone else. The growth in per capita suggests a high standard of living and this can only come about with more people receiving a greater share of the surplus product generated by industry. The growth in the technical component in capitalist societies, particularly in those areas of prime real estate which allows landlords to extract a significant amount of rent, individuals require more to sustain their daily living expenses which will allow them to stay productive. It still remains that with the growth in the surplus product and the growth in the technical component the benefits, under capitalism only accrue to the few with the majority existing on the  other extreme of poverty. Not every worker will be able to remain indispensable under capitalism. The celebrity status that some workers achieve is because their productivity is of a high order which allows them to contribute more to the craft, or be creative, in order to make their value be of a high demand in the market and have a high exchange value when realized in the market. This all goes back to my earlier reference to the individual that will be able to do the work of 2 million. What becomes of those 2 million that are now redundant and are incapable of being absorbed into the economy? They would have to raise themselves to a high level in terms of qualification in order to remain relevant. It is not only the capitalist that compete for profit but the workers also compete to go out of their way to prove who has the higher level of productivity which will give them a greater share in the surplus product. This clearly means that with the growth of capital and the technical component of the means of production then more of the world’s population will become disposable or will still be forced to work for the bare minimum. The bare minimum 100 years from now will clearly be at a higher level than it is now. This does not change that if the social relations conditioned by this particular mode of production continue then 100 years from now the global GDP by purchasing power will be probably US$200 trillion (conservative estimate) but the majority of this will still accrue to only a few individuals while the majority will still exist in poverty because they will have no claims to the surplus product. We might be looking at a Blade Runner (see review)  vision of the future or capitalism in its most decadent form.

The more people that continue to be removed from participation in the creation of the  surplus product the more attacks there will be against private property and why there will be a need for more social cooperation from a public point of view. This increased level of social cooperation will be the basis for the growth of a more advanced civilization. This could only be facilitated by high levels of labour productivity and a significant growth in the technological component. Until then, however, capitalism has a long way to go as a system probably longer than Marx and Engels envisioned. 100 years from now capitalism would have grown but also the stake of public property. The government of  a particular nation state will also grow significantly and also the possibility for the development of public property through investments in the social/human element and the infrastructure. Obamacare or the affordable health care act is just the beginning. It is being resisted now because of attacks by supporters of  private property who claim that their surplus product is being used in a wasteful manner. This act is one way of utilizing the surplus product from a social perspective and therefore maintaining the values of public property which will raise the standard of living for the majority instead of the few  that have acquired the majority of the surplus product for themselves on the basis of private property; although the reason they were able to acquire this massive surplus was as a result of the participation of individuals outside of their private domain from the basis of production and consumption. You cannot generate a surplus product on such a massive scale without the participation of individuals outside of your private domain. This means that you have to cooperate from a public standpoint because if you exist in a sphere where no one is able to support you because the’r standard of living is too low and they must rely on the bare minimum then your value cannot be realized in its money form. The human element is more important than the technical component because it is creative human input that best understands what is required by human individuals. If all the workers under capitalism 100 years from now are robots then capital as we know it is dead because it no longer represents a social relation. If it isolates everyone then it has no basis for functioning in the public sphere and the majority in society will seek new means whereby they can improve human productivity through social cooperation instead of for the benefit of a few people. The new form of surplus generation will be as a result of social cooperation and so the massive surplus product would go towards improving the majority instead of the minority.

This does not mean that public property will completely usurp private property. The reality is that  social cooperation will become more important in the future particularly when people need to be mobilized for important social decisions. Private property will still be important but from a working point of view. Individuals will still be driven to produce but at that time the surplus product would be reach a level whereby people will be able to engage in pursuits with no fear of finding money. Most human activity will be considered valuable because innovation will be judged on how this contributes to improving human capabilities from a scientific point of view. How far can humankind develop as a species instead of how much money can one man make by devaluing the labour of others? There will still be inequality in such a regard because of how technology will be employed but the measure of success will not be monetary wealth. How could it be when monetary wealth, once capitalism is adopted as a mode of production throughout the world, will be meaningless a century or two from now? Monetary wealth would have reached such high proportions 300 years from now that future generations will look at us as if we were savages for attempting to attack something like the affordable health care act.  300 years from now health care will be free for all, education from a scientific and industrial point of view will be universal and individuals will be thinking more about settling on other planets or searching for alien life forms. Anything that will promote human development.   We should have all the tools by then to devote to full scale human development. Capitalism does not promote development from the perspective of the majority. That only happens for the few. It is a reality. Obviously the next stage of human society will work for the benefit of all because the full potential of human beings from a social point of view can only be realized with investment in human beings. Don’t be surprised if humans will be able to run much faster than Usain Bolt  300 years from now without the use of steroids because they can devote themselves solely to that pursuit without thinking about how much money they will earn. Money in that form will be dead or be seen as archaic. There will still be competition obviously but it will be done to raise the level of most and not to undermine.

Another alternative is that private property will outstrip public property and the concept of the nation state. Capital will become so mobile in the future it will be difficult to track its movement for taxation purposes. This will become more difficult once capitalist mode of production is developed in most countries in the world. This will mean that the world market would be much larger than it is now not just because of population size but because more countries will be developed capitalist nations with an increased income base. It is clear that capitalism now will not be the same if it exists 300 years into the future. 300 years from now a lot of the brand names that we know now will be gone because new product lines utilizing much more advanced technology will supersede them. There will also be the growth in new industries that will render some industries redundant. I am not even  going to mention the effects of wars which might end up making capital more integrated and allow it to break down some cultural barriers. Groups like Isis and Al Qaeda want to maintain age old traditions that  limit the expansion of capital particularly the patriarchal, biological tradition that existed when the social world of man came into being. The days when affinity with someone biologically meant that you could be secure in some areas or treated with hostility in others. Racism will not be much of an issue in the future once more countries embrace capitalism that is a system that focuses primarily on the accumulation of surplus value regardless of who is doing it. Once you have money to invest or you can do the work or you own some important piece of land then you will be important.   When the patriarchal, biological tradition that has been the foundation for many states in the past is laid to rest then capital will clearly be able to fully unleash the potential for labour productivity where everyone will be given a chance regardless of race or gender.

The growth of capitalism also suggests that most elements of  social life becomes commoditized and this does include government services. If capitalism is allowed to commoditize every facet of human society then the state will become less relevant because most people will be mobilized under the capitalist umbrella. Infrastructural development, education, health services, the security and military forces and  customs will all be commoditized. If that happens then the nation state will become increasingly eroded particularly as  the management by the capitalist class is normally considered more efficient than public run organizations. It becomes more of a possibility particularly if the state becomes capitalized which is the case in the Eurozone and the US. This means that the capitalist class will gain even more of a foothold in government and be able to allow the state to satisfy the needs of private property by actually commoditizing a lot of government programs. Even charities can be commoditized.  Most of the people throughout the world will start looking to capitalism. Most start ups might require that a man or woman will have to do the work of 2 million with the aid of technical components. The bitcoin currency and others like it might definitely become more viable in the future because it is not tied to a national currency. Skyscrapers will be thrice as large as they are today.  People will also become more mobile because the world will be so connected and a lot of rigid national barriers will have to be torn down if you want to integrate capitalism into your national sphere. The national sphere will probably become a cultural sphere. Obviously the primary benefit of commoditizing every sphere of society will be the increase of labour productivity and an expansion of the labour force.  The increased commoditization of capital might be required if capitalism is going to last 300 years from now. There will be more associations than government bodies. The problem would be that with this massive privatization policy who would secure those people that are not embraced within capitalism. According to the laws of capitalism there will be moments when there is massive unemployment and the crises of the future will be even more devastating because more capital will be at stake. Can you imagine a situation 300 years from now where the world economy with a GDP of 300 trillion (conservative estimate) goes through a crisis similar to 2008?  It is clear that capitalism would be decadent by this point and if the few are still allowed to receive all of the massive surplus product then it might mean that the essence of capital might remain the same while only the appearance changes. When capitalism does become decedent 300 years from now then the interests of public property might become more significant. The creation of a new type of society will still be required.

Conclusion

The great service of private property economic relations, which has reached its peak with the growth of capitalism, is the growth in labour productivity. More people have been encouraged to increase their own surplus product beyond levels dreamed of in the Roman Empire. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Carlos Slim are all much richer than the Roman Empire. Capitalism has, therefore, dwarfed all the previous modes of production in terms of wealth generation. Public property on the other hand forms the basis for individuals of a certain cultural infinity to be socially united for common national or community goals. Unity therefore takes place as a result of association with familiar individuals and unfamiliar individuals are not as welcome. These biological and patriarchal developments laid the foundation for the establishment of most states and these developments were also given credence from a more religious point of view. The consolidation of public property led to the growth of private property as a result of the growth in the surplus product which began from a primarily agricultural perspective and led to the growth of landed property that extracted significant rents from the primarily agricultural working population. The growth in landed property as a private sphere eventually led to the growth in monetary fortunes that reached their peak under capitalism that emphasizes commodity production and monetary accumulation. Capitalism still continued the historical trend of labour exploitation but it is wage labour that is exploited. This means that capital has found a way to claim a surplus product that is not simply tied to agricultural production because the growth in private property meant that only a few owned the means of production necessary for industrial production.  The fact that the majority of wage earners do not own the means of production suggests that only a few do benefit from the massive surplus product that is generated in the production process. The generation of surplus value/unpaid labour time is prized above all else and is the basis for profit generation when added to the total capital advanced. This form of private property does seem like a natural income based on historical trends because the growth in private property has always been encouraged as a means to generate sufficient surpluses so that human kind can devote itself to other activities that can promote some form of development. This growth in labour productivity will eventually reach massive proportions 300 years from now and the question is whether or not Marx will be proved correct and there will be the abolition of private property or is capitalism going to continue in its essential form even though its appearances will change from a technical point of view? According to the vision put forward by Marx the surplus product will be used primarily for public purposes whereas the other alternative suggests that capitalism will commoditize all aspect of public life and therefore do away with public property in general. If we do away with public property then only a few humans will  be able to fulfill their  potential by accumulating a surplus product that will still isolate the many but if we include the majority then most individuals will be able to benefit from the massive surplus that will be available, internationally, 300 years from now. Will later generations look  at us as if we're  savages that did not promote public interests in favour of the few or will they be glad that their forefathers continued along the same path and allowed capitalism to become a decadent mode of production. We must understand that with the rise of bourgeois production and the decline of landed property as the main foundation of wealth the feudal lords in Europe were viewed as decadent and oppressive by their bourgeois counterparts. It is likely that as capitalism reaches its peak by commoditizing every facet of human life it too will also be viewed as a decadent and oppressive force by later generations.