Political Power, Ideology and Society #2

I think that societies should be examined in two categories: those with and without classes. Some of you might feel the urge to point out how this is a simple and basic separation so on and so forth. Nevertheless, this will take on dire importance as we advance.

To put it simply, how do we determine the difference between a society with classes from one that doesn’t? For me, the answer to this question lies on the concept of “private property”. With this proposition we find ourselves in Rousseau’s territory:

“Le premier qui, ayant enclos un terrain, s'avisa de dire: Ceci est à moi, et trouva des gens assez simples pour le croire, fut le vrai fondateur de la société civile. Que de crimes, que de guerres, de meurtres, que de misères et d'horreurs n'eût point épargnés au genre humain celui qui, arrachant les pieux ou comblant le fossé, eût crié à ses semblables: Gardez-vous d'écouter cet imposteur; vous êtes perdus, si vous oubliez que les fruits sont à tous, et que la terre n'est à personne."
-Jean Jacques Rousseau (Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes)

“The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.”
-Jean Jacques Rousseau (Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men)

Here we can clearly observe that Rousseau considers the moment when private property was found as both the beginning of civil (modern) societies and the source of the inequality amongst men. For Rousseau, this is not a simple step that can be taken back, but more of an inevitable and horrible fate, a miserable prophecy upon all of mankind, a breaking point, a rupture.

I must point out that I do agree that private property is not a simple step that can be taken back, yet I disagree on the assumption that this is as though a prophecy upon mankind, an inevitable fate. However, I will stop talking of this subject for now, as I intend to write more on it later.

We can summarize the goal of this note as distinguishing societies with classes from those that don’t through the concept of private property, all the while emphasizing that there is a breaking point, a rupture if you would call it, on the moment where a society adopts the notion of private property, and that this breaking point or rupture is for me irreversible but not inevitable.