Author: C.B. MacPherson

Published: 1962 by Oxford University Press

ISBN: 978-0195003405

Pages: 320

C.B. MacPherson’s The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism critically analyzes the development of liberal-democratic theory through the lens of what MacPherson terms “possessive individualism.” MacPherson argues that modern liberal thought, especially the classical theories of Hobbes, Locke, and later social contract theorists, rests on an underlying assumption of the individual as primarily a proprietor of his own person. This “possessive” view posits that individuals are free insofar as they own and control their own bodies and labor, thus creating a political and social framework that sees human relations in terms of economic competition, market relations, and property rights.

The book investigates how this possessive individualism shaped the development of capitalist social structures, liberal institutions, and the contradictions of modern democracy. MacPherson contends that this ideology limits genuine democratic participation, as it turns freedom into a function of property ownership.

1. Possessive Individualism: The central thesis is that modern liberalism is rooted in a concept of the individual as fundamentally a self-proprietor, whose freedom derives from the possession of their own labor and property. This notion of self-ownership becomes the basis for social and political relations.

2. The Social Contract Tradition: MacPherson traces the development of possessive individualism through the political philosophies of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, arguing that their views of human nature and society underpin modern capitalism.

3. Democracy and Property: MacPherson critiques the liberal-democratic tradition for enshrining property rights at the expense of genuine equality and democratic engagement. He sees the protection of property as a mechanism that exacerbates social inequality and reduces democracy to mere formalism.

4. Contradictions of Liberal Democracy: The author identifies tensions between the capitalist framework and democratic values. He argues that the possessive individualism underlying liberalism erodes the possibility of collective action, genuine political participation, and an egalitarian society.

5. Alternative Visions: While MacPherson critiques liberalism, he also explores the potential for more participatory forms of democracy that move beyond possessive individualism and create space for more cooperative and community-based forms of social organization.

This introductory chapter outlines MacPherson’s concept of possessive individualism and frames it as the core of classical liberal theory. He explains how the idea of the individual as owner of themselves shapes the relationship between the state and its citizens, particularly through the protection of property rights.

MacPherson analyzes Hobbes’s theory of the state of nature and social contract, arguing that Hobbes laid the groundwork for possessive individualism by conceptualizing individuals as independent, self-serving entities who relinquish certain freedoms to a sovereign for the sake of security. The Hobbesian individual is still fundamentally possessive, seeking to protect their own interests.

In Locke’s work, MacPherson identifies a more fully developed version of possessive individualism. Locke’s emphasis on labor as the means through which individuals appropriate property solidifies the connection between ownership and freedom. MacPherson critiques Locke for entrenching inequality through his defense of private property.

MacPherson examines James Harrington’s republican thought, focusing on how Harrington attempted to reconcile the idea of equality with a system of property rights. He positions Harrington as a critical figure in the transition from feudalism to early capitalism.

This chapter explores how the political and economic upheavals of the 17th century helped institutionalize possessive individualism, particularly through the rise of capitalist markets and the consolidation of property rights.

MacPherson shifts focus to 19th-century utilitarian thinkers, notably Jeremy Bentham. He argues that utilitarianism, with its focus on maximizing individual happiness, reinforces possessive individualism by reducing collective welfare to a matter of individual utility and property accumulation.

In this chapter, MacPherson critiques modern liberal democracy for maintaining the contradictions of capitalist society. He discusses how formal democratic rights are undermined by the unequal distribution of property and power, leading to a system where political participation is limited by economic inequality.

MacPherson turns to socialist critiques of liberal democracy, particularly Marxist theories that see capitalist democracy as inherently exploitative. He argues that possessive individualism is a barrier to achieving true democracy and social justice.

The final chapter outlines MacPherson’s vision for moving beyond possessive individualism. He advocates for a form of participatory democracy where individuals are not primarily defined by their ownership of property, but by their capacity to engage in collective decision-making and cooperative social relations.

MacPherson’s *Possessive Individualism* offers a penetrating critique of liberalism, revealing how its foundations in property and market relations undermine the egalitarian aspirations of democracy. By showing how possessive individualism pervades classical political theory, MacPherson highlights the limitations of contemporary democratic structures in capitalist societies. His call for more participatory forms of democracy resonates with the concerns of the Symbiotic Intelligence Framework and The Communitarium Project, which seek to explore non-reductive, collective forms of social organization. MacPherson’s analysis can help inform discussions on how to transition away from possessive individualism toward more cooperative, networked forms of governance that emphasize shared responsibility and mutual aid, thus aligning with Communitarium ideals.