The theme of property is directly relevant to some of the most divisive social and political issues today, such as wealth inequality and the question of whether governments should limit it by introducing measures that restrict the right to property. Yet what is property? And when seeking to answer this question, do we tend to identify the concept with just one dominant historical form of property? In this book, David James reconstructs the theories of property developed by four key figures in classical German philosophy - Kant, Fichte, Hegel and Marx. He argues that although their theories of property are different, the concept of social recognition plays a crucial role in all of them, and assesses these philosophers' arguments for the specific forms of property they claim should exist in a society that is genuinely committed to the idea of freedom.

‘Property and its Forms in Classical German Philosophy challenges the liberal, ‘pre-political' conception of private property stemming from John Locke that is familiar and standard in contemporary political philosophy. The book examines and defends four alternative, powerful accounts of property-from Kant, Fichte, Hegel, and Marx-that have a social component to what is mine and thine. James's thorough, learned discussion contributes not only to our understanding of German political thought but also to fundamental inquiries into the nature and basis of modern liberal capitalism.'

Jeffrey Church - University of Houston

‘David James brilliantly demonstrates that, beyond their controversies about economic systems, classic German philosophers share the same concept of property. It isn't primarily a relation between a person and a thing, but a system of mutual limitation of free spheres of action. This opens highly promising perspectives for the current debates on distributive justice.'

Jean-Christophe Merle - University of Vechta/Universität des Saarlandes

‘This excellent book is a must read for anyone interested in theories of property in classical German philosophy…’

Michael Baur Source: Journal of the History of Philosophy