Macpherson criticizes the conceptualization of liberal property of the 20th century, emphasizing the necessity of a transformation within the liberal paradigm. The definition of liberal property excludes forms of ownership other than private property, such as common ownership and state ownership, and reduces ownership to things, legitimizing ownership based on whether labor is involved, shaped according to the needs of market capitalism. This conceptualization of property does not align with the claims of liberal democracy. Liberal democracy considers private property as a natural right necessary for a humane life. However, the liberal democratic understanding of the same period advocates principles of private property acquisition that would hinder humane living, exclude others, and rely on labor contributions. The way to overcome this contradiction is to broaden this narrow definition of property. Discussions regarding state ownership and private property continue today, with the concept of property being used synonymously with private property, and state ownership being made invisible. The emergence of multinational corporations due to neoliberal globalization, privatizations, and financialization have resulted in the near elimination of state ownership. Consequently, state ownership is made even more invisible. The neoliberal paradigm advocating the narrowing of state ownership also demands transformation, sometimes calling for the state to enter the market as a redistributor and play an active role. This study aims to analyze contemporary capitalism in global and national contexts based on Macpherson's thesis and property categorization.