John Locke And Karl Marx On Private Property

John Locke and Karl Marx, two of the most renowned political philosophers, had many contrasting views when it came the field of political philosophy. Most notably, private property rights ranked high among the plethora of disparities between these two individuals. The main issue at hand was whether or not private property was a natural right. Locke firmly believed that private property was an inherent right, whereas Marx argued otherwise. This essay will examine the views of both Locke and Marx on the subject of private property and will render insight on whose principles appear more credible.

John Locke defends the right to private property in Second Treatise of Government by transforming Biblical principles into Capitalist principles. Locke explores nine steps that stem from the Book of Genesis to explain “in a positive way how men could come to own various particular parts of something that God gave to mankind in common” (Locke 11). Locke believes that the unnatural inequality is perfectly acceptable. because he notes that some people work harder than others so they deserve more. The only way to ensure his argument is to guarantee that private property is secured by divinity, otherwise men can give and take away property freely, which includes the sovereign.

“Though the earth, and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property”. “From all which it is evident, that though the things of Nature are given in common, man (by being master of himself, and proprietor of his own person, and the actions or labour of it) has still in himself the great foundation of property;...” (Locke, 1978

Karl Marx and John Locke both formulated philosophical theories that worked to convince people of their rights to freedom and power; however, they had conflicting viewpoints on the idea of private property. Locke felt that property belonged to whoever put their labor into it, and one could accumulate as much property as he or she wants (692). Marx, however, considered the private property of the select few who possessed it to be the product of the exploitation of the working class (1118). Personally, I believe that Locke’s conception of private property is more convincing than Marx’s point of view.

In the Second Treatise of Government by John Locke, he writes about the right to private property. In the chapter which is titled “Of Property” he tells how the right to private property originated, the role it plays in the state of nature, the limitations that are set on the rights of private property, the role the invention of money played in property rights and the role property rights play after the establishment of government.. In this chapter Locke makes significant points about private property. In this paper I will summarize his analysis of the right to private property, and I will give my opinion on some of the points Locke makes in his book. According to Locke, the right to private property originated when God gave the world to

to him as well. So by adding labor to property we add something of our

Locke begins his explanation of private property by establishing how individuals come to possess property separate from the common resources of mankind. The defining feature of a piece of private property is labor, as the individual who performs the “labour that removes [the good] out of that common state nature left it in” makes the property his own (V. 30). According to Locke, the common resources of nature are open to all mankind, but a good becomes an individual’s own when a person performs some sort of labor on it. This stems from his idea that industry is an extension of self-ownership – people have natural rights of their own being, and extending these personal rights through work is how people come to own other things. Labor is what establishes ownership of a good, and as long as the amount of property taken is within a reasonable and modest amount, people are free to take what resources they must from the Earth. Although Locke argues in favor of the possession of private property, he emphasizes the point that it is “dishonest” for a man “to hoard up more than he could make use of” (V. 46). When people take property in excess, perishable

John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, two philosophers with differing opinions concerning the concept of private property. Rousseau believes that from the state of nature, private property came about, naturally transcending the human situation into a civil society and at the same time acting as the starting point of inequality amongst individuals. Locke on the other hand argues that private property acts as one of the fundamental, inalienable moral rights that all humans are entitled to. Their arguments clearly differ on this basic issue. This essay will discuss how the further differences between Locke and Rousseau lead from this basic fundamental difference focusing on the acquisition of property and human rights.

	One of Locke’s central themes is the distribution of property. In a state of natural abundance "all the fruits it naturally produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common" (page 18). In this situation the only thing man naturally owns is "his own person. This no body has any right to but himself" (page 18). Therefore, man is in a way equal, however it is an imperfect equality. "Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property" (page 18). Therefore, everything belongs to mankind in general, until a man decides to take it upon himself to acquire something from its pure state in nature, and since he has to work to achieve this, the fruits of the labor are his.

     When speaking on the state of nature Locke’s main concern is spoilage or waste of commodities, but with the introduction of money he sees this problem solved. When in fact a floodgate for spoilage and waste is opened. Today the market is flooded with products, and products supposed to be better then the other product, the leading brand, and the other leading brand. Combine this with the introduction of digital property such as television and the Internet, all other forms of mass media marketing, and we have a whole new concept of hoarding and spoilage.

Having established his state of nature, Locke begins his description of the formation and transition to society, and appropriately starts with a discussion of property. “God, who hath given the World to Men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of Life, and convenience.” (Locke, Second Treatise, V.26). Here, Locke does little more than apply natural law (self preservation) to what he sees around him (land), but in doing so, makes a groundbreaking shift. He reveals that, following from natural law, men have a right to use what they have around them to further their own preservation and lives. In addition, man has an inherent, and obvious, possession of himself and all that comes with it, including, and most importantly, labor. “The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.” (Locke, Second Treatise,

Two of the most influential and celebrated modern political thinkers, Karl Marx and John Locke, have made countless insightful and compelling arguments, expressing their ideas on various conditions of the individual, state, and the interactions between the two. Marx was a German political thinker who was best known for his works with idea of communism and social class divisions. Locke was an English philosopher famous for his social contract and is known as the Father of Liberalism (CITE). Despite the paramount success these men achieved, they had radically different views on the idea of property and the description of freedom, finding only minimal similarity on their views on the right to revolt.

In refutation to Locke’s state of nature argument, we can look towards Hobbes, Rousseau, and Mill to provide us with insightful objections. It can be claimed that first society should not have the right to self-determination but instead the right to self preserve, that property rights are social institutions and not inherent natural rights, and finally that not everyone in society is guaranteed property rights.

It was the land, when mixed with man’s labour offered the means of turning that outcome into money. Since land ownership is a prerequisite to making money and money is a pre-condition to owning land, the two became inexorably linked. In short, the introduction of money led to unlimited accumulation, scarcity and, ultimately, conflict. Although the sufficiency limitation remained intact, there was no longer “as much and as good” land for everyone and, as a result, a visible disparity between “owners” and the “wage makers” appeared and conflict between them arose. Locke commented on the problems inherent in accumulation of property in the state of nature;

Therefore, even though the rights are the individuals they do not have the right to give them away. In the same respect, no other man or governing body has the ability to take these rights from an individual. (Wives and servants cannot have their rights taken away from them by their husbands or masters because they are human individual endowed with unalienable rights.) The question is then: what is property? Property according to Locke can range from pieces of land to products, but even if a person has none of these “every man has a property in his own person” (Locke). Labor put in is the qualifying factor that turns something from common property to private property. The labor put forth in an individuals being can be seen simply through the act of breathing being at birth to the endeavors of an individual to better his character. When actual land is concerned, the transition to private property is similar to the owning of the individual due to labor applied. Common land, shared by all, becomes the property of an individual by the consent of all those within the common and as long as the individual leaves enough for others and