Essay on Locke vs Marx

Locke’s thought on having a king, laws, and a civil society under a social contract was so all men can enjoy and protect their rights. Where all men obtain the right to life, all humans have the right to live and life shouldn't be taken away from another human being. The right to liberty, protecting an individual's freedom and unreasonable detention. The right to property, a citizen in which Locke thought a human's labour was his own, anything created or made should remain that individuals as well and the right to rebel against unjust rulers and laws.

Marx and Engels sought to abolish private property through Communism just as previous historical movements have. They cited the French Revolution and how bourgeois property arose from the banishing of feudal property, and Marx and Engels stated that they desire for a communal property to arise from the banishing of private property. They believed that abolishing private property was justified because property is not a product of wage-labor; the only product that wage-labor creates is capital. Marx and Engels argued that the existence of personal property is the direct opposition to wage-labor and the capital that goes with it. They said that capital earned is not any kind of a personal power, but rather it is highly social. Saying this, they

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.

In his Second Treatise on Government Locke focus’ on liberalism & capitalism, defending the claim that men are by nature free and equal against the idea that God had made all people subject to a king. He argued that people have ‘natural rights’, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that hold the foundation for the major laws of a society. He says, “…we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.” (2nd Treatise, Chapter 2, sec 4). John Locke used this claim, that all men were naturally free and equal, for understanding the idea of a government as a result of a social contract. This is where people in the state of nature transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better guarantee the steady and comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property.

In Communist Manifesto, Marx introduces his philosophy by stating, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Marx presents various illustrations of class struggles between the oppressors and oppressed. Some examples include the “lord and serf”, “freeman and slave”, and “patrician and plebeian” to name a few. Marx suggests that the current struggle in society is between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. The bourgeoisies are the class of owners or the ruling class. What separates the bourgeoisies from the rest is that they have private property. According to Thoreau, private property is that which produces capital. It is buildings, engines, and machinery. In

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.

Locke's Explanation of Creation, Value and Protection of Property ‘The great and chief end... of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and

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.

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,

Karl Marx on the other hand, has a wildly different opinion on property. In his most famous piece, The Communist Manisfesto, Marx’s opinion is set up in one line; "… the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property” (Marx in Cahn 885). Marx firmly believed that ownership of private property was a way in which the social classes became more divided, and in turn, a way to oppress the poor. His opinion largely stems from the time period in which he lived (1818-1883), where factory owners infamously underpaid employees for dangerous work in treacherous conditions. However, Marx idea of private property was a bit different from Locke and did not mean things like land ownership or personal items, but the relation of individuals used for the means of production in a privately owned enterprise. Marx points out however, that in this state, unlike the ideas and time of Locke (1632-1704), the laborers do not benefit or acquire any property from their labor. In fact, the capital they are producing is the “kind of property that exploits wage labor” (Marx in Cahn 886) and serves to oppress them and further the division of classes. Therefore, Marx aimed to take this “private property” and give it to the Proletariats in order to change its status from the elite ownership of the Bourgeoisie, to the

Next, under Locke’s state of nature, he also places a heavy emphasis on extensive rights, including property rights. He believed that self-determination implied private property rights and that human life without property is not free. In refutation to this

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;

Hence, the institutions and laws of civil society exist under the mandate to protect the “life, liberty, and estate” of each member. Therefore, liberty, for Locke, requires certain enabling conditions to allow it to be enjoyed, and these conditions are put in place by law.