Marxist Locke Essays

Marx was a big proponent for the working-class movement and the equality in terms of property. To him, the issue that is most important to conquer is the issue of the estrangement and alienation of man, where man himself is the alien power over man – more specifically, it is workers who are being estranged (Marx 1988, 79). Consequences of this estrangement can be seen with private property, because although it seems to be the root of the problem, private property is actually the consequence of “alienated labor”, explaining why capitalism is a horror to him (Marx 1988, 81). It may be thought that an easy way to give workers equality would be to pay them equal wages, but this is yet another estrangement of labor (Marx 1988, 82). Progress, to Marx, would need to consist of a way to diminish the root of the problem – estrangement of the worker. This would consist of “emancipation of the workers” because the emancipation of the workers would have a large ripple effect, and result in the universal human emancipation (Marx 1988, 82). As it has been addressed multiple times, the estrangement of the worker is the root of the problem, and a step towards progress would need to consist of the workers being emancipated so they are no longer alienated and forced to labor while getting nothing but monetary payment for their labor. The alienation of workers furthers the issue by leading a society towards private

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.

Locke argues that since money has little value besides for the value that men give it, men, by accepting the use of money, have “agreed to a disproportionate and unequal passion of the earth, they have, by a tacit and voluntary consent, found a way how a man may fairly possess more land than he himself can use the product of” (698). Locke places high value on property. He says that human beings are born with a natural right to preserve their own property, that is, their life, liberty, and estate. He also says that the preservation of property is the number one reason people enter into a civil society. A civil society is there to protect the natural rights of humans, which is the preservation of their private property (707).

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

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,

Therefore, Locke believes the protection of private property is one of the most vital responsibilities of the government.

Marx's ideas on labor value are very much alive for many organizations working for social change. In addition, it is apparent that the gap between the rich and poor is widening on a consistent basis. According to Marx, the course of human history takes a very specific form which is class struggle. The engine of change in history is class opposition. Historical epochs are defined by the relationship between different classes at different points in time. It is this model that Marx fleshes out in his account of feudalism's passing in favor of bourgeois capitalism and his prognostication of bourgeois capitalism's passing in favor of proletarian rule. These changes are not the reliant results of random social, economic, and political events; each follows the other in predictable succession. Marx responds to a lot of criticism from an imagined bourgeois interlocutor. He considers the charge that by wishing to abolish private property, the communist is destroying the "ground work of all personal freedom, activity, and independence". Marx responds by saying that wage labor does not properly create any property for the laborer. It only creates capital, a property which works only to augment the exploitation of the worker. This property, this capital, is based on class antagonism. Having linked private property to class hostility, Marx

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.

Yet even still, the two interpret this in different ways. As it is already understood, Locke considers property to be a natural right of man, thus it’s origins lay unsurprisingly within citizens freedom to act individually and it is the government’s obligation, being established by man, to protect these rights. Locke has a rather straight-forward approach essentially saying, the government should protect the birth-given right of property and that private property is what gives citizens the ability to face problems equally. Rousseau however says the security of private property rights must always remain subordinate to the collective society as a whole for true equality to be

Political philosopher John Locke ideas and theories serve as a foundation in our democratic world. In the Second Treatise of Government sovereignty is placed in the hands of the people. Locke argues that everyone is born equal and has natural rights in the state of nature. He also argues that men have inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. The central argument around the creation of a civil society was with the protection of property. In this essay I will explain Locke's theory of property and how it is not anything other than a "thinly disguised defense of bourgeois commercial capitalism." This statement is defended through Locke's personal background and his justifications for the inequalities of wealth.

Locke’s have developed different views on human nature. He states, that all the men should have natural right to get private property and protection should a top priority of the government. Locke’s powerful quotes states that the men should have the right to life, liberty and property. He depends on human reason to give citizens their freedom and their right to protect it. This freedom is the foundation of the individual’s way of life and their human rights. A threat to an individual’s freedom can be extended to be a threat to many other aspects of the individual to take away their freedom. One of the Locke’s quote states, “Master and servant are names as old as history, but

Capitalism and Exploitation are two terms that people generally use together to make a point. Capitalism is a system in which a country’s trade and industry is controlled by private owners for profit. Exploitation is the actions of treating a person unfairly so that you could benefit from it. In the “Working Day” section from Capitalist, Marx explains what he means by exploitation and whether it is connected to capitalism. One of Marx’s arguments is capitalism cannot be separated from exploitation. I agree with that argument because in my eyes it is tough to consider one without the other. In this essay, I will explain what Marx mean when stating that and I will compare his arguments to John Locke’s. They both speak on some of the same

To explain how the rights of an individual should be managed Locke first goes into detail about what an individual’s rights entail. Locke explains that a “man being born… hath by nature a power… to preserve his property – that is his life, liberty, and estate” (Locke). These rights, although

The philosophy of Karl Marx begins with the belief that humans are inherently cooperative with common characteristics and shared ends. To human beings, life is considered an object and therefore, humans make their “life-activity itself the object of his will and of his consciousness” (Tucker 76). In other words, humans are able to think, imagine, and “produce even when he is free from physical need and only truly produces in freedom therefrom” (p. 76). It exemplifies that idea that humans not only have the capability to create things for survival but express themselves in what they produce, within the standards of the human race or universally. When capitalist wage-labor enters the picture, it forces these shared ends and the freedom of expression in human production to cease, causing a rise of competitiveness among

As I have mentioned earlier in this paper, Locke is all about private property through labor. You must basically work for your property so if some labor is being done you are basically working for you property. When it comes to Marx and his exploitation theory, he wants to make sure the workers are not being exploited for doing what they must do to keep capitalism functioning. Overall, I believe that Locke’s response to Marx theory wouldn’t be as bad as it may seem. Some people may think that Locke would feel one way about the theory while other people may think vice