Discuss why and how Marx would reject Locke’s defense of private property. Overall, which view (Locke or Marx) do you find more convincing?
When comparing John Locke and Karl Marx it's relevant to mention the circumstances that gave rise to their ideology. Locke was writing in a time prior to the industrial revolution, while Marx was writing post-industrial revolution at a time when the worst effects of the industry were rampant. Although Locke is often credited for developing the beginning of the ideological underpinnings for capitalism in his defense of private property, it should be noted that he was referring to a pre-industrial society where the modes of labor and production were limited. Nevertheless, the idealization of Locke and his philosophy by economic liberals remains and has been extrapolated to argue for the accumulation of property gained through the post-industrial modes of production.
Locke’s defense of private property begins with a claim that God initially gave the earth to “mankind in common” (Locke __). Although the world initially belongs to everyone in common, there are ways in which an individual can lay claim to something and make it their own, this is where the Labor Theory of Property comes in. For Locke, the labor necessary to extract something from nature from the commons is what legitimates the possession and turns it into private property, “[w]hatsoever 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” (Locke __). Locke’s justification of private property also stems from a desire to see the land improved upon. Without private property, there would be little reason to improve land, increase the yields, and unlock greater benefits for the humanity.
At this point, it can be assumed to be a fairly reasonable argument, if the mixing of labor is the only way to acquire property, there is an inherent restriction on excess accumulation of resources through the personal limitations that one has. There would also be “plenty of natural provisions” to prevent contention about property rights. One of these crucial provisions is the “No Spoilage” proviso, which places an additional restriction on the excess accumulation of property based on the limits imposed by nature, “[a]s much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his labour fix a property in: whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others” (Locke __).
Locke’s reasoning then takes a crucial turn upon the introduction of the turfs argument. While Locke originally attributed the legitimization of private property to the mixing of labor, he adds that the labor does not need to be one’s own, “[t]hus the grass my horse has bit; the turfs my servant has cut… [has] become my property, without the assignation or consent of any body,” overcoming the labor limitation placed on them (Locke __).
These initial limitations are further reduced by the introduction of money. Unlike the beginning stages of society wherein all men are relatively equal, the accumulation of property is limited by the provisos, and there is a correlation between amount of labor and property, the introduction of money leads to the rise of inequalities due to the ability to hoard property. The “tacit” and “voluntary” consent of man to assign value to currency has led to “disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth” as men started desiring larger possessions (Locke __).
Almost 200 years after Locke published the Second Treatise of Government, dramatic changes in forms of production gave way to industrial capitalism. The change from agricultural and small businesses to large scale manufacturing and enterprise led to a rigid class structure and new relations in society. Locke’s legitimization of capital accumulation leads to a profound inequality between the capitalists and the proletariats. Additionally, the intergenerational accumulation of wealth led to a profoundly unequal playing field. This accumulation of wealth eventually leads to a system in which there is a small elite (capitalist) who are controlling the means of production and control the workers capacity to labor. Because the primary aim of civil society is to secure the property relations, people that do not have property are not considered full members of society, leading to large scale economic and political disenfranchisement. Marx recognized the widespread disenfranchisement of large part of the population who would be those most likely to challenge the unequal distribution of wealth.
Locke argues that labor and improvement legitimizes the possession of private property, but in a post industrial world where most of the means of production are owned by a wealthy few, it becomes difficult to receive an accurate compensation for the amount of labor that is being exerted. The workers are no longer laboring to acquire a sort of property but instead labor for a wage. The wage labor leads to the exploitation of the worker, as the amount of labor that a worker puts in is inversely proportional to his compensation, “the worker becomes cheaper the more commodities he produces” (Marx __). According to Marx’s Labor Theory of Value, the price of a product is determined by the amount of labor necessary to produce it. The problem with this is that the worker never gets fully compensated for the value of the product, and the surplus is kept by the capitalist. The worker essentially does all of the work, but the capitalist attains all of the surplus value solely because they own the means of production, managing to “alienate his labour-power and to avoid renouncing his rights of ownership over it” (Marx 265).
Another facet of the capitalist system is alienation. The worker becomes alienated from the product of his labor. The process of production which was once seen as an act of personal creation becomes reduced to menial activity which one engages in as a means of survival (Locke 41). The worker is simultaneously alienated from their “species being,” one’s essential capacities and potential as an individual and a part of the greater human community where each contributes to the welfare as a whole (Marx __). For Marx, the accumulation of private property is detrimental to societal common good in that the competition divides individuals and puts them in opposition to each other. The relationship between a person and their fellows should not be one of competition but of a desire for genuine communal success (Marx __). Where Locke defends private property in its improvement of land, Marx concludes that it leaves the worker in a life that is meaningless and devoid of real satisfaction.
While it is difficult to compare the two equally as a result of their strikingly different circumstances, I find myself sympathizing with Marx’s interpretations. Primarily, Locke’s biggest failure is his inability to conceive of the detriment that the accumulation ghat private property would have on future generations. Marx is witnessing the negative effects of the unrestrained accumulation of material wealth and has developed philosophy which aims to combat the disparities among social classes. Additionally, there are various logical inconsistencies in Locke’s argument. He first claims that the right to own property as a natural right while immediately removing all natural law limits from the accumulation of property. This can be seen through the elimination of the provisos with the introduction of the turf argument and the tacit consent of money as a currency. Locke’s theory justifies the dependency of workers on the descendents of those who first appropriated land in the beginning of society, rendering the majority with the only option of selling their labor in order to survive. While Locke’s theory of property establishes certain basic rights for individuals, it leaves a large section of society disenfranchised without any economic or political capital. Locke certainly takes a more individualist approach, owing nothing to society as a whole except the mutual recognition of society. In contrast, Marx places an emphasis on the advancement of society as a whole and recognizing the inequalities that unrestricted accumulation of private property has yielded. Moreover, Marx argues against Locke’s justification through the labor theory of value for private property, noting that the privatization of property was only applicable in system prior to the industrial revolution in which labor was limited to oneself. Upon the beginning of the industrial revolution, capitalist modes of production reliant upon division of labor created and excasterbated class inequalities. Most importantly, while Locke argues that the right to own property is essential for freedom, Marx argues that freedom can only be achieved through the abolition of private property because it would reverse the alienation and its consequent dehumanization of the worker. Despite Marx’s radical goals of the complete abolition of private property in favor of ______ through the “revolution of the proletariat”, the basis of his argument is admirable in that it aims to defend the rights of the traditionally marginalized in society. While we are a long ways away from the complete abolition of property in contemporary America, there have been policies, although scarce, which aim to limit the power and influence of the wealthy and prevent the exploitation of the worker. Marx was a noted supporter of communism for the technological advances it has brought, potentially, with the rise of automation, the world will be closer to the idealized society which Marx desired.
seems like you're making the argument that his weakness is that he neglected to account for a bunch of variables and failed to project what his theory would look like in a future society unlike his own.
Locke sets the foundation Marx uses tp
The most striking difference between the two philosophers is their interpretation of private property and their effects on. While Locke the ownership of property as foundational to good government, society, and as a natural right, Marx saw the detriment and inequities that it caused as capitalism remained unchecked. For Marx, private property was at the center of almost all of the problems he witnessed in humanity as it contributed to an unequal distribution of wealth.
Although Locke was an adamant supporter of private property he was not blind to the possible exploitation of it, which violated his idea of the social contract and the notion that everyone is entitled to their natural rights.
It can be argued that John Locke did not anticipate the fill impact of the industrial revolution in society, whereas Marx’s thinking was based on living in the early Industrial revolution, full of worker exploitation,
Unlike in Locke’s time period in which there was a relative ease through which people could attain private property, there was no longer a way for workers to mix their labor with things to sell to the market. Instead, workers were to produce private property for others. The workers are no longer laboring to acquire a sort of property but instead labor for a wage.
This capitalist system of production leads to alienation and exploitation of the worker. The product of labor becomes an “alien thing”, a “power independent of the producer.” A worker becomes a slave.. he provides labor and receives a means of subsistence, but he can only maintain himself as a physical subject if he is a worker. Marx argues that a if a worker wants to survive, he must accept “materialistic” goals through tacit consent in order to secure personal property, and from that, other rights.
The second problem that arises is that the workers labor is not being adequately reflected by the wage that they're getting paid. Locke’s labor theory maintains that labor creates value in an object, yet under capitalism the laborer only receives a small portion of that value.
Marx’s solution to a society existing with relationships consisting of the dependence of many and domination of the few is to abolish forms of private property entirely.