Marx Vs. Locke

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.

CD: In his Second Treatise on Government, published in 1689, Locke discusses the natural human state as free, unregulated, and that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions”. (BOOK)

While reading the “The Second Treatise of Government,” you can notice and see that John Locke has a strong standing for civil rights as well as helping with the development of the Constitution of the United States. He states that the “consent of the governed,” is basically saying that communities are not put together by the divine right or ruled by. Paternal, familial, and political are types of powers that John Locke mentions that have all have unlike characteristics. He inspired others to believe in and want equal rights and democracy. John Locke talks about the state of nature, which basically states that no one has the power to be ruler of someone, as well as they are able to do what they want in a freely matter. In other words people are born just like anyone else that is born, and should have equally rights to property, health, and liberty, and that no one should have the power over anyone. Everyone should be able to live and enjoy his or her own freedom and wellbeing. However, the state of nature is not a guarantee to have natural laws, which could help with the protecting of one’s property. According to him having your own personal freedom was the true meaning of state of nature. John Locke thought that people were following his faith in human rationality through the declaration of Locke. John Locke states that if the government takes away from others for them to empower them then the people have right and opportunity to go against

Human reason has been one of the guiding principles in our society since the beginning of time and because action is preceded by thought, these two go hand in hand. Every choice we make is based on our thinking process, differentiating between what is good or bad, and contemplating cause and effect. Machiavelli, Locke, and Marx all have distinct conceptions of human nature, which has led to a variety of conclusions regarding the political structures of society that still have resonance today, which goes to show how much of an impact their theories have.

According to Locke, the state of war occurs because of destruction and enmity, which results from the perfect freedom and liberty found in the state of nature. This idea is similar to Hobbes’ reasons for the state of war, yet, Locke believes that it also occurs because of the “presence of a common authority that fails to act justly, the only possible state is a state of war, because the arbitrating power in place to stop war is itself in violation of the laws of nature and justice.” However, Locke’s law of nature that governs this state goes against Hobbes’ idea of self-preservation, because it does not allow for man to harm another’s life, liberty, health or possessions. This natural law is based on the idea that every man may be free in the state of nature, but everything belongs to one omnipotent power, “the Maker”. This natural law aids in the peace and preservation of all mankind, and is a responsibility that is given to every man and along with that the authority to punish transgressors of this law. This is another natural right of man, but it is one that could never be truly enforced in the state of nature. Since Locke established that all men are created equal by the same omnipotent power, he is also saying that no one man has the power to

Locke feels that this system of government is lacking in that the ruler has all control, and may not be stopped in abuses of power, which Locke fears. Humans beings decide to form a society out of the state of nature because there must be unity among men in order to protect one another, and so that they may punish offenders of the justice. Men do this under the rule of an indivdual who is selected by the people, and to whom the people give up some of their personal rights.Though humans give up certain rights to the chosen authoriy, they are entitled to certain rights reserved to them alone, which they hold within the society. All members of the society should be equal under the law of justice, and that no man is better than another, since all men are created equal, and all are equal before the laws of nature. The law of nature states that people attain property through the labour they do.The ruler or authority over a society should be an indivdual

Marx thought of capitalism in a pessimistic way, he saw the relationship between the employee and employer in a capitalistic society as toxic. To Marx, in a capitalistic society the employee would always be at a constant struggle for power be never endlessly repressed by the bourgeoisie. The employer would pay employees only what they needed to survive making it impossible to move up in class or society. He also recognized that in capitalism everything becomes corporatized. Things like marriage go from a sacred bond between two individuals that once never included money or the government, to something that is regulated by the national government and must be done through the federal court and include ties between the individual's financial status. Small businesses would also become corporatized, a local family doctor has now become part of a larger practice that brings in complex forms of payment such as insurance instead of simply paying a small family doctor directly. He also goes into the downfall of capitalism. The way capitalism works is through a series of economic highs and lows, each high is marked by prosperous times, high employment rate, and overall happiness. But the lows are marked by deterioration of the national economy, low employment rates, and struggle for all classes. To Marx’s these highs and lows are what's killing capitalism with each low being worse than the last until the people revolt and create a new form of government. The next would be socialism and once this fell like capitalism, the new governing system would be communism. Communism is an ideal system where people are never struggling for money and are paid based on their needs rather than their particular job. Through this system a

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

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.

Due to state laws and policies, Marx and Rousseau both agree men are not living in a free society. In western democracies today, both philosophers’ ideas are clear and visible.

In the second treatise Locke states that "The state of Nature has a Law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one: And Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or possession. For men being all the Workmanship of one Omnipotent, and infinitely wise Maker" (Locke 271) Locke argues that God created mankind and all men adhered to natural laws through reasoning

Locke regarded humans naturally in “a state of perfect freedom to order their actions” (Locke Two treatises ex.4). Along with this comes unbounded indulgence of the benefits of law of nature whereby men “has by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men; but to judge of, and punish the breaches of that law in others” (Locke Two treatises ex.87). In addition, “it was not good for him to be alone, put him under strong obligations of necessity, convenience, and inclination to drive him into society” (Locke Two treatises ex.77). Locke views that the formation of government “derive[d] from God’s will” (Dunn 2003, p. 37) and originated from men’s need to protect their property as a collective, where a common

For Locke, It becomes increasingly difficult to defend the natural right due to the possibility of the state of war. In order to preserve the right, the people would also have to come together to form a social contract. They would then establish a state, whose job would be to PRESERVE the right, and to punish those who seek to attack it. The state will then decide upon a neutral judge. John Locke argues that the government’s only job is to act as an fair mediator of self-defense. This way the power of the state comes from consent and delegation of the governed. The government is limited by its people’s natural right and cannot overstep its bounds. Since the law of nature states that a person cannot violate another’s natural right, the same mentality must be kept by the government, or sovereign. If the sovereign fails to preserve or

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.

Marx came to his conclusion through tracing the proletariat and bourgeoisie roots to the fall of the feudal system. In his book The Communist Manifesto he says that it was here that he saw the bourgeoisie coming to power while the proletariat fell on the economic ladder. While he admits that there has always been a class division in society, it has become increasingly obvious to detect. Due to the inventions of the steam engine and the assembly line, the bourgeoisie became more selective while the proletariat grew in size and started forming unions. He began to notice that the bourgeoisie were beginning to come to power while the proletariat started to grow in numbers. Marx believed that there were multiple reasons that led the bourgeoisie to create their own destruction. First, the bourgeoisie could not help but oppress the proletariats and stand by as they began to sink lower and lower into society, thus increasing the chance of a proletariat uprising. Second, Marx writes, “The advance of industry…replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition…due to association” (Marx p. 21). Marx believed that human reasoning would ultimately prevail and that the proletariats would eventually rise up and cast out the bourgeoisie. Human intuition,