Social and political philosophy of John Locke

Locke vs. Marx

The principles of the Enlightenment have come down to the modern world through the governments which are in currently in place. Any representative form of government, throughout the world, can trace it's roots back to John Locke and the Enlightenment principles he espoused in his Two Treatises of Government. In this book, first published in 1690, Locke spelled out his ideas on government; how it derived it's powers from the consent of the governed, how their was a contract between the government and the governed, and what restrictions and obligations each had to each other, and to the rest of society. Locke sought to establish the rules for a civilized society, based upon what he viewed as the "laws of nature," in order to create a stable and prosperous society in line with the natural state of mankind. A century and a half later, Karl Marx espoused a new philosophy, one which also sought to create a stable and prosperous society, but sought to do this by absolutely destroying the old system, turning society upside down, and forcing people to act against their natural inclinations. As versions of both systems have been implemented over the past several decades, I feel that Locke's system not only works better than Marx's, but allows for greater individual freedom as well as the inspiration, creativity, and prosperity it brings.

Locke's beliefs are based upon what he referred to as the "laws of nature;" which define the natural state of human beings as free, and without constraints. While man is naturally free, Locke is careful to point out that this does not give man the right to do whatever he pleases to anyone else; instead he must live within certain rules, with respect towards others and their property. Locke wrote 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 possessions" (Locke, 186) (part 2: Chapter 2-6) Failing to do this, Locke believes, is failing to live within the state of nature God has created for all humans. But Locke also believed that while people are born into a state of natural freedom they also must willingly give up some of this freedom in exchange for peace and security for themselves and their property.

And when it comes to property, and the private ownership thereof, Locke is quite specific that anything that comes from nature, but is labored over by man, becomes that man's property. And while he may have obligations to others in society in terms of how he uses that property, he cannot use it to harm others for example, it is ultimately his property to dispose of as he sees fit. As Locke put it "Thus labour, in the beginning, gave the right of property, wherever anyone was pleased to employ it…" (Locke 194) (part 2: Chapter 5-45)

The purpose of Locke's writings was to instruct people on how to form a government that was more in line with the laws of nature. He viewed absolute monarchies as "inconsistent with civil society…," (Locke 197) (part 2: Chapter 7-90) but also asserted that those living, holding property, or having other such connections within the boundaries of a state do have certain obligations to obey the laws and government of that state. And as long as the government respects the rights of it's individual citizens, and their property, protects them from the predations of others, and established a fair system of justice, the people have the obligation to be loyal and supportive of that government. Only when the government fails to provide these things for their people, when they violate the social contract between government and people, do the people have the right to dissolve that government and replace it with one more in line with the natural laws and the social contract.

On the other hand is Karl Marx, who's basic philosophy is aimed at destroying the current system and replacing it with a new system, more in line with what he considered to be fair to the workers. Marx felt that the state, or government, was a tool for the upper class to maintain control over the masses of people who make up the working class. Capitalism was just another tool to keep the workers controlled and complacent in order for the upper class to exploit them economically. Marx also asserted that after a revolution, in which the workers would set up a dictatorship of the proletariat, they would reform society along socialist lines which would remove all classes and install a socialist order of absolute equality. In his most famous work, written in conjunction with Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, Marx stated "the first step in the workers-revolution is the raising of the proletariat to the ruling class…." (Marx 81)

The problem with Marx is that he only thinks in terms of classes, and masses of people, not the individual. In fact, Marx disdains the individual as an impediment to the socialist order. He wants all people working together in unison, in a unity of thought and purpose, toward the goal of a socialist utopia. Unfortunately, society is made up of individuals, each unique and different, without a unity of thought or purpose. This is what makes people individuals, what allows for individual creative thought and invention. Everyone in society is not the same, they do not all have the same talents, or ideas, or dreams. It is the individual, seeking something better, to improve oneself, which is the engine of human society.

Marx envisions a stable, but never changing society, however, humans by their very nature are always changing, adapting, growing, and learning. In the past when people have tried to control the thoughts of the masses, it has always resulted in disaster. Hitler controlled the minds of millions, so did Stalin and Mao, but the result was only the deaths of millions of people and the destruction of whole societies. Human society needs the freedom to grow organically, not in a controlled, stifled manner. Marx's philosophy does not allow for the power of the individual.