Locke vs. Marx: Comparing Conceptions of Freedom
This essay examines the claim that the conceptions of freedom put forward by John Locke and Karl Marx are utterly incompatible. Drawing on Locke's Second Treatise on Government and Marx's writings including Das Kapital and the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, the paper traces how Locke grounds freedom in natural property rights and limited government, while Marx roots freedom in the collective transcendence of private property and class struggle. The essay considers points of superficial similarity — particularly around non-interference — before arguing that the two thinkers ultimately stand as opposites: Locke sees property as the foundation of liberty, while Marx sees it as liberty's chief obstacle.
- Introduction: Two Ideological Pillars of the Modern World: Locke and Marx as guiding ideological forces
- Locke's Concept of Negative Freedom and Natural Rights: Locke's negative liberty and limited government
- Locke on Property: Labor, Frontier, and the Commons: Labor theory of property and frontier abundance
- Marx's Critique of Property and Class Struggle: Scarcity, collectivization, and class revolution
- Apparent Similarities and Fundamental Divergences: Superficial overlap masks deep incompatibility
- Conclusion: Incompatibility of Lockean and Marxist Freedom: Property as freedom's base versus its obstacle
✍️ How to write this paper — guide & tools ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its comparison in direct quotations from primary sources — Locke's Second Treatise, Marx's Das Kapital, On the Jewish Question, and the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts — lending the argument textual authority.
- It introduces a clear thesis as a hypothesis to be tested ("the null hypothesis"), giving the analysis a structured, evaluative frame rather than a purely expository one.
- The essay acknowledges moments of apparent convergence between Locke and Marx (e.g., on non-harm principles) before demonstrating why those similarities are superficial, strengthening the ultimate conclusion through contrast.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses dialectical comparison: it presents each thinker's position fully, identifies a point of apparent agreement, and then resolves the tension by showing that the underlying premises — abundance versus scarcity, property as right versus property as oppression — are irreconcilable. This technique is well-suited to political philosophy essays that require more than simple summary.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens with a historical framing device (Jefferson's study, Soviet street names) to establish the real-world stakes of the comparison. It then works through Locke's theory of property and negative liberty before turning to Marx's critique of those same concepts. A central paragraph on superficial similarities between the two thinkers precedes the conclusion, which synthesizes the core incompatibility: for Locke, property grounds freedom; for Marx, property destroys it.
Introduction: Two Ideological Pillars of the Modern World
Monticello, the mansion that Thomas Jefferson designed in the hills of Virginia near the state university that he founded, has three portraits on the wall of his study that have remained there for 200 years. These portraits depict three writers: Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and John Locke. Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence and acquired the Louisiana Purchase from the French, referred to these three as "the greatest men who ever lived." Lockean reasoning is reflected in the Declaration, where Jefferson asserts that we hold life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to be self-evident truths. A similar reverence was afforded Karl Marx in the Soviet Union, where many streets and several smaller cities were named after Marx and his fellow communist Friedrich Engels. One could argue that the primary ideologies of the twentieth century were those of Locke and Marx, as they were the muses that prescribed guiding principles for that century's two most powerful nations.
The purpose of this essay is to examine the premise that "the conceptions of freedom put forward by John Locke and Karl Marx are utterly incompatible." The null hypothesis is that they are not incompatible; the essay will then review arguments bearing on that compatibility.
Locke's Concept of Negative Freedom and Natural Rights
In popular rhetoric, the United States during the Cold War era was referred to as the "free world." This idea is predicated on the definition of freedom most popular among Locke-inspired classical liberals, who believed in the maintenance of what Isaiah Berlin calls negative freedom — the right to be left alone by those exercising political power. This idea is grounded in Locke's concept of freedom. It is the preservation of this freedom that is the chief end of a government established in a Hobbesian state of nature. Locke's idea is that government is the will of society, rather than a political apparatus within society that exerts power and influence as an independent organization. In this respect, he is not unlike Marx in his initial naivety about the state.
Locke saw negative freedom as among the original and natural rights of man, endowed by his creator. Rather than granting men these freedoms, Locke believed that government exists in order to secure them. From this he derives the notion that laws are limited by design: the power ceded to the government exists only insofar as it retains utility in protecting natural rights, the basis of which are property rights.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.