Marx vs. Hobbes and Locke: Individualism and Class Struggle

Introduction: Marx Against Individualism

Karl Marx is known for his Communist Manifesto and Capital — writings that would change the course of history. His analysis of and eventual call for the end of capitalism is his lasting legacy. These notions are grounded in the conviction that the individual is not as fundamental as the community. Hobbes and Locke both base their arguments on the notion that the individual is the driving force in society, a view rooted in man's origins in nature, where social constructions were built to protect the individual from natural forces. Marx, by contrast, holds the opposite view: society creates the individual, not the reverse.

Furthermore, Marx understands the forces at work in the world as those of class, in which people unite under a common interest rather than pursuing individual goals and needs. Society may be at war in Marx's view, but it is a class war — not an individual war requiring regulation by governing institutions. To those who champion individualism, governments are established by individuals to protect individuals. To Marx, governments are established to protect the interests of the capitalist class against the workers. In this way, Marx holds a vastly different outlook on the forces that drive history.

Hobbes and the Sovereign Individual

Marx criticizes the individualistic thought of Hobbes and Locke, both of whom champion the individual. Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan, a work notable for depicting a society ruled by a sovereign power. Central to this society is the fact that it is made up of individuals, each acting for his or her own benefit, because the state of nature is anarchic — each individual pursues what he or she wants. This anarchism is evidence of the primacy of the individual and the basis upon which society is organized.

Hobbes writes of the individual that "Nature hath made men so equal…yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable that one can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he" (Hobbes, Ch. XIII). Even if differences between individuals naturally exist, and even though some people are more talented than others, no difference is great enough to grant one person the right to rule over and make decisions for another. To Hobbes, this equality among individuals meant that only an absolute sovereign could effectively govern, because individuals are always in a state of war with one another. Power must be surrendered to the sovereign absolutely, since there is no single shared interest among the numerous self-interested individuals of society. Hobbes therefore bases his theory of government on the power — and the problem — of the individual. Within the state of nature, man seeks to better himself through competition and reputation, further demonstrating Hobbes's belief in the centrality of the individual.

Locke's Social Contract and Natural Freedom

Likewise, John Locke's understanding of governing power and his famous social contract rest on his conception of individualism. In his Two Treatises of Government, Locke argues for the individual as the primary locus of authority. He believes in the individual's capacity to make his or her own choices. Like Hobbes, Locke posits a state of nature grounded in anarchistic individualism; although he differs from Hobbes on many points, those differences do not diminish Locke's fundamental commitment to individualism. Governments arise for Locke because people are unable to properly govern themselves and make sound decisions in the state of nature.

Locke writes: "We must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man" (Chap. 2). Locke's ideas about government are thus grounded in this natural condition of individual freedom. Man then seeks to secure a peaceful life through government, including the protection of private property, because man is individualistic and desires to defend his possessions from intrusion.

Marx's Historical Individual and Class Society

This classical notion of the individual is challenged by Marx. Marx writes in his Grundrisse that "human beings become individuals only through the process of history," which stands in sharp contrast to Hobbes and Locke, who believe that the state of nature is already populated by individuals (Chap. 29). To Marx, humans become individuals as a species by engaging in society and participating in collective, herd-like activity as a form of exchange. As man becomes increasingly tied to property, he simultaneously becomes tied to the community. In this way, the individual is created by the community — a logic that is the inverse of Hobbes and Locke.

To Hobbes and Locke, the individual possesses property and requires governmental organization to protect it. To Marx, the very notion of property is created not by the individual, but through one's interactions with the community. This foundational difference sets Marx apart and suggests that his conception of the state of nature is far more primal than that of Hobbes or Locke. What Marx is saying is that man is a species-being in the state of nature, whereas Hobbes and Locke appear to have introduced an already-socialized man into their accounts of nature.

This perspective underlies Marx's class-based view of society, which differs fundamentally from the individualism emphasized by Hobbes and Locke. By emphasizing class, Marx stipulates that human actions are not individualistic but are dictated by structural forces. A capitalist, for example, has no real alternative but to exploit workers and accumulate capital — it is the nature of the system itself. People are therefore less free than Hobbes and Locke would assume. Hobbes wrote on liberty that "each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature" (Ch. XIV) — a celebration of individual agency and self-interest. While Marx does not deny that people act in their perceived best interest, those interests are constrained by class-related factors. Because there is no individual for Marx without society, and no society without class, class is an inescapable byproduct of social existence. Ultimately, Marx's conception of the individual inverts that of Hobbes and Locke.

Conclusion: Marx's Critique of the Individualist Tradition

Most of Marx's writings present a vision of the world fundamentally at odds with the individualism championed by Hobbes and Locke, despite their differences. This connects to Marx's argument that the classes dominated by capitalists will eventually rise up, overthrow the system, and create a far more communal form of society — communism. Before that can become reality, however, Marx must define the world in different terms than those of Hobbes and Locke. People have common interests and unite behind those interests: they are either being exploited as workers or are capitalists doing the exploiting, seeking to protect and extend their advantages. Either way, people are united by a common interest rather than acting as sovereign individuals.

There is no individual freedom in the Hobbesian or Lockean sense, because the system — whether feudal or capitalist — dictates what people should do and how they should advance themselves. The natural state of freedom that Hobbes and Locke describe does not exist for Marx. Nor does Marx believe that people are necessarily at war with one another; rather, they act rationally within a system dominated by class relations and the compulsion to accumulate resources. Ultimately, Marx's entire way of thinking constitutes a critique of the individualistic ideas of Hobbes and Locke, reframing the basic questions of political philosophy around collective structures rather than the self-interested individual.

Works Cited

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Marx, Karl. Selected Writings. Ed. Lawrence H. Simon. Hackett, 1994.