Marx and Rousseau on Private Property and Inequality

Introduction: Marx and Rousseau as Philosophical Neighbors

Of all the liberal philosophers of the modern era, the one closest in his views on the question of property to Karl Marx was arguably Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Marx is often viewed as an aberration from the development of liberal thinking on economic relations, but there is a case for arguing that Marx borrowed heavily from other liberal philosophers, especially Rousseau. This becomes clear when we examine how both thinkers dealt with the question of property.

The views of Marx and Rousseau on property were by no means identical. There were certain similarities but also notable differences. Both viewed private property as the source of political, economic, and social corruption in the societies they lived in. But the solutions they offered to remedy those ills were quite different. Marx thought that private property should be abolished and communally owned, whereas Rousseau defended limited and regulated possession of private property. Marx believed that the problem with property lay in its use by the bourgeoisie, and therefore called for a revolutionary struggle against the concentration of private property in their hands. Rousseau, by contrast, thought that property was inherently corrupting. The differences were also rooted in the fact that Marx still believed in the value of "progress," whereas Rousseau rejected it entirely, calling instead for the establishment of a primitive economy.

It is widely recognized that Marx is indebted to Rousseau in forming his philosophical views (Rotenstreich). Because of his critique of political economy, however, many view Marx as an aberration from the long line of liberal philosophers the modern era produced. As one scholar argues, Marx's critique of political economy was a synthesis of the works of "Rousseau, Locke, Aristotle, Hegel, Ricardo and Smith, Malthus and even ancient scholars such as Plato and Heraclites" (Engle 2). Of these liberal thinkers, the closest to Marx was Rousseau (Bozarth). Both Rousseau in the eighteenth century and Marx in the nineteenth century were deeply disturbed by economic and social inequality. They both rejected Locke's idea of freedom stipulated primarily in political liberty. Rousseau and Marx believed that political freedom without economic equality was a chimera — a smokescreen to cover the real problem of society. But the main difference between them stems from the fact that Marx believed the solution to the problem of political economy could be found in a better economic model, and therefore offered his own economic theory to eliminate inequality. Rousseau, by contrast, held that economic models not rooted in the morality of human nature would lead to tyranny. If Marx believed that "market economy is a fundamental stage of the evolution of human society," Rousseau believed that "the starting point of political economy is biased and it can only produce a discourse justifying tyrannical government" (Alvarez and Hurtado-Prieto 15).

Shared Origins: Private Property and the Roots of Inequality

There is a remarkable similarity in the way Marx and Rousseau trace the development of private property and inequality. They both argue that the roots of modern economic inequality lie in the emergence of private property. In a primitive society, property would be communally owned and humans understood everything on earth to belong to all. There could be no conflict over property since no one owned it. Rousseau, for instance, asks: "what can be the chains of dependence among men who possess nothing?" (Rousseau, "Discourse on the Origins and Foundations of Inequality among Men," 430).

Societies then began to develop associations, and competition among them arose — the beginning of inequality, in which private property played the major role. Rousseau explains:

"The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of evil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had someone pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: 'Do not listen to this impostor. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!'" (ibid., 431).

It is clear from Rousseau's words that private property was not only the original cause of human misery but also an unfortunate development that could have been avoided. The solution to economic inequality caused by private property, for Rousseau, is therefore to return to the original state of human nature.

Competition over property generated scarcity of resources and led to the inequalities of the modern era. The haves and have-nots became antagonists: the former seeks to exploit their position to further enrich themselves, and the latter resents the exploitative nature of economic relations. Marx and Rousseau agree on this point. Competition over scarce resources, as Rousseau explains, "gave new fetters to the weak and new forces to the rich, irretrievably destroyed natural liberty, established forever the law of property and of inequality, changed adroit usurpation into an irrevocable right, and for the profit of a few ambitious men henceforth subjected the entire human race to labor, servitude and misery" (ibid., 437). Marx argues that this competition led to the concentration of property in the hands of a few who eventually also usurped political power. The bourgeoisie, he argues, has "centralized means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralization" (Marx, "Communist Manifesto," 834). Rousseau expressed similar thoughts in his discourse on the social contract (Rousseau, "On the Social Contract," 488).

Wealth, Luxury, and the Corruption of Society

In the writings of both Marx and Rousseau, we find an abhorrence of wealth. Both argue that a market economy based on private property leads not merely to inequality but to constantly growing inequality. In one of his earliest writings, Marx argued that the "laborer becomes poorer, the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and volume. The laborer becomes a cheaper commodity, the more commodities he produces" (Chattopadhyay 56). Marx therefore sees evil in the accumulation of wealth by any individual.

Likewise, Rousseau condemns wealth and luxury. He argues that political and economic equality requires "little or no luxury, for luxury either is the effect of wealth or it makes wealth necessary. It simultaneously corrupts both the rich and the poor, the one by possession, the other by covetousness" (Rousseau, "On the Social Contract," 496). Elsewhere, he writes that luxury, "however large or small it may be, and which, in order to feed the hordes of lackeys and wretches it has produced, crushes and ruins the laborer and the citizen" (Rousseau, "Discourse on the Origins and Foundations of Inequality among Men," 454). Like Marx, Rousseau sees wealth and luxury as necessary components of an unequal society.

Conclusion: Different Remedies for a Shared Diagnosis

Both Rousseau and Marx agreed that the modern economic system based on private property led to the exploitation of the majority by the few, but they offered different solutions to the problem. Marx saw the problems of society primarily in economic terms, whereas for Rousseau the primary yardstick for evaluating social forces was morality. Nevertheless, both came to similar conclusions regarding the role of property in society. They differed in their solutions because Marx believed in revolutionary action. Rousseau wanted an orderly society that limits citizens' rights but provides stability and equality for all. Marx's radical solution to inequality was overthrowing the bourgeois elite and abolishing private property. Rousseau advocated limited but regulated possession of private property in a society based on primitive economic relations — yet grew pessimistic and did not call for radical action, whereas Marx's ideas shook the foundation of market economy in the twentieth century.