Locke vs. Marx: Property, State, and Social Justice
Relationship of the Subject with Another Philosophical Position: Locke vs. Marx
John Locke is one of the first representatives of political liberalism, advocating for minimal government intervention in the economy, private ownership of the means of production, and a parliamentary political system. Ironically, the capitalist system, a crystallization of the ideas of liberalism and classical political economy, would become the subject of criticism by Karl Marx. In contrast to this society, Marx defended a communist, classless society where there is no private ownership of the means of production, but rather collective ownership.
State of Nature and Natural Rights
Locke, within the framework of social contract theories, starts from a hypothetical state of nature to establish a series of natural rights established by God, including the right to private property. It seems that Locke did not consider the possibility of unlimited accumulation of property. However, in the America of his time, there was land for all, and one could seize land “mixed” with their labor. Later, capitalism generated a great divide between capitalist owners of industry and the proletarians who have only their labor to sell. Marx rejects the existence of private property, considering it the result of exploitation through the maximization of surplus value. Moreover, contrary to Locke’s ahistorical, hypothetical state of nature and the creation of the state, Marx presents a historical view of man and society. He believed he established the science of history, historical materialism, pointing out modes of production, from primitive communism, as phases of the development of social production of life.
Alienation and the Human Essence
Against Locke’s conception of natural law (a series of natural rights prescribed by God, e.g., property), for Marx, the human essence is production. With private ownership of the means of production, economic alienation occurs with respect to the product (reification of man), with respect to productive activity, and with respect to other men, as they relate in terms of products exchanged and what they have (commodity fetishism).
Religion and the Role of God
If for Locke, God is the foundation of natural law and the primary cause of reality, for Marx, in his atheism, religion and belief in God are the “opiate of the people.” They create religious alienation by promoting the idea that happiness lies in the afterlife. Religion serves as an ideological form that justifies social injustice and acts as a barrier to social revolution.
The State and its Purpose
With respect to the state, Locke believes that its aim should be to ensure the enjoyment of natural rights in an atmosphere of security and freedom. It loses legitimacy if it becomes oppressive or hinders the enjoyment of these natural rights. For Marx, the state is steeped in the same alienation that runs through other institutions of social life. From the outset, it legally establishes the right to private property (whose enjoyment, according to Locke, is one of the purposes for which the state must safeguard), thereby legitimizing the exploitation of one class over another. It caters to everyone, but through legal alienation and violence, it defends the interests of capital.
Revolution and the Classless Society
The parliamentary state that Locke defends is the bourgeois state that, according to Marx, must be overthrown by social revolution. This would establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and then proceed to a classless society by eliminating the bourgeois state and the right steps, which legitimize private property.