Lockean and Marxist Political Philosophies

I recently read chapters 1-7 of John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government for my History of Modern Philosophy class. Before my reading, I had an understanding of Locke’s metaphysics and epistemology— my understanding of his political philosophy was quite cursory (what you might call a Core 250 understanding). The extent of my knowledge was that the United States government was highly influenced by Locke. You can imagine how surprised I was to find connections between Locke, the inspiration of the oh-so capitalistic USA, and Marx/Engles!

Let us first note the similarities between Locke and Marx/Engles concerning the materials of labor. The following are passages from Locke’s Second Treatise on Government and Marx/Engles Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.

“The earth and everything in it is given to men for the support and comfort of their existence. All the fruits it naturally produces and animals that it feeds, as produced by the spontaneous hand of nature, belong to mankind in common; nobody has a basic right—a private right that excludes the rest of mankind—over any of them as they are in their natural state. But they were given for the use of men; and before they can be useful or beneficial to any particular man there must be some way for a particular man to appropriate them.” (Locke)

“The worker can create nothing without nature, without the sensuous external world. It is the material on which his labor is manifested, in which it is active, from which and by means of which it produces” (Marx/Engles 653)

It is as if Marx/Engles pulled directly from Lockean political (economic) philosophy when constructing their own political philosophy. The right of man to his property, however, might be an instance where Marx/Engles would diverge from Locke.

Here is yet another instance of how Marx/Engles and Locke relate. Locke gives the following account of how one’s labor is the impetus to one’s gaining property:

“Though men as a whole own the earth and all inferior creatures, every individual man has a property in his own person; this is something that nobody else has any right to. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are strictly his. So when he takes something from the state that nature has provided and left it in, he mixes his labour with it, thus joining to it something that is his own; and in that way he makes it his property.” (Locke)

It seems as if this understanding of labor is supplementary, if not foundational, to a Marxist understanding of labor. If one’s alienation from labor leads to a devaluing of said individual (Marx/Engles 653), then it follows that one’s uniting with labor leads to valuing. This idea, based upon the above quote, is essentially Lockean.