John Lockes Second Treatise - Assignment Example

 John Locke’s Second Treatise I would beg to differ from views expressed by John Locke on public property, as I hold strong views absolutely opposed to those of Locke’s. According to my view, there should be antithesis between lack of property and property. I cannot agree with John Locke’s Second Treatise, especially on private property. It goes against my views that I hold dear. Neither can I agree that God gave the earth to all the men for their use. We, communists, do not acknowledge the presence of a superior power, the creator or preserver and the above view sounds ridiculous to me. Surprisingly, Locke had been unable to answer the question of how private property came into being, although he has tried hard. He seems to depend upon a fictitious answer here that explains nothing coherently. He does not think that it is the result of historical evolutions and happenings. While going through his arguments further, something else strikes funny too, that is, the asking for approval to use the private property, or take anything from it, which is illogical. It is never possible to take the absolute approval of all the people in the society on anything. If a person is forced to do so, he would never be able to achieve anything. But I agree with him that one’s own body and the work are one’s own property, though I once again disagree that the property amassed with one’s own labour becomes entirely his own possession and this is blatantly a capitalist tradition. Perhaps he meant that the property that one picks up or collects with his own hands belongs to him without external approval, as he talks about hunting and gathering. His attempt to justify the private property does not sound logical either, as I cannot agree with its basis principle that property right comes under the rights of Man. Logically speaking, it is a right of inequality and as long as the right of private property exists, there cannot be social justice because private property makes people diverse and being different from others cannot be a natural right. “Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard”. Thus, Private property hinders the work of establishing equality among individuals. It could make so much difference in life that a look at an individual is sufficient to pinpoint the difference and opulence the private property brings. The lack of it too shows equally clearly. So where can we find the equality if private property is allowed? John Locke’s statement that God gave man earth, plants, and animals for his use is unconvincing. His argument that Earth was given to man ‘to make use of it to the best advantage of life and convenience’ could be right from his point of view, as he acknowledges the existence of creator God. Since our bodies are properly ours, the “labour of his [our] body” is also properly ours, so “whatsoever then he removes out of the state… thereby makes it his property” (136). No doubt, he is clear in his way of thinking; but it does not go with the Communist way of thinking. It is a childish and a make-believe world of Locke. John Locke’s theory that individuals should claim parts of God, since God gave the earth to use “to the best advantage of life,” sounds like an emotional attachment. It is difficult to combine the communist theories with emotions. He argues that anyone who lets the land perish and rot has “offended against the common law of nature.” Perhaps this could be partially right as Communism too feels that land or natural resources should not go waste. There is another interesting part in his theory, as it tends to limit the amount of property one can have. But Locke does not think of it from that angle. Instead he argues that “there is no limit to the private wealth we can accumulate as long as we trade our perishable goods for that imperishable store of value, money.” It is difficult to understand his statement that “Money knows no limit” because to Communism, it looks like endless and needless greed. But before one could jump into that conclusion, he says that one can possess as much land as they can cultivate only and not more as ignoring the land or leaving it to rot is like insulting the law of the nature. Locke is clear that the land is a gift to all of “man in common”. To me the entire argument lacks focus, tough language and strict, simple meanings. Also Locke contradicts himself very often. He, no doubt goes to explain that “it is the taking of what is common, and removing it out of the state of nature leaves it in, which begins the property”. Here once again, he contradicts himself and surprisingly, he does not mention anything in terms of money, or does not mention a deal of investment, or capital etc. and there is no mention of property evolvement. According to the Communist way of thinking, “all property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.” (communist). This was shown by the French Revolution that abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property. Every time there is a historical change, the way the property is held also changes. John Locke has been unable to explain this evolution of private property satisfactorily. His point of view does not go with the Communist point of view as Communism does not hold any importance to the possession of private property. Actually Communism means abolition of bourgeois property mainly and abolition of private property generally. In a way there is no need to particularly destroy the private property or the traditional ways. “There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily”. (Communist). There need not be any additional effort for immediate abolition because the industrialisation which is labour-oriented eventually will destroy complete paradigm of private property. The labour has to take over the world space ultimately and there cannot be any private property left, because there is no place for private property in communist theory. Locke has thought about the private property in a capitalist way. Communism is an all-pervading theory which will occupy every branch of activity at one point or other. It might look an impossibility now, but will definitely become a reality soon. “We presupposed private property; the separation of labour, capital, and land, and likewise of wages, profit, and capital; the division of labour; competition; the conception of exchange value, etc.” (Estranged labour). This is only a temporary phase till the communism completely takes over as right now, the labour is slightly estranged and it will find its place in the world soon. Contrary to Locke’s ideas, we have to find the connection between the private property and many human emotions connected to it. Instead, we have to combine it with the human activities and direct them towards the labour oriented society. “We now have to grasp the essential connection between private property, greed, the separation of labour, capital and landed property, exchange and competition, value and the devaluation of man, monopoly, and competition, etc. – the connection between this entire system of estrangement and the money system.” (E.L.) Once again, unlike Locke’s simple capitalistic ideas, communism has to bring property and labor together in a complexity of exclusion and inclusion. “But labor, the subjective essence of private property as exclusion of property, and capital, objective labour as exclusion of labor, constitute private property as its developed state of contradiction – hence a dynamic relationship driving towards resolution” (PP C). Locke’s idea and communist theory about the private property’s evolution, the way it changed from hand to hand, and the effect of historical events over it are almost opposite to one another. Private property simply melts into the state property when communism takes over and Locke has failed to understand it. What Locke is propagating is a natural kind of capitalism where private property flourishes limitlessly. If Locke’s theory is taken as a model, we cannot have labor’s rule or equality in this world. The very fundamental principle of equality is the abolition of private property. If private property remains, there cannot be any equality. There will be only greed and envy and the compulsion of acquiring more and more it. This will become the priority of life and such a condition will be disastrous to the world. John Locke got all his theories wrong. BIBLIOGRAPHY Read More