The Second Treatise on Government - Essay Example

Introduction This paper attempts to answer the questions pertaining to private property and the views of thinkers like John Locke, Rousseau and Karl Marx on the issue of owning private property and the rights over the same. Before delving into the specifics of what each thinker had to say about property rights and private property, it is important to remember that these thinkers flourished at a time that was known as the Enlightenment era where there was an intellectual flowering of sorts going on about the role of man and state and right to property etc. These thinkers like others in their times thought deeply about the role of the rulers who were at that time Kings and Queens and whether hereditary rights alone are enough to govern. This reflected in their works on property and man’s right to own property as well as the kind of contract that man had with state in such matters. In this paper, I draw upon the works of these three thinkers to assess their contribution to the issue of private property and man’s right to own such property as well as the fact that we might not have such rights at all. These three thinkers represent different bands in the spectrum about the issue and hence their contributions are worth comparing and contrasting to arrive at an understanding of what their views about the issue were. Locke on Private Property Among all the three thinkers, Locke was the most vocal exponent of man’s right to own property and the role of the state in facilitating such rights. However, Locke’s views were nuanced as far as owning private property was concerned. For instance, Locke held the view that since we are free in our movements and are owners of our bodies, so, any efforts that we put in to “pour ourselves” into improving natural objects like land must necessarily belong to us as we have invested significant time and energy in making the land worthwhile for human use. The way in which Locke proposed this in The Second Treatise on Government is by alluding to the investment of labor that one does to improve the land for the use by all. To cite Locke, “The same principle of appropriation by the investment of labor can be extended to control over the surface of the earth as well, on Lockes view. Individuals who pour themselves into the land—improving its productivity by spending their own time and effort on its cultivation—acquire a property interest in the result. (2nd Treatise §32) The plowed field is worth more than the virgin prairie precisely because I have invested my labor in plowing it; so even if the prairie was held in common by all, the plowed field is mine. This personal appropriation of natural resources can continue indefinitely, Locke held, so long as there is "enough, and as good" left for others with the gumption to do the same. (2nd Treatise §33) Rousseau on Private Property Rousseau was the precursor to modern communist thought as enunciated by the Marxist line of thought and hence in this respect represented a middle ground to Locke’s strident defense of private property and Marx’s criticism of the same. Rousseau argued that we can have a right to private property as long as certain conditions are met and his seminal work on the “Social Contract” was expressed in the Second Discourse (quoted below) which specified that though we have a right to own property, we are bound by some duties towards our fellow citizens and that all of us inhabit a society bound by a social contract between its citizens. The role of the state in enforcing such contracts has been borne out in his discourse. To cite Rousseau, “A right to claim property in our now civil society involves the code o f "right of first occupant." To establish this state of occupancy three essential strictures must be in place. There can be no prior inhabitation, ownership must be based on need not greed whereby no individual takes more land than they can work, and the individual must actually work the land they claim” (Second Discourse) The point that Rousseau was making is similar to the modern socialist thought that holds that we have a limited right to own property which is circumscribed by the role of the state in determining the nature of such ownership as well as certain conditionality’s like no prior occupancy and that the ultimate goal is universal happiness and good instead of inalienable rights to ownership of private property. Marx on Private Property We reach the other extreme of the spectrum when we examine Marx’s views on private property. Marx was vocal in the criticism of owning private property and was unequivocal in his assertion that such ownership leads to perniciousness and hence all attempts to own private property must be annulled. The central tenet of Marxism is the subjugation of the private by the communal and hence the communist thought holds that there is no such thing as ownership of private property and the state owns the land which is put to use by communal enterprise as opposed to private means of production for profit. To cite Marx, “Private property is first considered only in its objective aspect – but nevertheless with labor as its essence. Its form of existence is therefore capital, which is to be annulled “as such” (Proudhon). Or a particular form of labor – labor leveled down, fragmented and therefore un-free – is conceived as the source of private property’s perniciousness and of its existence in estrangement from men. For instance, Fourier, who, like the Physiocrats, also conceives agricultural labor to be at least the exemplary type, whereas Saint-Simon declares in contrast that industrial labor as such is the essence, and accordingly aspires to the exclusive rule of the industrialists and the improvement of the workers’ condition. Finally, communism is the positive expression of annulled private property – at first as universal private property”. (Manuscripts, 1844) Defense of Natural Right to Property Value is generated by the interaction of the factors of production i.e. land, labor and capital and to add the modern definition, entrepreneurship as well. Hence, land alone is not sufficient to generate value and the additional components of labor and capital are needed as well. However, if land and capital are thought to be interchangeable in certain contexts, then we can assume that value is generated by the interaction of land and labor. Hence, in this scheme of things, there needs to be a specific set of ownership of the land to take advantage of recurring returns on investment. And this ownership is what the concept of private property all about is. The question as to whether we can defend a natural right to private property can be answered by taking the particular context of the dominant ideology and system of political economy in the countries. For instance, in purely capitalistic countries like the United States, defense of natural rights to private property take precedence over all other claims whereas in socialist countries, the state and private owners are sometimes at odds when the issue of defense of property rights is concerned. And in purely communist countries (a rarity nowadays), the state has the absolute power over property and there is no concept of private property. Nature of Power and Capital according to Marx According to Marx, capital “refers to a historically specific mode of production (based on the producers separation from the conditions of production) and the corresponding social relation between producers and the owners of the conditions of production - the basis of the modern society. In this situation the conditions of production (including the means of production) become capital” (Marx, 1844). Hence, capital is distinct from the people who man the production processes that use capital as input and serve to enhance the output that becomes capital again. Hence, this cyclical process of forming capital is what it gives it power to the producers and owners over the people who do not own the means of production. Hence, capital serves a function of enhancing the power of the owners and the producers over the working classes and seeks to subjugate the workers with its inhuman bondage of the capitalists who view capital as the primary driver and everything else as secondary to it. Since labor form just part of the whole process of production and how they relate to their labor power results in alienation of the worker with the overall processes. Hence, capital has the power to determine the relationships between workers and workers, workers and owners and owners and other owners. Hence, this stratification is something that Marx railed against in his quest for a system that treats everyone equally and without prejudice. Conclusion From the preceding sections, it is evident that the three thinkers surveyed above had different views on the nature of ownership of private property and the only commonality we can find in their respective positions is to apportion some sort of role for the state. As discussed in the introduction, all the three thinkers posited ideas that emphasized the role of the state (however reduced or enlarged) as opposed to the role of hereditary title holders. This can be said to have been the “Renaissance” in thinking that led to the concepts of democracy and equality that we are enjoying today. Contemporary thinkers might frown upon Marxist notions of private property in as much as they seek to ban all forms of private property ownership. However, it needs to be remembered that to understand Marx, one needs to place him in the particular context of the era that he lived in. It is my opinion that we are now living through a second renaissance where leading thinkers of our age are again grappling with these issues and it remains to be seen how much of progress towards equality of all (which needs to be the goal of thought) can be achieved and that which can coexist with conceptions of capitalistic thought as posited by Locke and others. References Locke, John. The Second Treatise on Government. n.d. Marx, Karl. 1844 Manuscripts. n.d. Rousseau, Jean Jacques. The Second Discourse. n.d. Read More