John Locke and Commercial Capitalism

Total words: 1660

Political philosopher John Locke ideas and theories serve as a foundation in our democratic world. In the Second Treatise of Government sovereignty is placed in the hands of the people. Locke argues that everyone is born equal and has natural rights in the state of nature. He also argues that men have inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. The central argument around the creation of a civil society was with the protection of property. In this essay I will explain Locke's theory of property and how it is not anything other than a "thinly disguised defense of bourgeois commercial capitalism." This statement is defended through Locke's personal background and his justifications for the inequalities of wealth.

Locke did not write in a vacuum. His background and interests influenced his writing in the Second Treatise of Government. Locke's theories revolve heavily around the acquisition of property. Locke, himself, came from an affluent family than and he was a part of the Whig movement. It would have been in Locke's best interest to promote a philosophy that emphasized the importance of the property in a civil society.

John Locke was born in 1632 to a prosperous family on a modest estate. He was educated at the prestigious Westminster School in London and received a bachelor's and master's degree at Oxford University. His studies were concentrated on philosophy and medicine. After leaving Oxford he became friends with the first Earl of Shaftesbury, which led him into politics. Shaftesbury the leader of the Whig movement had a great influence on Locke. The Whig movement was a faction that supported the exclusion of James II and VII from the thrones of England, Ireland, and Scotland (wikipedia). The Whigs were often associated with the great noble houses and wealthy merchants. By coming from a wealthy family he would naturally want to defend the status he has come from. Also, by associating with the Whig party, this further emphasizes the importance of wealth and politics.

Locke in his Second Treatise of Government argues how common and private property came about. He begins with the idea that God did not give absolute powers or rights of the world to Adam. Therefore Adam's heirs do not have any rights, and if they did it would be impossible to determine his heirs today (Locke §1). In other words, since no one owns the world, everyone has equal rights to the use of the land. Locke argues that,

God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life and convenience. The earth and all that is therein is given to men for the support and comfort of their being. And though all the fruits it naturally produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as they are produced by the spontaneous hand of Nature, and nobody has originally a private dominion exclusive of the rest of mankind in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state (Locke §26).

Locke claims that all things in the natural state belong to everyone and is considered common property. In order to have any use of common property, one must be able to make it their own. Locke states, "there must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other, before they can be of any use, or at all beneficial to any particular man" (Locke, §26). Thus, this leads us to the theory of private property.

Using an example of fruit, Locke introduces his theory of property. All people have two private possessions; one is our own body and the other are the products using the labour of our body (Locke, §27). If labour is exerted then "it by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for other (Locke, §27). He uses the example of apples to explain his theory. Once a person picks an apple it becomes their private property, because he exerted his energy in picking it. Also, if one person sells his labour to another he becomes property of that person, "...the turfs my servant has cut... become my property" (Locke §20).

Locke also discusses the limitations on private property. One must leave enough for others and take only as much as one can use (Locke, §33). He then applies this to acquiring land. Locke writes,

As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property. He by his labour does, as it were, inclose it from the common. Nor will it invalidate his right, to say every body else has an equal title to it; and therefore he cannot appropriate, he cannot inclose, without the consent of all his fellow-commoners, all mankind....God and his reason commanded him to subdue the earth, i.e. improve it for the benefit of life, and therein lay out something upon it that was his own, his labour" (Locke, §32).

Even though there are limitations, this paragraph shows how one can acquire a significant amount of private property. If one is extremely efficient and productive there will be a surplus of products that can be used. Since it is a sin to let products go to waste, Locke creates a system of barter. However a system of barter is not an efficient system. The value of items would be hard to determine. Therefore, Locke suggests a monetary system with "a little piece of yellow metal, which would keep without wasting or decay, should be worth a great piece of flesh," (Locke §37). Gold is not something that can rot; therefore if there was a money system implemented the right to private property could be unlimited. This is Locke's defense against a common critique of capitalism, gross inequalities of wealth which are common in capitalistic systems.

According to www.wikipedia.org, "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are predominantly privately owned and operated for profit. Decisions regarding investment are made privately and control of production and distribution is primarily in the hands of companies acting in its own interests." As for the bourgeois, Marxism defines it as a social class which obtains income from ownership or trade in capital assets, or from commercial activities such as the buying and selling of commodities. Bourgeois commercial capitalism is about the protection of private goods to create wealth.

Locke explains how the need for protection is unnecessary in the first state of nature, because every still had equal wealth. Locke writes before the creation of money, "the equality of a simple poor way of living confining their desires within the narrow bounds of each man's small property, made few controversies and so no need of many laws to decide them, or variety of officers to superintend the process, or look after the execution of justice, where there were but few trespasses, and few offenders" (Locke §107).

With the creation of money in what Locke calls the second state of nature, the ownership of private property changes the equality among men. When things are not equal, there becomes a temptation to steal from those who have more. This is why a civil society with a social contract is needed. There needs to be a reassurance that private property will be protected.

Also, the creation of money allows people to accumulate wealth. This is similar to Marxist argument of class warfare between the proletariat and the bourgeois. With capitalism the inequalities of wealth can lead to the rise of the bourgeois. The bourgeois are again those with more wealth who suppress the working class. Locke explains how although people without property did not have a say in creating laws, they still abide by them. Everyone had to obey, "whether his possession be of land, to him and his heirs for ever, or a lodging only for a week; or whether it be barely traveling freely on the highway" (Locke §119). Locke obviously expresses a greater power for those with property. Locke favors those with wealth and leaves those without in a constant struggle to achieve wealth. Although, this may not be the same type of exploitation the bourgeois had on the proletariat or working class, Locke still shows how property owners had greater power over non-property owners.

Although Locke shows a state heading towards capitalism, there is a difference between the concepts of property in each case. Capitalism refers to acquiring property through "means of production" which is based on the use of tools, not specifically labor. In a capitalistic society, a person could gain property without doing work. If that person provides the land and tool for another person to do the work and then pays him for his labor, he has gained property without any labor. Also, Locke did not mention anything about the wealthier class exploiting the lower classes. With bourgeois capitalism, the ruling class is able to employ and exploit the working class because they have no other means than to sell their labour to property owner.

In conclusion, Locke's theory of property is a thinly disguised defence of bourgeois commercial capitalism because of his background coming from a property owning family as well as justifying the inequalities of obtaining property. Locke's theory is about a government being created in order to protect the property of citizens. Although there are some differences between Locke's ideas and capitalism, the main purpose is the acquisition of wealth. Locke may not have wanted an exploitation of the wealthy towards the lower class, but he does distinctly specify how regardless of property they would still have to obey laws created.

Works Cited

Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Ed. C.B. Macpherson.: Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, (1690) 1980.

www.wikipedia.org

Add a Review for this free essay

Be the first one to review this free Essay

Sticky Note Text....

Welcome! Not a Member? Click here to Join Now!
Log in
Forgot Password?