Marx is deeply critical, both of the Smith/Bentham utilitarian axis, but also of Locke. Some of his animosity for the latter may be more a matter of attitude than of actual disagreement, however, as he regularly invokes the essentially Lockean principle that the product of labor properly belongs to workers.
Marx’s critique of Bourgeois capital is at root a critique of the system of industrial labor, whereby those who do the work do not control the means of production (materials, machinery, organization) or reap its benefits. In this respect he thinks industrial capitalism is no improvement on feudal serfdom (or perhaps even worse, because of urbanization, pollution, the disruption of social structures, and traditional relationships to the land), simply changing one kind of slavery into another. Yet his alternative vision of workers not alienated from the process and product of their labor would in its own way constitute a kind of ownership society. The slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” echos in several ways an essentially Lockean vision of responsible ownership grounded in need, limited by reason, and deeply egalitarian in spirit.
Marx might well protest that, unlike Locke’s view, his rejects private property, but as the Manifesto makes very clear, he is not at all opposed to the autonomy of individuals or their right to provide for themselves and craft/express their identities through their work. Rather it is Bourgeois property he rejects – the right to use one’s resources as capital to subjugate others for profit. The property he defends, then, is not very far from what one might glean from one interpretation of Locke. But even if this interpretation of Locke is too generous, Marx would still have to supply some account of why workers are entitled to control the means of production and enjoy the product of their labor. It is difficult to see how he might do this without Lockean presuppositions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I’m not clear on Locke’s position regarding personal wealth. A person’s property, obtained with individual labor, is used before it spoils, and whatever exceeds this amount is considered more than his/her share. This is clear, but, with the introduction of money, Locke seems to present two views-one of unlimited wealth, (thereby creating inequality-a view that Macpherson seems to hold) and another view that self-interest, to the degree of capitalism, creates economic inequality—and this, to Locke, is unacceptable. These are distinct ideas; whick one does Locke advocate?
The idea that the “product of labor properly belongs to workers” does appear to be a Lockean principle, but I think Locke’s suggestion that we can indeed exchange labor (as we have the right to dispose or “use” our estates within reason) for money differs from Marx’s view that the workers control the many variables of industrialized labor and, in turn, “reap the benefits”. This might be achieved in a Lockean sense as well, but with Locke, I think the lopsided exchange of labor for money might result in economic inequality.
The property that Marx defends does seem closely aligned with Locke’s view of property in a “state of nature” before the establishment of a civil government. But is Locke in (II. 50-51) suggesting that one of the reasons for the establishment of government (in addition to providing security for one’s property) is due to the advent of money. If he is, then this might lend weight to the idea that he does not support the unlimited accumulation of wealth. But, if Locke supports a type of capitalism—it is here is where Marx is most critical. I sense that Locke was skeptical and deeply concerned about the nature of man; and while a civil government might support early forms of capitalism, and might be a necessary invention, Locke seemed to remain highly critical of excessive self-interest.
Is there a problem with being Lockean to a certain extent? Understandably often philosophers try to fancy themselves as being completely new however, one can build on the ideas of others that have come before them and then change them where they disagree. Marx seems to have done just this. He is not arguing against Locke's basic principle that labor entitles one to property and thus if one is not directly mixing labor with their wealth than one is not entitled to that property. Although the argument may be one of ownership of individuals and thus their work.
Of course one can agree with parts of someone else's view and disagree with other parts. What is at issue here, however, is whether Marx diverges from Locke on matters of fundamental principle nearly as far as he says he does.
Of course, Marx is advocating some form of socialized capital (though not necessarily the sort of centralized state-ownership that characterized the defunct Soviet system), and Locke has no such picture in mind, perhaps not surprising considering that industrialization had barely begun. The Lockean restrictions on property accumulation, however, applied rigorously, might well yield a system that looks surprisingly socialistic to us (present property law places virtually no restrictions on wastage, for example). The introduction of money eases some of them, but where anyone's basic needs are unmet, etc., restrictions still apply.
More basic, though, is the question of how Marx thinks any property at all is justified, and here he seems to rely on just such principles as does Locke.
Two philosophers meet by the pool at a nudist retreat. One says to the other "Have you read Marx?" To which the other replies "Yes, it's this damn wicker furniture."
Seems the Department of Information Services (Ministry of Propaganda) was out in the field, taking "the Revolution" to the people: explaining the fundamentals of Socialism to the populace to bolster popularity. A member of the Department was out talking to a farmer in Siberia...
Official: So you see, comrade, dat it iz de way Marx explained: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." You understand?
Farmer: (confused) Nyet...
O: OK. Iz like dis: Say a comrade has two cows. Ve take one cow from him and give it to comrade that has no cow. Dat is de Rewolution. You see?
F: Da, Da! Iz good!
O: And if a comrade has two tractors, ve take one of his tractors and give to man who has no tractors. Da?
F: Da! Da! Is WERY good!
O: And if a comrade has two cheekens, ve give one cheeken to man who has no cheekens. Da?
F: Nyet! Iz not good!
O: Why?
F: I have two cheekens...
Ok, last one. My sister once went to an all-you-can-eat state dinner in Soviet Moscow. They handed everyone a crust of bread and announced: "That's all you can eat."
( -- ;
Post a Comment