Paste your essay in here…Neil Healy #51662182
This Essay will attempt to compare and contrast liberal and socialist ideas of Freedom.
The body of the essay will show comparisons of liberalism and the socialist approaches to freedom, using views and texts from prominent historical figures who have held socialist views and liberal views. This approach should allow for an appropriate discussion while it is appreciated that there are many differing perspectives with each of these political traditions. After investigating the views of these figures, the essay will go on to consider ways of progressing the discussion on the impact of liberal and socialist views on to the 21st century. Because the challenges the world has to offer in today’s society on the individual and governments, although historically similar, major advances in technology and the creation of the internet and Social media, mean that perhaps the views may need to be explored to move the debate forward.
The essay will open by considering Locke’s (1632-1704) views on liberalism and Marx’s (1818-1886) contribution to the socialist tradition. The first part of the discussion will focus on Locke’s views on two (2) areas, namely property and government, and their impact on freedom. The discussion will draw upon appropriate sources to explore Locke’s views in these areas. The second part of the essay, again using appropriate sources, will go on to explore Marx’s views on government and property and their impact, in his view, of freedom. The essay will then develop to compare and contrast the view of Marx’s and the view of Locke to explore the common aspects and where they differ. The essay then concludes by drawing out the main points of the discussion and briefly, their relevance for the 21st century.
Locke’s view on property and government form the next part of the essay. Locke placed the rights of the individual at the heart of his scheme. Locke’s views are that freedom stems from land and property, in that owning land or property or even both allow individual proprietors to exercise freedom and liberty by having the opportunity to grow and create their own environment and to control the products of their labour. Locke’s views were heavily based on religion in that earth is res communis—, “owned by all of humanity, given to us by God.” Locke’s natural rights theory provides an overall perspective on property that indicates when real individual ownership is present. Locke’s two treatises on Government of 1689 established two fundamental liberal ideas: (economic liberty meaning the right of the individual to have and use property) and intellectual liberty (including freedom of conscience). He saw the right to property as more important than the right to participate in government and public decision-making, he did not therefore advocate parliamentary democracy, None the less it is generally accepted that Locke’s ideas underpinned “the ideological justification for the American and the French revolutions, and in the further development of Liberalism”.
The next part of the discussion will focus on Locke’s views on government. It has been noted above that Locke was not an advocate of parliamentary democracy, because it would erode the sanctity of private property. For Locke, a republic was not insisted upon as he would sooner see the existence of a meaningful undertaking between the monarchy and its citizens. He also maintains that legitimate government is a restricted government founded on agreement, in which the larger numbers rule, but may not breach people’s basic rights. Therefore in Locke’s perspective the legitimate government should not infringe upon the right to life, liberty, and property. Therefore Locke’s concept of government is primarily concerned with the rights of the individual. However Locke also permits that government can legitimately remove property by means of taxation, and also requires citizens to give up their lives at times of war. In all Locke’s discussions he is concerned with the rights of men not women.
This section of the essay has argued that, for Locke, freedom of the individual is tied to ownership of property, that government should guarantee individual freedoms but not interfere with individual rights.
Having briefly looked at Locke the discussion will now move on to consider the views of Marx’s concerning property and government and the role of the individual.
For Marx, private property has four (4) distinct but related elements, the means of production, what products are made, the labour, and is owned by a group of people that Marx refers to as capital. There are several consequences that flow from this perspective. “A society founded on private property… individuals increasingly and openly view other as separated” (Brenkert 1979:124). Marx further argues that private property alienates the worker from her activity. (…..) Furthermore, he argues that “the interest of the propertied and propertied less are not united” (Brenkert 1979:124). As such the owners of property are in an antagonistic relationship with those that do not own property. Therefore, he sees private property as a barrier to the development of a flourishing society working in harmony. Marx therefore argued “the theory of the Communist may be summed up in a single sentence: abolition of private property” (Marx and Engels cited in Brenkert 1979:122). Marx also believes that private property creates a set of relationships which combined deny freedom because only a small group people can own the means of production. Furthermore, freedom is also undermined because private property demands competition which sets one person against another. He argues “personal freedom becomes possible only within the community” (Marx cited in Brenkert 1979:126). Therefore, Marx believes that individual freedom can only be achieved through collective activity.
Having briefly looked at Marx’s view of property, the essay will now consider his approach to the state. Marx’s view of the state flows from his approach to private property. In his discussion concerning Marxism and the state, Hay (1999) notes that within the Marxist tradition there are many differing ideas of the state such as: the state as a repressive body; the state as an instrument of the ruling class; and the state as an ideal capitalist collective. While Marx did not have developed a fully fleshed out theory of the state, he did have a definite view of the role and function of the state. He believed, as early as 1848 that “the executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie” (Marx and Engels 1948: 1). Later, Marx argued that “national governments are one as against the proletariat” (Marx 1871: 50) and described the state as “public force organized for social enslavement, of an engine of class despotism” (Marx 1871: 33).
It can easily be argued that without some of the theories proposed above by Locke, the later ideas of Marx might not have existed, especially in terms of property and the purpose of government. According to Marx, government was not a structure through which change could be brought about. Rather, for change to happen and for the class fights to be resolved it was necessary for the people to rise up and bring about the purposeful adjustments to society. While Marx was not advocating anarchy or calling for an abolition of government itself, he was cautious of the drawbacks associated with government, especially when it was based on uneven notions of class. He saw that there were intrinsic problems in a government where there was an upper class or ruling elite and championed a government that was part of the people.
Marx most notable difference from Locke is on private property. Marx would like to see the abolition of ownership of private property, this is clearly one of the central aspects to the theories of Marx as expressed in “The Communist Manifesto”. This subject of private property is not plainly meant in terms of owning a home or land, but more significantly it covers the means of production. This equal from business owner just as it is true for a large landholder who owns many acres that need maintained or farmed. For Marx, this was a lasting disparity that harkens back to old fashioned days and doing away with the whole idea could be achieved through revolution. Marx believed private property the essence of almost all problems in human society since it added to an unequal distribution of wealth.
References
Brenkert, G. G. (1979). Freedom and private property in Marx. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 122-147.
Hay, C. (1999). Marxism and the State. In Marxism and social science (pp. 152-174). Macmillan Education UK.
Locke, John Second Treatise on Government, §27 (1690) cited in Gintis, H. (2007). The evolution of private property. Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 64(1), 1-16. Available online at http://www.umass.edu/preferen/gintis/Ev%20of%20Property%20JEBO%202007.pdf [Dare Accessed 12 October 2016]
Marx, K 1871 The Civil War in France Available online at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm Accessed 19 October 2016]
Marx, K and Engels, F., 1848 Manifesto of the Communist Party Available online at https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm [Accessed 22 October 2015]