Philosophy of the Modern Era

Locke's Political Philosophy

Property

From what has been said regarding Locke's views on property, one might conclude that he was a staunch defender of large capitalists, aligned with both the upper and lower echelons of society, yet this would only be a half-truth. His positions appear contradictory: they encompass theories that prefigure the doctrines of developed capitalism alongside those that nearly approach a socialist perspective. By selectively quoting Locke on this or several other issues, one risks distorting his intentions.

Let me present Locke's key assertions regarding property in the order they appear. It has been previously noted that, according to Locke, every individual possesses, or at least ought to possess, private ownership of the fruits of their labor. In the pre-industrial era, this principle was not as unrealistic as it has since become. Urban production was primarily carried out by craftsmen, who owned their tools and sold their goods independently. Regarding agricultural production, the school to which Locke belonged contended that peasant ownership represented the optimal system. He asserts that a person may own only as much land as they can cultivate, but no more. Evidently, he fails to grasp that in all countries of Europe, the realization of this program would likely require a bloody revolution. The bulk of cultivated land everywhere was owned by land aristocrats, who exacted either a portion of the peasants' produce (often up to half of the harvest) or a rent that could vary over time. The former system predominated in France and Italy, while the latter was more common in England. Further east—in Russia and Prussia—laborers were serfs, working for landlords and effectively stripped of any rights. In France, the old system was dismantled by the French Revolution, while in Northern Italy and Western Germany, it was overthrown by the conquests of the revolutionary army. Serfdom in Prussia was abolished as a consequence of Napoleon’s defeat of Prussia, and in Russia, it followed the country's loss in the Crimean War. However, in both nations, the aristocracy retained its land ownership. In East Prussia, this system, albeit tightly controlled by the Nazis, has endured to the present day; in Russia and the territories of modern Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, the land aristocracy lost its holdings following the Russian Revolution. In Hungary, Romania, and Poland, the aristocracy maintained its property, while in Eastern Poland, it was "liquidated" by the Soviet government in 1940. Nonetheless, the Soviet regime endeavored to replace small peasant ownership with collective farms throughout Russia.

In England, the process of development was more intricate. During Locke's time, the status of the agricultural worker was somewhat alleviated by the existence of common lands, to which they had considerable rights, allowing them to cultivate a portion of their own food. This system had persisted since the Middle Ages, and forward-thinking individuals condemned it as wasteful from a production standpoint. Thus arose the movement for the enclosure of common lands, which began under Henry VIII and continued under Cromwell, but did not gain significant momentum until around 1750. From that point onward, for nearly ninety years, common lands were progressively enclosed and transferred to local landowners. Each enclosure required a parliamentary act, and the aristocrats who controlled both houses of Parliament ruthlessly exploited legislative power for personal gain, simultaneously condemning agricultural workers to starvation. Gradually, as industry grew, the situation for agricultural workers improved, as otherwise, they would have been unable to be retained from migrating to the cities. By now, as a result of taxes introduced by Lloyd George, the land aristocracy has been compelled to relinquish much of its land ownership. However, those who also own urban or industrial property have managed to retain their estates. There has been no sudden revolution; rather, it has been a gradual transition that is still ongoing. Presently, the remaining wealthy aristocrats owe their fortunes to properties linked to the development of industry in urban areas.

This prolonged developmental process in all countries, save for Russia, can be viewed through the lens of Locke. It is remarkable that he could proclaim such revolutionary theories before they could be realized, yet there is no indication that he acknowledged the system prevailing in his time as unjust or understood how it differed from the system he advocated.

The labor theory of value, which posits that the value of a product is determined by the amount of labor expended upon it, is attributed by some to Karl Marx and by others to Ricardo; yet it can be found in Locke’s writings. This notion was inspired by a myriad of predecessors, beginning with Thomas Aquinas. As Tournier summarizes the scholastic theory: “The essence of the argument was that craftsmen who produce goods or merchants who bring them can justly demand appropriate compensation, as in both cases, labor is their profession and satisfies societal needs. It is deemed an unforgivable sin when a speculator or intermediary profits by exploiting public necessities. The true enjoyment of Aquinas's theories is the labor theory of value. The last of the scholastics was Karl Marx.”

The labor theory of value encompasses both ethical and economic dimensions. In other words, one could argue that the value of a product should be proportional to the amount of labor expended upon it or that, in fact, labor regulates price. The latter assertion, as Locke admits, is only approximately true. He states that nine-tenths of value is determined by labor, but he remains silent regarding the remaining tenth. It is labor, he notes, that creates the differences in all values. He cites as an example the lands of America inhabited by Indigenous peoples, which had little value as they were not cultivated. Apparently, he does not comprehend that land acquires value to the extent that people aspire to work it, even before they actually cultivate it. If you own a parcel of barren land where someone discovers oil, you can sell it at a high price without performing any work upon it. As was quite natural in his time, Locke does not contemplate such cases but focuses solely on agriculture. The peasant ownership he advocates is incompatible with industries such as large-scale mining, which require expensive machinery and many workers.

The principle that a person has a right to the product of their own labor becomes futile in a period of industrial development. Suppose you are performing one of the operations in the production of Ford automobiles; how can one determine what portion of the total output is attributable to your labor? Or, consider if you work for a railway company transporting goods; who can decide what share of the goods' production is due to your contribution? Such considerations have led those wishing to prevent labor exploitation to abandon the principle of the right to the product of one’s own labor in favor of more socialist methods of organizing production and distribution.

The labor theory of value has generally been defended out of animosity toward any class perceived as predatory. Scholastics, to the extent that they adhered to this theory, did so out of hostility toward usurers, who were often Jewish. Ricardo directed it against landowners, while Marx aimed it at capitalists. However, for Locke, it seems to exist in a vacuum, expressing no hostility toward any class. His animosity was directed solely against kings, yet this is unrelated to his views on value.

Some of Locke's views are so peculiar that I find it challenging to present them coherently. He asserts that a person should not possess more plums than he or his family can consume, lest they spoil; however, he may own as much gold and diamonds as he can acquire legitimately, for these precious materials do not perish. It does not occur to him that the owner of the plums might sell them before they go bad.

He places considerable emphasis on the enduring nature of precious metals, which, he claims, serve as the source of money and social inequality. While he appears to lament economic disparity in an abstract and purely theoretical sense, he certainly does not consider it wise to implement measures that could prevent such inequality. Undoubtedly, he, like all people of his time, believed that civilization owed its successes to the wealthy, particularly the patrons of art and literature. A similar situation exists in contemporary America, where science and art largely rely on the donations of the affluent. To some extent, the further development of civilization is intertwined with social injustice. This fact forms the basis of what is considered most respectable in conservatism.