The Influence of Locke’s Theory of Property Rights on Marx

The relevant discussions in *Capital* and its manuscripts indicate that Marx read Locke’s *Two Treatises of Government* and economic theories in detail, especially the labor theory of value contained therein. However, in the context of socio-political philosophy, the question of in what sense Locke’s thought actually influenced Marx has not received sufficient attention from China’s Marxist theoretical circles. In fact, Locke’s thought is not only one of the important theoretical sources of Marx’s socio-political philosophy, but also the starting point and an important opportunity for Marx to critique and transcend liberalism and political economy. This article takes “property rights” as an example for a preliminary exploration, in order to spark further discussion.

《资本论》及其手稿的相关论述表明，马克思曾详细阅读过洛克的《政府论》及经济学理论，尤其是其中的劳动价值论内容。但在社会政治哲学语境中，洛克的思想到底在何种意义上影响了马克思，这一问题并没有引起我国马克思主义理论界的充分重视。事实上，洛克的思想不仅是马克思社会政治哲学的重要理论来源之一，还是其批判和超越自由主义和国民经济学的起点与重要契机。本文以“财产权”为例作初步探讨，以便抛砖引玉。

The Essence of Locke’s Theory of Property Rights

洛克财产权理论的本质

Property rights occupy a prominent position in Locke’s political philosophy. Some scholars even assert that “the essence of Locke’s entire theory of limited government is to defend property rights.” [1]1 This is a common characterization of Locke’s political philosophy in Chinese Marxist scholarship, emphasizing the centrality of property defense to his theory of limited government. The core issue explored in Locke’s political philosophy is how people can truly achieve freedom under the emerging capitalist civil society. This inherently includes two aspects: “how to obtain freedom” and “how to guarantee freedom.” The former is mainly reflected in his interpretation, based on the natural law tradition, of the various innate rights of freedom enjoyed by humanity from the perspective of natural rights; the latter is mainly reflected in his explanation of why humanity needs to transition from a harmonious original “state of nature” to a “civil society” of conflicting interests—in other words, explaining the possibility and necessity of government. Based on the natural law tradition, Locke believed that humans have three main natural rights: the right to freedom, the right to life, and the right to property. The purpose of people establishing government is to better protect property rights, so as to maximize “human freedom.” “Thus, I consider political power to be the right to make laws for the regulation and protection of property, the right to impose the death penalty and all lesser penalties, and the right to use the common force to execute these laws and defend the state from foreign invasion; and all this is solely for the public good.” [2]2 This is a direct quotation from John Locke’s *Two Treatises of Government*, Second Treatise, Chapter 1, Section 3.

财产权在洛克的政治哲学中占据突出地位。有学者甚至断言，“洛克整个有限政府理论的实质，就是捍卫财产权”。洛克政治哲学探讨的核心问题是，在新兴的资本主义市民社会下，人如何才能真正实现自由。这本身内在地包含着两个方面，即“如何获得自由”和“如何保障自由”。前一方面主要体现为他立足于自然法传统从天赋权利的角度诠释人类所享有的各种先天的自由权利，后一方面主要体现为他对人类何以需要从和谐的原初“自然状态”过渡或进入利益纷争的“文明社会”，换言之，即解释政府产生的可能性和必要性。立足于自然法传统，洛克认为人的自然权利主要有三种，即自由权、生命权和财产权。人们建立政府的目的就是更好地保护财产权，以便最大程度地实现“人的自由”，“因此，我认为政治权力就是为了规定和保护财产而制定法律的权利，判处死刑和一切较轻处分的权利，以及使用共同的力量来执行这些法律和保卫国家不受外来侵害的权利；而这一切只是为了公民的福利。”

However, relative to government, legitimate property rights are prior and teleological, while government is posterior and instrumental. The connection between government and property rights lies in their common orientation toward human freedom: since the purpose of people establishing government is to better protect property rights, and property rights are a concrete form in which freedom is realized, then government is essentially in service of achieving the maximum degree of “political freedom” or “human freedom.” This concept stems from Locke’s belief that a well-designed system is conducive to protecting everyone’s life, liberty, and property rights. But before effectively designing a set of good institutions and government, the question of the legitimate origin of property rights must first be resolved. Locke’s understanding of the legitimate origin of property rights generally adopts two approaches: a transcendental approach and a social (empirical) approach. The former is reflected in his derivation, following the Christian biblical tradition and from a presupposed original “state of nature,” of the various natural rights and “natural freedom” equally enjoyed by everyone; the latter is reflected in his explanation of the origin of property rights from a social approach, using the theory of labor “permeating” and “mixing in.”

不过，相对于政府而言，正当的财产权是在先的和目的性的，政府则是在后的和工具性的。政府与财产权的关联性在于它们共同指向人的自由：既然人们建立政府的目的就是为了更好地保护财产权，而财产权又是自由被实现的具体化样式，那么，政府本质上就是为实现人的最大程度的“政治自由”或“人的自由”服务的。这种观念缘于洛克相信，良性的制度设计有利于保护每个人的生命、自由和财产权。但在有效地设计出一套良好的制度和政府之前，必须首先解决财产权的合法性起源问题。洛克对财产权的合法性起源问题的理解总体上采取了两种进路，即先验的进路和社会的（经验的）进路。前者体现为他依从基督教《圣经》传统并从预先设定的原初“自然状态”中，引申出每个人所平等具有的各种天赋权利和所享有的“自然的自由”；后者体现为他借助劳动“渗透”和“掺入”说，从社会性的进路解释财产权的起源。

For Locke, dealing with property rights is dealing with the issue of freedom. More precisely, property rights are the most appropriate concrete path for handling the issue of freedom. Property rights must be considered within the framework of the issue of freedom in order to obtain an understanding and interpretation that hits the mark of their essential definition. Corresponding to “how to achieve freedom,” the theory of property rights also inherently contains two levels: explaining the “origin of property rights” and explaining the “concrete implementation of property rights.” The former is specifically manifested in his explanation, within a theological context and based on the natural law tradition, that property rights are natural rights enjoyed by humans, and in his explanation of the origin of property rights from a social approach using the theory of labor “mixing in”; the latter is specifically demonstrated in the introduction of political power and government through common consent or contract, and their formulation of various laws and regulations to ensure the concrete realization and implementation of property rights and freedom in civil society.

对洛克而言，处理财产权就是处理自由问题。更准确地说，财产权是处理自由问题最合适的具体化路径。财产权必须被纳入自由问题中去思考，才能得到切中其本质规定的理解和诠释。与“如何实现自由”对应，财产权理论也内在地包含着两个层次，即说明“财产权的起源”以及解释“财产权的具体落实”。前者具体表现为他在神学背景下依据自然法传统说明财产权是人享有的天赋权利，以及借助劳动“掺入”说从社会性的进路解释财产权的起源；后者具体展示为以共同同意或契约的方式引入政治权力和政府，并由其制定各种法律规定以便保证财产权和自由在文明社会中的具体实现与落实。

Marx’s Reflection on Property Rights

马克思对财产权的思考

In terms of theoretical effect, Locke’s theory of property rights undoubtedly holds a pivotal position in the entire history of modern Western thought. The entire liberal tradition after Locke, as well as Hegel and Marx, who represent a reflection on and critique of liberalism, can in a certain sense be said to be either his “fellow travelers” or to have engaged in critical innovation based on absorbing his existing ideas when dealing with the issue of property rights. The contributions of Locke’s theory of property rights are mainly reflected in two aspects: First, he took “labor” as the legitimate basis for justifying individual property rights, and further grasped property rights as a natural right inherently enjoyed by humans. Subsequently, Smith further strengthened and elevated labor to the level of the principle of political economy theory itself, thereby influencing Hegel and Marx. Second, he linked property rights with human freedom, directing the exploration of property rights directly toward the basis of human freedom and the question of how it is to be realized.

就理论效应来看，洛克的财产权理论在整个西方近现代思想史上无疑具有举足轻重的地位。洛克之后的整个自由主义传统以及代表对自由主义反思和批判的黑格尔和马克思，在处理财产权问题上，一定意义上可以说要么是他的“同路人”，要么是在汲取其既有思想基础上进行批判性创新。洛克财产权理论的贡献主要体现在两个方面：其一，他把“劳动”作为证成个人财产权的正当性根据，并进而把财产权把握为人所天然享有的自然权利。之后，斯密进一步把劳动强化和提升到政治经济学理论自身原则的高度，并进而影响了黑格尔和马克思。其二，他把财产权与人的自由相联系，把对财产权的探讨直接指向人类自由的根据及其如何实现的问题。

Locke’s view of labor as the internal basis of property rights in the secular world, and his emphasis on the priority of the rights to life and freedom, profoundly influenced later thinkers such as Hegel and Marx. Compared with Locke, Hegel also grasped property rights as a necessary condition for the individual to realize freedom, but he did not attribute the basis of property rights to labor; rather, he grounded it in the free will of the person. Nor did he identify property rights as natural rights of humans, but rather as the product of contracts and mutual recognition between persons. Moreover, in view of the individualistic destructiveness inherent in private property rights, he adopted a dialectical and critical stance toward them. Marx similarly shared Locke’s idea of linking property rights with the realization of freedom, but he transcended Locke by drawing on the intellectual resources of Rousseau, Hegel, and others. From Marx’s standpoint, Locke was a representative of the interests of the emerging English bourgeoisie (*Theories of Surplus Value*). [3]3 *Theories of Surplus Value* (also known as *Volume 4 of Capital*) is Marx’s critical history of economic thought, written between 1862 and 1863. Relative to the feudal landlord class, his thought (including his theory of property) had a dual character. In terms of its progressive aspect, starting from the bourgeois natural law theory, he opposed fallacies such as the “divine right of kings,” holding that in the state of nature everyone is governed by natural law, i.e., reason, and that no one may harm the life of another. In Marx’s words, “Locke is the progenitor of this idea of freedom.” [4]4 This is a direct quotation from Marx, referring to Locke’s role in the development of bourgeois liberal thought. But this is also clearly its conservative aspect, because in a certain sense it beautifies bourgeois private property, portraying it as an eternal, naturally rational social system.

洛克把劳动看作财产权在世俗世界中的内在根据，以及他对生命权和自由权优先性的强调，深刻地影响了后来的黑格尔和马克思。相较于洛克，黑格尔同样把财产权把握为个人实现自由的必要条件，但他不把财产权的根据归结于劳动，而是把其奠基于人的自由意志。他也没有把财产权指认为人的自然权利，而是指认为人与人之间契约与相互承认的产物。并且，鉴于私有财产权所内在包含的个体主义破坏性，他对其持辩证的批判性立场。马克思同样分享了洛克把财产权与自由的实现相关联的思想，但他借助卢梭与黑格尔等人的思想资源超越了洛克。从马克思的立场看，洛克是英国新兴资产阶级利益的代表（《剩余价值学说史》）。相对于封建地主阶级而言，他的思想（包括他的财产学说）具有两面性。就进步性方面来看，他从资产阶级自然法理论出发，反对“君权神授”等谬论，认为在自然状态中人人受自然法即理性的统治，任何人都不得危害别人的生命。用马克思的话说，“洛克是这种自由思想的始祖”。但这同时显然也是它的保守性方面，因为这在一定意义上美化了资产阶级的私有制，把它说成是一种亘古不变的、天然合理的社会制度。

To elaborate, in terms of inheritance, Marx first absorbed Locke’s labor theory of property, taking labor as the legitimate basis for individuals to acquire property. He insisted on the importance of labor for private property and the generation of the human essence, holding that humans are essentially the objectified unfolding form of their own labor, and that the “subjective essence” of private property is labor (*Paris Manuscripts*). [5]5 The *Paris Manuscripts* (also known as the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*) are early writings by Marx that develop his concept of alienated labor and the human essence. Second, he also considered the issue of property rights in connection with human freedom. Like Locke, Marx’s treatment of the issue of property rights was always linked to human free individuality and self-realization. He affirmed the importance of a certain specific sense of private property (especially the “private property as labor” mentioned below) for the perfection of personality and self-realization. However, Rousseau’s critique of property rights and the incomplete analysis of the problem of poverty in civil society by Hegel and others further prompted Marx to recognize that capitalist property rights and the system of private ownership are essentially a relationship of opposition and separation between “labor” and “capital.” The power relations of exploitation and enslavement of the majority of the proletariat by a small minority of the propertied class implicit behind this determine that it ultimately “is detrimental to human self-realization and the realization of universal freedom in society.” [6]6 This is a paraphrase or summary of Marx’s critique of capitalist property relations, not a direct quotation from a single text.

展开来说，在继承方面，马克思首先吸收了洛克劳动财产论思想，把劳动作为个人获取财产的正当性根据。他坚持劳动之于私有财产和人的本质生成的重要性，认为人在本质上就是自己劳动的对象化展开形式，私有财产的“主体本质”就是劳动（《巴黎手稿》）。其次，他也把财产权问题与人的自由联系起来考虑。与洛克一样，马克思对财产权问题的处理，始终与人的自由个性和自我实现相联系。他肯定某种特定意义上的私有财产（特别是下文提到的“作为劳动的私有财产”）对人格完善和自我实现的重要性。但卢梭对财产权的批判以及黑格尔等人对市民社会中贫困问题的不彻底分析，均推动马克思进一步认识到资本主义的财产权及私有制本质上是“劳动”与“资本”之间的对立和分离关系，其背后隐含的少部分有产者对大多数无产者进行剥削、奴役的权力支配关系，决定了它最终“不利于人的自我实现以及在社会中实现普遍的自由”。

Marx’s Transcendence of Locke’s Theory of Property Rights

马克思对洛克财产权理论的超越

In terms of transcendence, from Marx’s standpoint, Locke’s method of confirming property rights through labor has fundamental limitations. This is mainly manifested in two aspects. First, Locke, including later Hegel, did not distinguish between two different types of labor under capitalist conditions, namely “objectified labor” and “alienated labor.” Therefore, he grasped only the “positive significance” of labor, while overlooking its “negative significance.” The former signifies labor as the objectified mode of existence of the human essence, while the latter signifies labor as a force and basis for dominating and enslaving people. This prevented Locke from truly grasping the inner complexity of private property relations. In the *Paris Manuscripts*, Marx argues that private property inherently contains the distinction between “private property as labor” and “private property as capital.” The former originates from human objectified labor, while the latter originates from alienated labor. Under capitalist conditions where the means of production are owned by a minority bourgeoisie, Locke’s notion of labor confirming property rights essentially means that “alienated labor” is the basis of private property rights. However, because Locke did not identify its specific form, alienated labor, from within labor, he actually reduced the basis of private property rights to “objectified labor” as the unfolding form of human essential powers, and thereby confirmed private property as a necessary condition for individual freedom. In this regard, Locke inevitably universalized and eternalized property rights and private ownership, and, like the national economists, dehistoricized and perpetuated the capitalist system itself.

在超越方面，从马克思的立场看，洛克以劳动确证财产权的方式存在着根本性的局限。这主要表现在两个方面。首先，洛克，包括后来的黑格尔，没有把资本主义条件下两种不同性质的劳动即“对象化劳动”和“异化劳动”区分开来。因此，他只把握到了劳动的“积极意义”，而没有注意到“消极意义”。前者意味着劳动作为人的生命本质的对象化存在样式，后者意味着劳动成了宰制、奴役人的力量和根据，这致使洛克不可能真正把握私有财产关系的内在复杂性。在《巴黎手稿》中，马克思认为私有财产内在地包含着“作为劳动的私有财产”和“作为资本的私有财产”的差别。前者根源于人的对象化劳动，后者则根源于异化劳动。在生产资料归少数资产阶级所有的资本主义条件下，洛克意义上的劳动确证财产权本质上不过是说“异化劳动”是私有财产权的根据。但由于洛克没有从劳动中识别出其特定样式即异化劳动，因此，他实际上是把私有财产权的根据归结为作为人的本质力量展开样式的“对象化劳动”，并进而确证私有财产构成个人自由的必要条件。就此而言，洛克必然把财产权及私有制普遍化和永恒化，并与国民经济学家一样，把资本主义制度本身非历史化和永久化。

Second, in Marx’s view, since “objectified labor” is the confirmation of human essential powers, while “alienated labor” is merely a specific and distorted form of human “objectified labor,” a product of a certain stage of historical development, then Locke’s property rights actually refer to the rights of “private property as capital.” They must originate from “alienated labor” rather than “objectified labor,” and in essence cannot be natural rights inherent to humans, but rather a historical product and category. In other words, property rights necessarily have their own process of emergence, development, and extinction. Thus, the false appearance of capitalist property rights as natural rights and the permanent existence of private ownership is thoroughly shattered, and the historical limits of their own existence are clarified.

其次，在马克思看来，既然“对象化劳动”是人的本质力量的确证，而“异化劳动”只是人的“对象化劳动”特定的和畸变的样式，是历史发展到一定阶段的产物，那么，洛克意义上的财产权实际上指的是“作为资本的私有财产”的权利，它必定根源于“异化劳动”而非“对象化劳动”，在本质上不可能是人天生具有的自然权利，而是一种历史性的产物和范畴。换言之，财产权必定有其自身的产生、发展和消亡的过程。由此，资本主义财产权作为自然权利以及私有制永久存在的虚假外观就被彻底破除，其自身存在的历史性界限得以阐明。

It can be seen that, precisely on the basis of inheriting and critiquing Locke’s theory of property rights, Marx consistently linked the critique of property rights closely with the issue of the realization of human freedom. However, unlike Locke, he did not justify private property rights and their identity with individual freedom, but rather falsified “private property relations as capital,” revealing their hindrance to human self-realization. Unlike Locke and others, who regarded property rights as a matter of natural rights (a political issue and a matter of “political emancipation”) and as a matter of mere externalization and realization of personality (a philosophical and metaphysical issue), Marx grasped it as a major economic and social issue (a matter of “human emancipation”). He argued that the essence of private property is the antagonistic and separated relationship between labor and capital, and that “the whole revolutionary movement necessarily finds its empirical as well as its theoretical basis in the movement of private property—in the economy.” Therefore, the issue of property rights and ownership can only be fundamentally resolved through the initiation of socio-economic and political revolutions. Thus, on the basis of revealing the relationship of domination and control of the propertied over the propertyless hidden behind private property rights, Marx further put forward the proposition that to achieve genuine human emancipation, it is necessary to completely abolish “private property relations as capital” and private ownership through the form of initiating social and political revolutionary movements.

可见，正是在继承和批判洛克财产权理论的基础上，马克思把财产权批判始终与人类自由的实现问题密切关联在一起。但他没有像洛克那样证成私有财产权及其与个人自由的同一，而是证伪“作为资本的私有财产关系”，揭示它对人的自我实现的妨碍。与洛克等人把财产权看作自然权利问题（政治和“政治解放”的问题）以及单纯的人格外化和实现的问题（哲学和形而上学问题）不同，马克思把它把握为重大的经济和社会问题（“人类解放”问题）。他认为，私有财产的本质是劳动与资本的对立和分离关系，并且“整个革命运动必然在私有财产的运动中，即在经济的运动中，为自己找到经验的基础，也找到理论的基础”。因此，财产权及所有制问题只能通过发动社会经济和政治革命的形式才能根本解决。由此，马克思在揭示私有财产权背后隐含的有产者对无产者的统治和支配关系的基础上，进而提出要实现真正的人类解放，必须以发动社会政治革命运动的形式，彻底废除“作为资本的私有财产关系”及私有制的主张。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗