PSC 101
04/17/2016
Paper 2
Locke and Mill: Marxlandia or Mussolini Island?
In the case that English, liberal philosophers John Locke and John Stuart Mill are stranded between two islands, one socialist island and another fascist island, and forced to flee to one, either option would pose its own distinct benefits and obstacles. Ultimately, though, Marxlandia would be a better, more fruitful choice for the philosophers to make than Mussolini Island. Locke, a 17th century, English philosopher, maintained that without consent, no authority could be had over the individual. He also argued the premise that man has an innate right to life, liberty and property. Locke argued for a commonwealth in order to ensure the “protection of its members’ ‘civil interests’” (pg 66). Similarly, Mill, a liberal 19th century English philosopher, had an obsession with the individual and promoted democracy as the solution to a just government. He believed “that absolute power, in the hands of an eminent individual, would ensure a virtuous and intelligent performance of all the duties of government” (pg. 47). Mill and Locke both operated on the shared belief that the best government would honor the human rights of each individual equally. While Locke and Mill shared the grounding principle that the individual should enjoy freedom, they differed in their definition of freedom and about the extent to which it should be granted. Therefore, while both Locke and Mill could endure either Marxlandia or Mussolini Island, their experiences, like any other unique individuals, would vary as a result of their philosophical and personal differences. However, all things considered, it can be assumed that the two share enough in terms of their beliefs that they would make the same choice. Communist Marxlandia would serve as a more fitting society for the liberal philosophers than fascist Mussolini Island due to its government’s sense of freedom and justice, which reflects the equality in a liberal democracy. “For the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value, outside the State. In this sense Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State, the synthesis and unity of all values interprets, develops, and gives strength to the whole of the people” (Page 308). Marxlandia, an industrial society characterized by a large proletariat and a small bourgeoisie, would be an initially attractive and fitting option for Locke and Mill. Marx believed, like the liberals, in the labor theory of value. This theory states that value is earned through labor, which grants the individual the right to property. In the case that Locke and Mill swim to Marxlandia, they could earn the right to their own property through labor. Marxism puts them in a position of equality. They would also benefit from the Marxist right to defend the property they earn. Locke and Mill would potentially choose to swim to Marxlandia because of its large proletariat and small bourgeoisie. Upon arrival, they would be less subject to discrimination for their lack of material possessions than in a Fascist society and at less of an economic disadvantage. Marxlandia would also be a valid choice because it would definitely be free of tyranny since Marx, like the liberals, believed tyranny was unjust and should be overthrown in the case that it came about. Although Locke and Mill could earn property through labor and enjoy a fair socioeconomic standing in Marxlandia, the communist society would not come without some issues …show more content…
Communism protects human rights while fascism acknowledges them selectively. Although Marx believed that private property was at the center of the majority of problems that humans in society were facing, he and Locke had many similarities on idea of property than Locke and Mussolini would ever have. Both Locke and Marx believe that human rights are essential to the growth and development of the individual but property serves as a different purpose for each. For Locke, the individual must own property in order to help them sustain a sense of worth and grow through that notion. He believes that individuals should own property in the same manner that one would own property in a capitalist society, in that property is good, private, and belongs to the individual and nobody