John Locke's Account Of The Natural Origin Of Property

Analyzing the accounts of both Locke and Marx it was obvious that they both found a significance of work to human life. They both approached this account in different ways. Locke looked at this point through the account of the natural origin of property, while Marx’s discusses alienated labor. The two gradually started coming up with the same analysis that ownership eventually becomes detached from labor. Using the account of the natural origin of property Locke came up with the concept that the relationship that people have with their property differs from the relationship they have with other things in the world. The relationship a person has with their property is special because of the labor the person put into it. The other things people tend to have relationships with aren’t looked at as being extremely special because the person and the thing have nothing to connect them to one another. Whereas a person has the labor and time that he/she devoted into their property and that is what connects the two, creating a more solid and unique relationship.
The natural origin of property is
determined by whose property it is. Someone has the right to call it theirs because of the labor they put into the property. This proves that work has a large significance to human life. The work is what ultimately decides what is rightfully yours. Locke notices that there does become a time where your labor doesn’t make it your property and that is when money is distributed. Money is what gives a person a right to things they did not personally produce. The value of the product comes from consent rather than usefulness. Society determines and appreciates the value of the products and not it’s actual function. Money is what detaches property from labor.

Marx analyses the account of alienated labor. Alienated is when the worker is detached form the work that is being performed. This comes from being impersonal to the workers and not allowing the object to reflect the worker distinct contribution. When doing their task, the workers are asked to follow a blueprint, and they have specific instructions laid out for them. Type of work like this requires no thought, or personal involvement of the workers. It is what makes it boring. In order to improve the type of labor being done the workers should be assigned to one product only and actually be able to see the finish product. A lot of the time a product is made from multiple workers who can’t recognize their contribution to the product in the end. The workers should be given options on what product they would like to work on, so that this can ensure that the workers are engage and interested in the things they are doing. Work that does not interest the worker effects the worker not only at work but outside of the job.
Doing something that is repetitive and mindless can be exhausting, and make everyday at work feel like a long day. After the worker is done for the day their main priorities become things such as sleeping, eating and having sex. Prioritizing these as important is what Marx describes as the account of animal .vs. human activity. The account of animal .vs. human activity is when a human feels like an animal when performing an human function. Which in this case the worker feels like an animal when working. Working is considered a human function. The account of animal .vs. human activity also relates to a worker feeling like a human when performing animal activities. For instance, the worker feels human only when eating, sleeping, and having sex which is are considered animal
activity. Both Locke’s and Marx’s accounts of the significance of work to humans are compatible. They both show that no matter the amount of work you devote to product there is still a way for the product to detach itself from you. Whether in some cases the worker and product lost their connection because of money, or the worker and product never built the connection to begin with. The analysis of the account of the natural origin of property developed by Locke, and the account of alienated developed by Marx really relates to one another. Locke made it clear that humans for relationships with certain things. Locke categorized it as relationships with properties, and then relationships with other things. Locke looked deeper into the relationship with properties. Marx’s approach relates more to the relationship people have with what Locke calls “other things’. This goes to show that the both of them thought processes were similar and how their study build off of one another.