Influential Political Theorists and Totalitarianism

When considering the alleged totalitarian overtones in the writings of Rousseau and Marx, it's important to give heavy consideration to context. Neither outwardly suggests a totalitarian style of government; rather, they appear to simply leave the door open for that sort of government to be structured around their theories. They don't imply the necessity of a totalitarian government, they simply don't rule it out. Even so, Locke seems to be miles apart from the other two theorists with regards to the ideal government.

At some level, Marx and Rousseau do imply a totalitarian-style government-however, they seem to be actively attempting to "dress up" their implications. Rousseau attempts to play down the need for totalitarianism by positing that "each man, in giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody." With that, he implies that once the general will is realized, the negative effects of totalitarianism will become irrelevant. By insisting that there is "no will in opposition to the general will," Rousseau believes he eliminates the possibility of a government which seeks to exploit its people when operating under the social contract.

Marx, on the other hand, is far more forward with his support for governmental takeover. He suggests state monopoly over institutions such as banking, communication, and transportation. He also downplays the need for citizen consent-he suggests that the new government deal with opposition by simply confiscating the property of any rebels.

He then justifies the radical shift by accusing capitalism of inherent corruption, then highlighting the benefits of a potential welfare state. He argues that in a system where it is possible for individuals to own the means of production, the common worker is not afforded the opportunity to fully reap the benefits of his own labor. By evenly distributing labor requirements as well as benefits, Marx believes he can bring an end to inequality by establishing an all-powerful government to enforce it.

Locke stands on an end of the spectrum completely opposite that of both Marx and Rousseau. Much of the difference, however, lies in the fact that unlike the other two theorists, he does not attempt to dream up a system which fosters pure economical and social equality. In reality, Locke would willingly concede that systems such as those proposed by Marx and Rousseau may be the more effective routes to their stated goals; he simply does not agree those goals should be pursued. While Rousseau and Marx clash over methodology, Locke holds a distinct fundamental opposition to their idea of equality and freedom.

Instead of embracing the state's potential in terms of moderating social and economical equality, Locke believes an expanding government poses grave threats to individual freedom and social order. He firmly supports the notion that people naturally possess a sense of reason; that even in the state of nature, there are certain sensibilities and norms which are present in every human being. While Rousseau vehemently opposes the idea of the co-existence of freedom and inequality, Locke all but assumes one to be the inevitable side effect of the other.

He does, however, concede that along with a natural sense of reason comes an inherent form of greed which became manifest with the onset of nonperishable currency such as silver and gold. Once people gained the ability to store value in a form which did not spoil, according to Locke, the limits which previously existed on the hoarding of material goods disintegrated, giving birth to economic and social disorder.

Despite this admission, Locke does not believe the role of government is to act as an artificial equalizer-in fact, by his theory, the problem of greed could be eliminated more simply through the devaluation of currency. Instead, he wishes to create a limited government which serves as a moderator between individuals. In his eyes, the state should exist to simply help deter the inconvenience of theft.

Once the government's power extends beyond the role of a moderator, according to Locke, it begins to intrude upon the personal freedoms which he believes to be the indisputable right of each individual. Instead of attempting to simultaneously balance the distribution of labor and wealth as Marx would, Locke contends that such a system would infringe upon the individual's right to reap the benefits of labor. If both labor and wealth are artificially distributed, individuals able and willing to labor harder than what is determined by the state no longer have the freedom to fully benefit from their own potential and resources. This, according to Locke, is the truest form of personal liberty.

The central difference which makes Locke's view unique is not his opinion on the importance of liberty and freedom-in fact, all three men would likely agree on that point. Where they disagree is in the very definition of freedom itself. While Marx and Rousseau place the freedom to participate in decision-making and benefit equally in high regard, Locke is far more concerned with a capitalist-minded idea. He calls for a freedom of personal choice that intertwines with, but ultimately stretches far beyond the boundaries of economics. This "freedom" conflict seems to be the point from which every discrepancy springs between Locke and his counterparts. The conflict is a decidedly external one; it is virtually impossible to reach a common ground between these two poles, because they barely exist in their own right. They are almost direct counterpoints to one another.

Another key position that sets Locke apart is the way he conceives of the social contract. He does not concern himself with the idea of a common general will; instead, he returns to the idea that personal liberty is naturally occurring. Therefore, establishing a government with the intention of upholding social order and freedom will do just the opposite-by taking power from the individual and redistributing it in a predetermined fashion, Locke believes a government extinguishes the power entirely.

Considering the vast differences that exist between the theorists' perception of the state's role, it stands to reason that Locke does not leave an opening for a totalitarian government. Furthermore, much of his body of work is dedicated to ensuring that a totalitarian state does not arise-his ideas concerning personal freedom are simply incompatible with a high level of governmental control.