Rousseau wrote of economic inequality and
diversity issues. Rousseau wrestled with the idea of unnatural inequality which
occurs to the natural issues of liberty in the country which arise in both the
social arena and that of private property/economic. The American Revolution
differed on this ground. The Americans didn’t argue for social liberties or
economic equality but rather whether the “citizens” of the country had representation.
American “citizens” were said to be rich white men. They argued that England shouldn’t
have power over America but didn’t introduce a more diverse egalitarian world
view. The Third Estate writes “Privileges do not make one free, but rather the
rights that belong to everyone.” (5). This shows the difference between Locke
who prefers the status quo of privilege and Rousseau who challenges it. The issue was whether the wealthy rich men in
England should have political power or whether the rich white men in America
should have this power. Rousseau’s words of paying society back for its help in
your economic success is echoed in the French Revolution documents. The French
Revolution criticizes the notion that “one insists upon making distinctions
based on birth…” (5). Locke’s words of private property are represented in the
American Revolution. The idea of private property as a “right” inherently creates
inequality since using this mindset any taxation on private property is seen as
infringing on this right.
Although I agree with David that Locke had a great influence on the American revolution, I believe that the influence of Locke on the French revolution, especially in the text Sieyès, is too flagrant to be ignored.
ReplyDeleteProperty for Locke is tightly related with work (labor as he calls it), which, in the words of Sieyès “perfects the goods of nature and multiplies their value as raw materials, twofold, tenfold, a hundredfold” This process of creating wealth is regarded by both Locke and Sieyès as a moral endeavor that entitles men to acquiring wealth, while laziness is regarded as a vice that justifies colonialism (for Locke) and loss of social status for Sieyès.
Sieyès, in fact, harshly criticized the aristocracy for consuming what the lower classes produced without taking part in that production. This, according, to Sieyès makes the aristocracy a foreign body in the same way Locke advocated for the expropriation of indigenous peoples because they “did not work the lands”. The idea of a conquest/ social mobility justified by productivity brings together the two authors.
Sieyès thus believes that the social rank should be earned depending on hard work “The superior places [ought to be] the natural portion and reward of every lucrative and titulary post.”