Econ Journal Watch, Volume 22, Issue 2, September 2025:
Isaiah Berlin on Karl Marx: An earlier exchange (1, 2, 3, 4) touched upon whether Karl Marx’s having become a big deal was adventitious or destined. Two selections from Isaiah Berlin are here republished, by permission, to suggest that it was rather destined: (1) a selection from Berlin’s book Karl Marx; (2) “Marxism and the International in the Nineteenth Century”. Daniel Klein provides a Foreword.
See:
- Locke, Smith, Marx; the Labor Theory of Property and the Labor Theory of Value; and Rothbard, Gordon, and Intellectual Property
- KOL037 | Locke’s Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory
- Rothbard on the Main Fallacy of our Time: Marx’s Labor Theory of Value
Query to Grok:
Does Berlin argue that Locke’s labor theory of property led to Smith, Ricardo and Marx’s labor theory of property? Consult https://stephankinsella.com/2016/12/rothbard-on-the-main-fallacy-of-our-time/, https://stephankinsella.com/as_paf_podcast/kol-037-lockes-big-mistake-how-the-labor-theory-of-property-ruined-political-theory/, and especially https://stephankinsella.com/2010/06/lock-smith-marx-and-the-labor-theory-of-value/. Does this confirm Kinsella’s view as to the link between Locke’s labor theory of property and the later labor theory of value?
Yes, Isaiah Berlin explicitly argues in the provided selection from his book Karl Marx (on page 3 of the document “BerlinMarxSept2025.pdf”) that the labor theory of value derives from John Locke, then Adam Smith and David Ricardo (and other classical economists), before being adopted by Karl Marx. He lists it as one of several doctrines that Marx drew from earlier thinkers, stating: “The labour theory of value derives from Locke, Adam Smith, Ricardo and the other classical economists.” This implies a direct intellectual lineage from Locke’s labor-based justification of property rights to the labor theory of value in classical political economy, which Marx then built upon for his theories of surplus value and exploitation.
This confirms Stephan Kinsella’s view (as summarized from the consulted sources) on the link between Locke’s labor theory of property and the later labor theory of value. Kinsella argues that Locke’s idea of “mixing” labor with unowned resources to create property rights is a foundational error that influenced the classical economists’ labor theory of value (e.g., Smith’s statement that “labour … is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities” and Ricardo’s developments), which Marx adopted and extended into his economic theories of value, surplus, and exploitation. Kinsella sees this as a “ruinous” chain that distorted political theory, leading to flawed concepts like intellectual property and Marxist economics, and contrasts it with a purer libertarian homesteading principle based on first use rather than labor. Berlin’s description of the derivation aligns with and supports this intellectual progression outlined by Kinsella.
