Differences And Similarities Between Malcolm X And John Locke

Understandably, Malcolm X was not influenced by white philosophers and thinkers, drawing much of his advocacy from fellow black nationalists. However, certain ideas he espoused have inherent overlap with figures he did not necessarily craft his beliefs from. John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government set an ideological precedent that many still ascribe to today, and even though Malcolm X did not describe himself as a libertarian that does not preclude him from sharing similar values with Locke. While Malcolm X never directly alluded to the works of John Locke, he aligns with Locke on a myriad of issues relating to natural rights and government, and his speech “The Ballot or the Bullet” illuminates a justification of black resistance found

in Locke’s mantra of life, liberty, and property.
Locke highlights a theme of what Jefferson would refer to in the Declaration of Independence as “unalienable rights” that Malcolm X also shares as a core part of his argument for rebellion against the status quo. Philosophers have analyzed the concept of the state of nature essentially since the advent of philosophy itself, and Locke’s perception rests in the belief that society should try to attain the most functional version of the state of nature possible. A core tenet of the state of nature is the lack of social pressures to create differences, creating “a state of equality, in which no-one has more power and authority than anyone else…all born to all the same advantages of nature and to the use of the same abilities…with no-one being subjected to or subordinate to anyone else” (Locke 76). Moreover, maintaining a mandate of equity is one of the main elements of the state of nature Locke argues must be protected. Thus, there is a very clear resemblance to the logic of Malcolm X. Malcolm X believed black Americans should protect their communities at all cost, warning white America “When a racial powder keg goes off, it doesn’t care who it knocks out the way” (X 77). Malcolm X saw the current system of oppression as a consequence of white people being manipulative enough to create barriers around negligible biological differences, and a prerequisite to attaining a world black nationalists desired was ridding themselves of connections to white society. According to Locke, there are certain rights that should not be taken away by any force, and Malcolm X used the same foundation to speak in favor of black rebellion en masse.
In addition, Locke argued these rights could not be taken away because they were given to humanity by God, and despite their religious differences Malcolm X viewed the necessity of fighting back stemming from the exact same source.

The only exception Locke provides to the desired goal of equality among all humans is if “God·, the lord and master of them all, were to declare clearly and explicitly his wish that some one person be raised above the others and given an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty” (Locke 77). However, God certainly never said people who has ancestry from Africa were inferior to those in Europe, so all that remains is one of the view “rights” Locke says is both inarguable and easy to articulate: “the right that an injured party has to get reparation” (79). Black Americans undoubtedly qualify as an “injured party”, and as a result Locke and Malcolm X once more share reasoning for taking action. Even though Malcolm X was a devout Muslim, he did not see Islam as a necessary part of being a black nationalist. He implores listeners to keep their own religion “between you and your God. Because if it hasn’t done anything more for you than it has, you need to forget it anyway”, and instead to derive the need to resist from whatever theological source one ascribes to (X 75). By viewing existence as an implicit contract with a higher power to prosper whenever possible, Malcolm X forms an argument for rising up against oppression that structurally could

have been used by Locke in a different context. Malcolm X almost blatantly says not living up to this mandate from heaven is akin to not being religious at all, revealing the importance and urgency of aligning with his fight. Both Locke and Malcolm X discovered the importance of upholding equality through motivations instilled in humanity by a deity, and though Locke probably never opened a Quran the concepts between the two points of view are nearly identical.
Malcolm X preached self-reliance as a main mechanism to create separation from white America, elucidating an obvious connection to Locke’s ideas of how government should function. Locke believed that government should only intervene to rectify any inequality and injustice that would occur in the state of nature (Locke 80). As a result, Locke painted the government as an entity that should be as limited as possible. In fact, Locke simply furthered the overarching path to mastering “the great art of government is…to establish laws of liberty to protect and encourage the honest industry of his people against the oppression of power and narrowness of party” (Locke 93). Malcolm X also held that the government should do everything possible to prevent oppression and subjugation. However, Malcom X also warned that black Americans were not adequately educated on the importance of this core element of governance, and he labeled lack of information as one of the main obstacles to uniting more people behind his cause. Looking at the long-term effects of being kept in the dark, Malcolm X lamented that black Americans would continue to “be misled, led astray, or deceived or maneuvered into supporting someone politically who doesn't have the good of our community at heart… until we become politically mature…and know what part politics play in our lives” (X 73). Since Locke and Malcolm X viewed the role of government in a similar light, Malcolm X very well could have used Locke’s writings to supplement his speeches and protest had he chosen to. Although Malcom X would likely never refer to an Enlightenment philosopher in such a positive manner, the ideological roots he espouses have undeniable resemblance to Locke, revealing a transcendence both directly and indirectly of Locke’s work.
Using a similar view of the role of government, Malcolm X finds justification for retaliation because the government has not lived up to its fundamental burden to protect liberty.

As much as Locke would have loved in a world absent of any semblance of government, he recognized that in the state of nature there are “evils that are bound to follow from men’s being judges in their own cases, and government is to be the remedy for this” (Locke 80). Thus, if the government does not fulfill its central obligation to citizens there almost is not a purpose for government to exist. Malcolm X and millions of other black Americans had seen the government neglect to live up to its purpose of protecting all people countless times, meaning in a sense they “have never seen democracy…When we open our eyes today and look around America, we see America not through the eyes of someone who has enjoyed the fruits of Americanism, we see America through the eyes of someone who has been the victim of Americanism” (X 79). Fundamentally, the Locke-esque logic he uses forms the basis for his provocative statement that he does not even feel like a mere citizen in America. Malcom X’s sentiments were echoed by black Americans across the country, but he criticized Martin Luther King Jr’s supporters for not fully recognizing “the government has failed us, you can’t deny that. Anytime you live in the twentieth century, 1964, and you walkin' around here singing ‘We Shall Overcome,’ the government has failed

us” (X 75). When such a large group of citizen feels like they are not receiving basic protection from the government, they by extension have to provide means of survival on their own to survive. After using a definition of government Locke would agree with, Malcolm X forces the conclusion that there must be more autonomy for the black community.
Both Locke and Malcolm X also emphasized the importance of building and benefiting the surrounding community, underscoring the ability for Malcolm X’s vision to be supported by Locke’s theories. Locke believed that people of the world should work to improve the conditions of where they lived “as much as he can use in a beneficial way before it spoils”, which would eventually extend to the entire world experiencing immense improvement overall (Locke 87). Malcolm X takes Locke’s idea of self-reliance and government to its full end, saying that the very core of black nationalism centers around the concept “that the black man should control the politics and the politicians in his own community” (X 73). Paired with his advocacy for patronizing black businesses, Malcolm X embodies Locke’s sentiments of trying to improve the status quo as much as possible. Even though Malcom X’s notions for improving the status quo were radical, they were definitely defendable and potentially justified by relying upon a philosophy akin to Locke’s notions of society. In essence, Locke and Malcolm X are unified in the unwavering will to spread benefit around, a core part of Malcolm X’s vision of black liberation.
If Malcom X and John Locke ever met, they probably would not get along too well, but removing their personas from their work reveals a depth of ideological overall, meaning Locke’s works can be used to fortify Malcom X’s call for black resistance. Malcolm X proposed changes that many deemed logistically infeasible to take place in America. However, Malcolm X and others stood on John Locke’s moral ground of standing up for what people must do not what people could do. John Locke and Malcolm X were both radicals of their time, and the dedication to fighting for greater standards of governance and equality binds them together, regardless of their perceived differences.