> >Reading it, it's hard to imagine that it is anything other than
> >revolutionary, and popular in character. It's major literary influence,
> >I think, was John Locke, that theorist of the English revolution. A fine
> >document it is too.
> Locke is more a transitional figure than a simple bourgeois revolutionary.
> Note that Locke's Fundamental Constitution for the Carolinas tried to
> create a feudalism in which a dominant seigeurial class could extract rent
> by tying direct producers to the land as a subject class or leet men, who
> though permanently tied to the land on a herditary basis, would be happy,
> like slaves, in the freedom of worship that Locke would allow. While Locke
> explicitly defended feudalism as the solution to the labor shortage, he did
> not exclude slavery. Article 110 of hte Constitution reads: "Every freeman
> of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his Negro slaves,
> of what opinion or reigion soever." While Locke did not infer the
> illegitimacy of chattel slavery from his defense of property rights as
> derived from the mixing of one's labor with the common, he did justify the
> dispossession of Indians because they had not mixed their labor with the
> land 'sufficiently."
Locke overtly defended slavery in chapter 4 of the Second Treatise. He also defended the right for the people overthrow their own government in chaps 18&19. Locke is more than a marginal figure, he is perhaps the second most influential political theorist (behind Marx) in history. Most defenders of capitalism and capitalist ideology are Lockeans of one sort or another.