In comparing the political and economic philosophies of Marx with Locke, similarities and differences are shown between their respected interests in how government should be run. Both believe that without property, civilizations cannot form. Individuals have the right to property based upon the work they place into their endeavors.
If one begins to place work into something and later neglects it, it is fair game for others to come in and reap the sowing field. However, certain undefined moral laws are understood and accepted in how Locke would say, a state of nature (before government), or how Marx would say, "defined private property." For example, before a worker places labor into a certain effort, say, farming a plot of land, they are not harmed if someone takes the plot. However, if after a worker has farmed the land and someone steals the fruits of their labors, the thief steals a part of the worker and the act is considered unmoral.
Locke argues that this is where government intervention must come into play, establishing with it laws against theft and punishing those who contravene them. In this respect, government is run by the people. Because the people enter into social contract with one another to band against theft and other immoral acts, it is the people that have ultimate power over government--not the other way around. Thus, freedom is only established by obedience to the laws that the people themselves instituted. When government begins losing its authority and takes on a life of its own, it is here that the people have the right to revolt against that government, even to the extent of using violence.