To dub Hobbes a conservative thinker is, in a manner of speaking, a misnomer, a modern-day projection which makes sense only once we adopt modern-day political categories which were hardly appropriate or even in use in Hobbes’ own time. And when examined through the lenses of his own time, Hobbes comes across as a revolutionary thinker, revolutionary for having foreseen, amidst what was still by and large a feudal society, the operations of the market as setting the tone for all future relations among the members of the commonwealth. Unlike Adam Smith, however, for whom the formation or the existence of the commonwealth as a political entity were unproblematic, in the workings of the invisible hand and the unfolding laissez-faire mode of social relations, Hobbes saw a unique opportunity to anchor the state as the supreme political institution for all times. Through his ingenious concept of political obligation, Hobbes establishes the supremacy of the state in terms of the consenting subject: (a) market relations make everyone equally insecure and subject to power grab by any one individual or group of individuals; (b) it is therefore in everyone’s interest to relinquish their God-given sovereignty by vesting same, both individually and collectively, in the institution of the state; (c) this act of consent, also referred to as “social contract,” constitutes a political obligation on the part of the consenting subjects to abide by the dictates and the authority of the state.
In a sense, Hobbes was first in the long line of modern-day theorists to advocate what has come to be known as statism, the unchallenged authority of the state as the supreme political institution, irrespective of the personalities involved or the idiosyncrasies of the office holders, be they kings, the king’s men, or the elected officials. And his justification was, only the state offered each and everyone the requisite measure of protection not only from one another but, just as importantly, from themselves: it protected the individual from the vagaries of human nature.
How does one move, however, from Hobbes’s grand schema to what passes nowadays for the conservative and/or liberal viewpoint? One point of departure is Edmund Burke, his famous treatise against the excesses of the French Revolution being a case in point: a conservative viewpoint is always a form of reaction, and Burke’s pamphlet fits the bill to a T. Another one, if one reaches further back, are the ideas of the French Enlightenment thinkers, the ideas which paved the way to the French Revolution. And in this respect, Hayek may have been right to single out Rousseau as the object of his venom; where he was wrong, however, was in crediting the latter with socialist leanings and mindset. In an obvious attempt to discredit liberalism by arguing for such a linkage, Hayek only discredited himself.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Les Slater
Not too easy to figure what you're getting at. One, I think important, clue is the following preface 'Macpherson says pretty much the same thing, albeit without the added benefit of the anarchistic thesis:' Without the added benefit of the anarchistic thesis!
So, your perspective is that of the anarchistic thesis. You seem to be arguing that the state has evolved to the point that it can play no further progressive role. The problem with that thesis is that the anarchists show no practical way forward.
Anarchism is NOTHING more than a REACTION to the working class not having demonstrated the use of the state to transcend the market, never mind use it as a progressive instrument to suppress the market.
Reminds me of the liberals calling for gun control.
2 - Anarcissie
Anarchists show a way forward, as do many other ideologies. Since anarchists can't reasonably compel non-anarchists to obey them and follow their ideas (that would be government) they have to wait until enough people come around to their theories voluntarily to make a difference to the general social order. We seem to be a long way from that point at the moment.
However, history appears to show that even the most liberal states evolve toward habitual war, imperialism, and tyranny, as witness the poster child, and a variety of other models. People may eventually pick up on this fact, in which case anarchistic ideologies may become more interesting to them.
3 - roger nowosielski
@1
My understanding of the anarchistic thesis, insofar as nullification of the state is concerned, is that it's deducible on both conceptual and empirical grounds: the state has been rendered incapable to serve as a concept it was designed to serve. Needless to say, any ideological position can be attended and accompanied by "an (emotional) reaction"; but that needn't detract from its validity.
By the way, I don't think there need be any inherent contradiction between anarchism and Marxism; in fact, I should think that elements of Marxism are/ought to be an integral part of the anarchistic thesis, at least insofar as relations and organization of production are concerned. So perhaps, Les, yours is a Marxist reaction ... just saying.
As another aside, can't we envisage the development of Marxism without the benefit or the accoutrements of the State? I should think we can.
I do intend in the articles to follow to lay out the conceptual foundations of an alternate political philosophy, beyond liberalism. Whether it would be correct to identify this philosophy as anarchistic, it's perhaps too early to say. The label one may care to affix to it, that, too, is of lesser importance than the soundness. So we shall have to wait and see.
The key question which will drive the upcoming series of articles: To what political entity ought we owe our allegiance and loyalty, our political/moral obligation? I take it as axiomatic that it's part of our human makeup, our basic need, to form and sustain some such allegiance. Again, the question is, what ought to be the proper object.
The nation-state, in any case, no longer deserves it, that's the anarchistic thesis. But perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself.
4 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
In your previous article, I asked:
Why is it that you consider the Bay Area - perhaps the most liberal part of America - a civilized part of the country when you've had nothing but ill to say about liberals? If we're so terrible for society, wouldn't it stand to reason, then, that the Bay Area would be one of the worst places in America to live?
And you replied:
I'm not a misanthrope, Glenn. I genuinely like people regardless of their political philosophy. Does that answer your question?
Um, no, it does not, because I didn't ask whether you liked them. I asked why it is that since you think that liberals are so terrible for society, why is it that life is so good in what is probably the single most liberal part of America? I mean, if we liberals were politically so bad, so terrible, so screwed up as you seem to believe, wouldn't the failure of our political leanings be directly reflected in systemic failures in maintaining a high standard of living for the middle- and lower classes in left-leaning areas?
5 - roger nowosielski
Why should there be any relationship of the kind you allude to in your last sentence, Glenn? Besides, I have never said the liberals were dumb, only misguided. My criticism turns on the judgment that their political philosophy is a dead end.
And as to your patting your on the back in regard to "a high standard of living" in the Bay Area and other places like it, I believe we're running on fumes: call it a fallout from times of prosperity once in abundance but now long gone.
America and the West are still in the throes of an economic crisis, and liberalism is not going to turn things around.
6 - Les Slater
@4 - Glenn,
Interesting question. I think it has much more to to do with affluence as apposed to any superficial political leanings. Affluent communities tend to be nice places, especially for the affluent. Boston area is in general fairly affluent, and liberal. The Hyde Park area of Chicago is one of the affluent communities here and liberal. In general, you need financial means beyond what average person/household has to live in these communities.
One of the characteristics of the people in these communities is they usually have been 'educated' in the 'better' of the schools available to the population at large. A good part of that 'education' is the instilling a sense of superiority, which is one of the hallmarks of modern liberals.
Since this layer very seldom directly produces much but consumes much it follows that their comfort is at the expense of others.
Les
7 - Les Slater
@3 - Roger,
Early socialism was a reaction to some of the realities of capitalism. Marxism has two fundamental progressive foundations. One is the full embracing the the philosophy of change, including revolutionary change, expounded by Hegel. The second is the understanding that capitalism creates its own gravediggers. This all within a consistently materialist outlook.
My perspective, from working directly on the front lines of the class struggle, here in Chicago and observing by various means this struggle elsewhere, I see the working class as central.
I find anarchists and the petty bourgeoisie Marxists have in common the total lack of understanding of the revolutionary potential of the working class. And worse still, fear it and often hate it.
Les
8 - roger nowosielski
I have no quarrel, Les, with the bulk of your comment, except for the last sentence.
First, I have no idea what you mean by "the petty bourgeoisie Marxists," and even if I did, it certainly doesn't address me. And second, I don't presume to be speaking for all anarchists, nor do I know many of them except on these here pages. Anarcissie is more qualified in that respect that I am. But what I am proposing is what ought to be an anarchistic thesis, or, if you find the term objectionable, a revolutionary thesis for this day and age.
9 - Les Slater
Roger,
What I mean by petty bourgeois Marxists are those that claim adherence to Marxism but due to the social milieu propagate bourgeois ideology.
Les
10 - roger nowosielski
I don't believe I was doing that, Les, even though my theory and practice are not exactly in the kind of sync I'd wish them to be.
11 - roger nowosielski
In any case, I'm going to turn in for tonite. I do appreciate, however, and most sincerely, you engaging me here. I sure hope that Cindy, troll and Anarcissie, not to mention other BC participants, will join in what may promise to be a vigorous dialogue.
12 - Christopher Rose
Although there is some food for thought here, Roger, I'm not sure that you haven't somewhat misframed both Hobbes and Locke and thus miscast your argument.
My understanding is that Hobbes championed absolute monarchism, which is not at all the same thing as the "supremacy of the state".
Furthermore, he was also that thing you constantly criticise bitterly, a liberal.
Similarly, casting Locke as a conservative seems a bit if a stretch, to say the very least, as he is generally seen as one of the most influential innovators and supporters of liberalism.
That said, I look forward to your future output about an "alternative political philosophy" with genuine interest but am troubled by your "key question".
I really don't see why we should have allegiance or loyalty to any political entity; indeed, maybe political entities are precisely what is getting in the way of a better politics?
Wouldn't it be more progressive, indeed more anarchic, if political parties and their rigid dogmas were done away with and we were left with a new system of politics that had we the people as its core and focus?
I don't agree at all that it is part of our nature to form some such political fealty, and would argue that political parties are just as manipulative and controlling as monarchy or theism and the exact opposite of anarchy and freedom for people.
The question ought to be far more ambitious and address how we can develop new, more sceptical and informed political processes that allow a better balancing of the conflicting needs for state management and control and advancing and protecting personal freedoms in an increasingly interconnected and complex world.
13 - Anarcissie
Christopher Rose, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:10 am:
'... Wouldn't it be more progressive, indeed more anarchic, if political parties and their rigid dogmas were done away with and we were left with a new system of politics that had we the people as its core and focus? ...'
Political parties with rigid dogmas are an expression of tribialism, the strong tendency of human beings to form packs, groups, groups of groups, and so on; the dogmas, like smells, diets, signs, accents, flags and so on are displays of membership. This behavior is probably inscribed on the genes, and it's not easy to get away from it. Possibly one could evolve a discourse, a 'philosophy', so to speak, which was a sort of solvent that would denature the more violent and oppressive aspects of tribalism; but then this would be another dogma, so it would have to provide for its self-destruction.
14 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
My criticism turns on the judgment that their political philosophy is a dead end. And as to your patting your on the back in regard to "a high standard of living" in the Bay Area and other places like it, I believe we're running on fumes: call it a fallout from times of prosperity once in abundance but now long gone.
You're waiting on '...a dead end', and our society is 'running on fumes'. I'm not saying that you're conservative, but your comment sorta reminds me of the apocalyptic warnings of conservatives for the past several generations - with the liberals are in charge, our nation/society/civilization is sure to collapse.
So let's put a name to this collapse that you're waiting on, that you're sure is going to arrive sooner or later. Let's call it "Godot".
15 - roger nowosielski
Am not waiting for anything, Glenn. I well realize that, as in everything, there's no wine before its time. All I'm trying to do is come up with a new paradigm, and the requisite concepts, to enable us to think in new and innovative ways about the human condition. So that when the time comes ...
16 - Glenn Contrarian
Well said. That's why I included you as one of the ones I thanked for constructive criticism in my book.
17 - Les Slater
I observe what appears to me as a tendency to see 'human nature' as static and also negative. I find 'human nature' to be prime in our ability to overcome the negative social consequences of the rule of capital.
Far from being horrified by political parties and the state, I find them an ever increasing necessity before we can get to a point where they can then recede and whither away.
18 - roger nowosielski
Challenging comment, Chris. I only wish that some of my comrades-in-arms were equally critical.
First, my reading of Hobbes, from the vantage point of history, is a different one. Writing in the aftermath of the Civil War and the beheading of Charles I, I see him as advocating the absolute sovereignty of the state, as opposed to that of a mere monarch. As to Locke, I grant that the prevalent opinion is that he's one of the founders of liberal thought, but then again, compared, say, to the precursors of the French Revolution and their motto, "Libert�, �galit�, fraternit�," Locke does come across as a conservative.
My project is more ambitious than meets the eye. I should say that my use of the term "political" is neither normative or derogatory but more akin to Aristotle's usage, "Man is a political animal," whereby the activity of and engagement in politics is considered as it were the zenith, all-comprehensive and inclusive of all other social concerns
19 - roger nowosielski
I don't how you get that impression, Les. Neither Christopher Rose nor I believe in the fixity of human nature but, at least from the evolutionary standpoint, view it as malleable. Even Anarcissie, the most pessimistic of the bunch, doesn't seem to believe in it either, as evidenced. for instance, by her #2.
As to the remainder of your comment, I'm rather ambivalent about the value you seem to attach to partisan politics. Quite the contrary, I think there is a definite need to start building alliances along different, more comprehensive principles than around single issues, which spells politics as usual. Especially in light of the dwindling working class, at least in the post-industrial West, I see a definite need for the working class to start identifying with the poor, the dispossessed, and the invisibles, with all humanity that is suffering, to attain what Kant had called "the Kingdom of Ends."
20 - Les Slater
Roger,
In my #17 I was addressing Anarcissie's #13 and Macpherson, page #4.
Les
21 - roger nowosielski
Got you.
22 - cindy
We largely become what we learn to become...Hitler could have danced on the aboriginal plains of New Guinea.
23 - Cindy
Les,
Know anything about this part of China?
Residents push lawn mowers on a street in Nanjie village of Luohe city in China's central Henan province September 24, 2012. Nanjie village, with more than 3,100 residents, is touted to be one of the remaining models of communist China, where the principles of morality and collectivism of the late Chairman Mao still strictly guide the people's daily lives. Aside from free housing, healthcare, food rations and education, locals working in the village's factories receive an average salary of 2500 yuan, about 400 dollars. The village's return to communism came at the same time as the rest of the country opened up to the capitalist market in the mid 1980s. Mao is still highly revered in Nanjie, enjoying a god-like status. REUTERS/Jason Lee
24 - Cindy
This is of interest to anarchists and communists, as well as to Glenn Contrarian.
How Did Nanjie Village Overcome the Free-Rider Problem?
To summarize, in a collective economy, the free-rider problem is not insurmountable. In a community with suitable conditions for repeated games, if the political and social environment creates and sustains mutually compatible, cooperation-inducing expectations, "one for all and all for one" will become a better strategy for everyone than "free ride." As a consequence, the aggregate welfare of the community will be maximized. When the maximized total payoff is distributed fairly among the community members, the mutually compatible, cooperation-inducing expectations will be reinforced. Through such a feedback loop, a benign circle of good will and good behavior arises.
25 - roger nowosielski
Interesting that you bring it up. Cindy, but my next series of essays will commence with "the Free Rider Problem," albeit in a different, liberal-democratic context.