In his time, Hobbes was accused of atheism, and later, of materialism. But I attribute such accusations to a prejudice against him on the part of his critics. Hobbes is a no-nonsense philosopher, rejecting superstition in all forms, which often leads him to oversimplification, which is not, however, an altogether destructive defect. For instance, Stalin saw simplification (which, in his mind, was a scientific reduction to the basics) as a higher philosophical virtue, and the word oversimplification would of course be to him merely a word of opprobrium, reflecting the opponents’ negative attitude toward the perceived simplification. Hobbes’s all-encompassing materialism is deduced from his treatment of life as a motion of the limbs, from which he arrives at the notion of the commonwealth, which he calls Leviathan, as an “artificial man,” who is thus accessible to scientific study, just like that other creation of art: man himself. This is much more than an analogy. To me, this is Hobbes’s choice of method. Ridiculing the non-scientific gibberish of University professors, “the schoolmen,” he does not wish to be accused of being one of them, should his political philosophicality happen to be just as unscientific as theirs. Profoundly impressed by the works of Galileo and Kepler, he finds for himself an ingenious scientific method to study social organization, like physicians would study the human body.
Hobbes’ political philosophy rests virtually entirely on his understanding of the state of nature as “a war of all against all,” where there is no property, no justice, and no injustice, where force and fraud are the highest of all virtues. (What for Machiavelli is a product of deep idealistic disappointment in reality, for Hobbes is a simple statement of fact.)
Hobbes is horrified by all forms of anarchy, and naturally his desiderata are law and order, which can only be provided by strong established power. He is not opposed to “tyranny,” as to him this word is nothing but an expression of opprobrium toward the monarchy, on the part of its critics. Social organization, in his scheme of things, starts with pure “democracy,” as people, unhappy with living in the “state of nature,” which is the state of permanent war, come together to form a commonwealth, in which they must all agree to be ruled by an absolute sovereign of their choice, for as long as their sovereign provides them with peace and protection from harm in exchange for their liberty. Once the sovereign is thus democratically chosen, all the power is invested in him (or in it, if that is an assembly). The sovereign then makes laws, using his power to enforce them. Justice is now his exclusive domain, because in Hobbes’s definition justice is obeying the sovereign’s law. There is no way to impeach the sovereign, or to object to his choice of successor, unless he (or it) shows incompetence in performing the covenanted sovereign duties, or puts his subjects’ right of self-preservation in jeopardy. In such cases, all bets are off.
There are two important points to take notice of here. One is that Hobbes’ position is antithetical to the idea of checks and balances, actively promoted by the majority of other political philosophers, notably including Machiavelli before him and Locke after him. If ever the expression “people deserve their government” was embodied in a specific political doctrine, our Hobbes is its epitome. Once you yourselves have chosen your Sovereign, do not dare to complain! The other point is that Hobbes comes so close to the idea of “national interest” that his political theory appears to become glued to it, to the full exclusion of any internal struggle whatsoever (such as class struggle for instance) within his commonwealth, while external forces (practically all other commonwealths) are hostile to it, hence their peaceful coexistence becomes a virtual impossibility, which, in turn, makes the role of the sovereign ever more important, and provides further legitimacy for his (its) absolutist excesses.
In this line of thought, I can easily call Hobbes yet another early harbinger of the actual Totalitarian State, which prides itself on the original democratic support of its citizens, and sees this support as its license of absolute power. It also thrives on the concept of one whole and indivisible national interest, and regards all opposition to the State as a willful subversion of this national interest, and further draws its absolute power from the strong fear of an outside threat, and sometimes even hostile encirclement.
Comrade Stalin was, of course, the consummate Hobbesian Sovereign. And so is Mr. Putin today, which is undoubtedly the biggest part of his huge mass appeal.
Hobbes’ political philosophy rests virtually entirely on his understanding of the state of nature as “a war of all against all,” where there is no property, no justice, and no injustice, where force and fraud are the highest of all virtues. (What for Machiavelli is a product of deep idealistic disappointment in reality, for Hobbes is a simple statement of fact.)
Hobbes is horrified by all forms of anarchy, and naturally his desiderata are law and order, which can only be provided by strong established power. He is not opposed to “tyranny,” as to him this word is nothing but an expression of opprobrium toward the monarchy, on the part of its critics. Social organization, in his scheme of things, starts with pure “democracy,” as people, unhappy with living in the “state of nature,” which is the state of permanent war, come together to form a commonwealth, in which they must all agree to be ruled by an absolute sovereign of their choice, for as long as their sovereign provides them with peace and protection from harm in exchange for their liberty. Once the sovereign is thus democratically chosen, all the power is invested in him (or in it, if that is an assembly). The sovereign then makes laws, using his power to enforce them. Justice is now his exclusive domain, because in Hobbes’s definition justice is obeying the sovereign’s law. There is no way to impeach the sovereign, or to object to his choice of successor, unless he (or it) shows incompetence in performing the covenanted sovereign duties, or puts his subjects’ right of self-preservation in jeopardy. In such cases, all bets are off.
There are two important points to take notice of here. One is that Hobbes’ position is antithetical to the idea of checks and balances, actively promoted by the majority of other political philosophers, notably including Machiavelli before him and Locke after him. If ever the expression “people deserve their government” was embodied in a specific political doctrine, our Hobbes is its epitome. Once you yourselves have chosen your Sovereign, do not dare to complain! The other point is that Hobbes comes so close to the idea of “national interest” that his political theory appears to become glued to it, to the full exclusion of any internal struggle whatsoever (such as class struggle for instance) within his commonwealth, while external forces (practically all other commonwealths) are hostile to it, hence their peaceful coexistence becomes a virtual impossibility, which, in turn, makes the role of the sovereign ever more important, and provides further legitimacy for his (its) absolutist excesses.
In this line of thought, I can easily call Hobbes yet another early harbinger of the actual Totalitarian State, which prides itself on the original democratic support of its citizens, and sees this support as its license of absolute power. It also thrives on the concept of one whole and indivisible national interest, and regards all opposition to the State as a willful subversion of this national interest, and further draws its absolute power from the strong fear of an outside threat, and sometimes even hostile encirclement.
Comrade Stalin was, of course, the consummate Hobbesian Sovereign. And so is Mr. Putin today, which is undoubtedly the biggest part of his huge mass appeal.
No comments:
Post a Comment