History of Ideas 2012/17/12
In this paper I will conduct a comparison and discussion of the evolution of human society based on the views of Thomas Hobbes, Adam Smith, and Karl Marx. To make this comparison I will first outline the views of each thinker separately explaining Hobbes views on ‘the state of nature’ and the social contract, followed by Smith and his ‘man inside’ including his theory of history and Marx’s stages of human society resulting in the socialist revolution leading to communism. Then follows a comparison of the three thinkers where their differences and similarities are discussed very much based on the time they lived in and how this has influenced their thoughts. In the conclusion I sum up my findings and emphasize the importance of considering time when drawing conclusions on theories of the past’s theorists. The Social Contract Since the social contract will be referred to several times in this study I will start by a brief introduction to this. The social contract is an implicit agreement between all members of society, or between the people and the ruler, to collaborate on social benefits. There are different views on the social contract especially regarding sovereignty. E.g. in Jean Bodin’s opinion the sovereign determines the laws but are not bound himself contrasting John Locke who sees the people as sovereign and government has been created through their consent, this is also in contrast to Hobbes. The social contract is used to explain the origins of governments and obligations of its subjects. The reason why the social contract is relevant in this paper is because it keeps important insight into Hobbes and Smith’s view on human nature. Thomas Hobbes 1588-­‐1679 The Reformation in the 16th century was followed by mass unrest and Hobbes also experienced both the British civil war (1642-­‐51) and the 30 year war (1618-­‐48). Thomas Hobbes thus lived in a time of conflicts and many historians suggest that he was ruled by fear. This may very well have led to his view on human society. In his book, Leviathan, Hobbes describes ‘the state of nature’ as the natural condition of human society which is a state of conflict and war. Man, in this stage, is a rational egoist governed by appetites and emotions of hatred, pride, despair, etc. No government exists in this state wherefore everyone must be equal. This equality, to Hobbes, entail that people can kill each other which lead to great suspicious of one another and to avoid risk man avoids human contact. The primary goal to men thus becomes security to escape the state of nature. This can only be realized by dominating all other men but since all are equal this becomes the ambition for everyone and it leads to a deadlock situation. Nonetheless, at some point people will agree to appoint a law-­‐giver and law-­‐
enforcer i.e. they elect a sovereign and this is the moment of the social contract. The sovereign is an absolutist ruler with unconditional power and unaccountable to the people he rules. Freedom of speech and other rights belong in the state of nature, Hobbes argues, this censure is necessary to maintain order otherwise it will lead to conflict and a shift back to the state of nature. The social contract is thus not a contract between the people and the ruler but only between the people. So, in order to get peace and security men give up their freedom, to the sovereign, in turn of protection. Page 1 of 5
History of Ideas 2012/17/12
In Hobbes view, the evolution of human society happens in two stages from the state of nature to civil society. When men decide to elect the sovereign they are no longer primitive beings but citizens of a civil society. Hobbes’ interpretation of the social contract is very different from classical social contracts of other theorists. With his interpretation Hobbes legitimizes absolutist rule with a sovereign that cannot be judged or punished. Hence, according to Hobbes there are only two possibilities for human society: either to be in a state of nature characterized by war and conflict or get peace in the civil society ruled by an absolutist sovereign by giving up their freedom. Adam Smith 1723-­‐1790 The Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th century was a time portrayed by progress, optimism, knowledge, and an opposition to absolutist rule. The industrial revolution (1750-­‐1820) brought about technological developments which had great effects on society e.g. population growth and urbanization. It is also the beginning of a money economy and liberal thoughts arise as a way to question authority. Adam Smith was one of the Scottish Enlightened thinkers whom, among other things, debate human nature: whether it is good or bad and how it matches the emergence of the capital economy. Smith does not discard God but notes that what holds society together is not God, but compassion of human nature. He talks about ‘the little man inside’ who helps you determine what is good and what is bad. Smith is thus an optimist who believes that man is capable of controlling his feelings and using them in the right way. Smith’s view on the evolution of human society is tied to the social contract and the origins of government. In his lectures on Jurisprudence (207: iv 19) Smith notes about the origin of government: “how it arose, not as some writers imagine from any consent or agreement of a number of persons to submit themselves to such or such regulations, but from the natural progress which men make in society” Smith thus argues that the social contract does not exist. Instead, government is the product of a natural development, similar to Montesquieu, that he presents in this theory on history where he outlines four stages of society: 1. Age of hunters 2. Age of shepherds 3. Age of agriculture 4. Age of commerce In the 3rd stage, land was property and inheritance thus gained importance which resulted in a legal development. In the 4th stage, which happens during Smith’s time, the exchange economy arises and society is split into classes and the division of labor increases. With the emergence of property and possession, in the age of shepherds, the need for government arises. The origin of government is thus Page 2 of 5
History of Ideas 2012/17/12
an outcome of necessity during the process towards wealth. The development of human society is thus a natural process of four stages and there is thus no social contract between parties. Karl Marx 1818-­‐1883 Karl Marx was very much inspired by G. W. F. Hegel and most of what Marx wrote was based on a critique of Hegel. Hegel was an idealist, i.e. your perception and knowledge of the world determines how you perceive it. On the other hand Marx is a historical materialist and the base of his thoughts is on reality. Historical materialists look for the causes of developments and changes in human society by looking at empirical evidence leading to general results and abstractions. Inspired by Hegel, Marx conducts a dialectical analysis of the material world and the evolution of society which is the basis for his view on the stages of human society. Marx identifies 6 stages of human society which happens as a logical and natural development, because at each stage conflicts arise resulting in a new and higher stage: -­‐
Primitive communism: tribal society and ownership – hunting, cattle, agriculture -­‐
Slave society: ancient communal state and ownership – slaves, private property developing, aristocracy, city state -­‐
Feudalism: landed property, small production, aristocracy rule, merchants evolve into capitalists -­‐
Capitalism: capitalists are the ruling class creating and employing the proletariat -­‐
Socialism: proletarian revolution deposes capitalist dictatorship replacing with dictatorship of the proletariat, socialization of the means of production can be realized -­‐
Communism : classless and stateless society According to Marx, society must be educated and industrialized before the revolution can happen resulting in a communist society. The end of history, i.e. the final form of government and the last stage in society’s development, comes with class. This is in opposition to Hegel1 who saw the end of history with the state because to Hegel, the state was neutral, which is certainly, was not to Marx. Comparison There are, of course, both differences and similarities to these three thinkers. Especially because they lived in different times characterized by different events and situations and this has had great influence on their line of thought and their conclusions on what the end of society should be. Each of them have made their contribution to what human society has and should evolve into and what is central to all 1
And Fukuyama, author of ’The End of History and the Last Man’ who also say the end of history with the state in a Western liberal democracy. Page 3 of 5
History of Ideas 2012/17/12
three of them is that, no matter how many stages there are or what they lead to, the stages reflect advancing conditions for mankind in each thinker’s perspective. Furthermore, they all carry elements of a deterministic way of thought. That one step leads on to the next, e.g. in Marx’ view revolution will be the inevitable outcome of capitalism. Then, of course, each thinker is very much a product of his time. Hobbes wrote in a time of war and conflict, and so, one of man’s basic needs, security, was not fulfilled. Security is thus prioritized over other values, such as individual freedom which Smith values and the solution would therefore be an absolutist ruler that dictates right and wrong which the citizens must follow without questions. Authority is thus central, sovereignty cannot be questioned and the stat is necessary because it is the protector of peace. Smith, in contrast, wrote in a time of optimism and progress before the social problems of market economy, such as poverty, stress of the working class, etc. arose. He thus has a very optimistic view on the future and rather questions authority than promote it. The state should only be a safeguard of private property, supply infrastructure and education and defend the country. He is not marked by 100 years of war and to him, government as a provider of security is not as much in focus as in Hobbes’ time. Marx, who has seen the exploitative effects of capitalism on labor, does in turn have a critical view on capitalism. However, he holds an optimistic view of the future as well because the basic contradictions in the capitalist society would lead to its own collapse leading the way for revolution and a communist society in which the exploitation of labor would not exist. The outcome of Marx’ stage theory is thus a fair and just society characterized by equality. Their view of how to get from one stage to the next also differs. Smith sees the process of stages and the development of government as happening gradually over time and Marx partly agrees with this expect for the revolution and shift from capitalist to socialist. Here Hobbes, perhaps influenced by the shift brutality of war, sees a sudden ‘jump’ from one stage to the next as one goes directly from the state of nature to civil society with no introductory face. One may question, how this would be possible in reality. Another difference is there view on human nature, where Hobbes’ very pessimistic view on man as the rational egoist governed by appetites is in sharp contrast to Smith’s ‘man inside’ which is basically a notion of the compassionate human. In Smith’s view, man does follow his own wants and needs, like in Hobbes’ state of nature, but it leads to good and desirable outcomes for himself and society. Smith establishes individualistic theory where social processes and structures result from the qualities of individuals. Marx however, has seen the alienating effects of the individualistic capitalism and thus proposes a communist ideal of a collective society. Their differing views on human beings are always reflected in their thoughts about the social contract. Hobbes argues that people will voluntarily give up their freedom to a sovereign ruler standing outside the contract, a quite radical theory of the social contract as most would see the sovereign as also bound by the contract, again, a reflection of his time and Hobbes’ belief that an absolutist ruler is necessary to keep men in awe. Smith completely breaks with social contract stating that there is no contract. Civil society depends on the state of the people and the historical evolution that has taken society to where it is today, there is thus no ‘jump’ as in Hobbes theory of stages. Page 4 of 5
History of Ideas 2012/17/12
These differences outline the importance of history and how it affects our views on society, life and human nature. Why did Hobbes think of man as a rational egoist and not a social creature, like Locke did? Why did Smith see man as compassionate? When using these thinkers theories and concepts this is thus very important to keep in mind as it must be considered and accounted for when trying to apply to our own time. Today, Western liberal democracy has shown that man does not have to live in the state of nature, even though he is not ruled by an absolutist sovereign. History proved Marx wrong, at least the socialist revolution has not arrived yet, but does that mean that Smith was right at the last stage was the age of commerce? Does it mean that there are no further stages mankind will progress towards? Is Western liberal democracy the end of history? Most likely not, and searching for the answer in the past will probably not give us the answer as their realty was very different from ours. Conclusion This paper gives insight into three very different ways of looking at the evolution of human society. Thomas Hobbes, Adam Smith and Karl Marx each present their contribution to this process. Hobbes who lived in a time of war saw the end of human society as a society in peace. He saw man merely as an animal and thus should be governed by an absolutist ruler. Thus going from the state of nature, a state of war and conflict, men will decide a law-­‐giver and law-­‐enforcer thus enter directly into civil society. Peace will thus happen at the expense of individual freedom. Smith, on the other hand, who is a strong proponent of individual freedom, suggests four stages to his theory of history. His theory is very much marked by the perspective of progress and optimism of the Enlightenment. He questions authority rather than supporting the absolutism of it and sees man, not as a rationalist egoist, but as a compassionate creature that by acting based on his own needs will contribute to the progress of society. Marx who has seen the downsides of capitalism puts forward the most elaborate stage theory and thus proposes that the stages do not end in the age of commerce but with the socialist revolution and a communist society. Thus the end of history ends with class differences. The paper also puts emphasis on the fact that these three thinkers lived in three different centuries and this should be accounted for when studying their theories and applying them to present time. We are always marked and influenced by our experiences and events happening in and before our lifetime and this becomes very clear when comparing Hobbes, Smith and Marx’s view on the evolution of human society. Page 5 of 5