The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

Summary

The Communist Manifesto reflects an attempt to explain the goals of Communism, as well as the theory underlying this movement. It argues that class struggles, or the exploitation of one class by another, are the motivating force behind all historical developments. Class relationships are defined by an era's means of production. However, eventually these relationships cease to be compatible with the developing forces of production. At this point, a revolution occurs and a new class emerges as the ruling one. This process represents the "march of history" as driven by larger economic forces.

Modern Industrial society in specific is characterized by class conflict between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. However, the productive forces of capitalism are quickly ceasing to be compatible with this exploitative relationship. Thus, the proletariat will lead a revolution. However, this revolution will be of a different character than all previous ones: previous revolutions simply reallocated property in favor of the new ruling class. However, by the nature of their class, the members of the proletariat have no way of appropriating property. Therefore, when they obtain control they will have to destroy all ownership of private property, and classes themselves will disappear.

The Manifesto argues that this development is inevitable, and that capitalism is inherently unstable. The Communists intend to promote this revolution, and will promote the parties and associations that are moving history towards its natural conclusion. They argue that the elimination of social classes cannot come about through reforms or changes in government. Rather, a revolution will be required.

The Communist Manifesto has four sections. In the first section, it discusses the Communists' theory of history and the relationship between proletarians and bourgeoisie. The second section explains the relationship between the Communists and the proletarians. The third section addresses the flaws in other, previous socialist literature. The final section discusses the relationship between the Communists and other parties.

Context

In 1847, a group of radical workers called the "Communist League" met in London. They commissioned Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who had recently become members, to write a manifesto on their behalf, soon known as the Communist Manifesto. Marx was the principle author, with Engels editing and assisting. The Communist Manifesto was originally published in London in 1848. Of all the documents of modern socialism, it is the most widely read and the most influential. It is the systematic statement of the philosophy that has come to be known as Marxism.

Marx (1818-1883) was a German philosopher, economist and sociologist, as well as a political revolutionary. He met Engels (1820-1895) when he moved to Paris after 1843, and they worked together on several essays. Marx and Engels are best known for their revolutionary writings about Communism. One of Marx's primary intellectual influences was the work of G.W.F. Hegel. Hegel's theory presents history as a process in which the world becomes conscious of itself as spirit. Marx took this idea and furthered it, arguing that as man becomes conscious of himself as spirit, the material world causes him to feel increasingly alienated from himself. Escape from this alienation requires a revolution.

Marx and Engels were not simply content with theorizing about revolution in the abstract, however. They thought that theory was only useful insofar as it promotes social change, clarifying the proper means and ends of revolution; they were thus not only authors, but activists, and believed that by theorizing they were actively influencing history. The Communist Manifesto can be understood as one attempt to influence history by spreading information about the communist movement.

Marx's theory should be understood in the context of the hardships suffered by 19th-century workers in England, France and Germany. The Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries created a seemingly permanent underclass of workers, many of whom lived in poverty under terrible working conditions and with little political representation. The Communist Manifesto was written on the eve of the Revolution of 1848 in Germany. The failure of this worker and student-led revolution caused Marx to later revise some of the arguments and predictions that appear in the Communist Manifesto. However, the general structure of Marx's original arguments, as well as its revolutionary tone, remained unchanged.

Terms

Bourgeoisie - Composing the class of modern Capitalists, the bourgeoisie are the employers of wage laborers, and the owners of the means of production.

Means of production - The means of production include not only the physical instruments of production (tools, machines, etc.), but also the methods of working (skills, forms of cooperation, division of labor, etc.), and knowledge that can be applied to production (science, etc.).

Mode of production - The economic structure of society that defines people's mode of living. It consists of the means of production as well as the relations of production.

Proletariat - The class of modern wage-laborers. They do not have their own means of production, and therefore they must sell their own labor in order to survive.

Relations of production - The necessary relations between people as required for a certain form of material production. The relations of production refer to the distribution of the means of production, the forms of possession (collective and individual private property), and the distribution of the product.

Introduction and Section 1, Bourgeois and Proletarians (Part 1)

Summary

The Manifesto begins by announcing, "A spectre is haunting Europe--the spectre of Communism." All of the European powers have allied themselves against Communism, frequently demonizing its ideas. Therefore, the Communists have assembled in London and written this Manifesto in order to make public their views, aims and tendencies, and to dispel the maliciously implanted misconceptions.

The Manifesto begins by addressing the issue of class antagonism. Marx writes, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Throughout history we see the oppressor and oppressed in constant opposition to each other. This fight is sometimes hidden and sometimes open. However, each time the fight ends in either a revolutionary reconstruction of society or in the classes' common ruin.

In earlier ages, we saw society arranged into complicated class structures. For example, in medieval times there were feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices and serfs. Modern bourgeois society sprouted from the ruins of feudal society. This society has class antagonisms as well, but it is also unique: class antagonisms have become simplified, as society increasingly splits into two rival camps--Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

The Manifesto then shows how the modern bourgeoisie is the product of several revolutions in the mode of production and of exchange. The development of the bourgeoisie began in the earliest towns, and gained momentum with the Age of Exploration. Feudal guilds couldn't provide for increasing markets, and the manufacturing middle class took its place. However, markets kept growing and demand kept increasing, and manufacture couldn't keep up. This led to the Industrial Revolution. Manufacture was replaced by "Modern Industry," and the industrial middle class was replaced by "industrial millionaires," the modern bourgeois. With these developments, the bourgeoisie have become powerful, and have pushed medieval classes into the background. The development of the bourgeoisie as a class was accompanied by a series of political developments. With the development of Modern Industry and the world-market, the bourgeoisie has gained exclusive political sway. The State serves solely the bourgeoisie's interests.

Historically, the bourgeoisie has played a quite revolutionary role. Whenever it has gained power, it has put to an end all "feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations." It has eliminated the relationships that bound people to their superiors, and now all remaining relations between men are characterized by self-interest alone. Religious fervor, chivalry and sentimentalism have all been sacrificed. Personal worth is now measured by exchange value, and the only freedom is that of Free Trade. Thus, exploitation that used to be veiled by religious and political "illusions" is now direct, brutal and blatant. The bourgeoisie has changed all occupations into wage-laboring professions, even those that were previously honored, such as that of the doctor. Similarly, family relations have lost their veil of sentimentality and have been reduced to pure money relations.

In the past, industrial classes required the conservation of old modes of production in order to survive. The bourgeoisie are unique in that they cannot continue to exist without revolutionizing the instruments of production. This implies revolutionizing the relations of production, and with it, all of the relations in society. Thus, the unique uncertainties and disturbances of the modern age have forced Man to face his real condition in life, and his true relations with others.

Because the bourgeoisie needs a constantly expanding market, it settles and establishes connections all over the globe. Production and consumption have taken on a cosmopolitan character in every country. This is true both for materials and for intellectual production, as national sovereignty and isolationism becomes less and less possible to sustain. The bourgeoisie draws even the most barbaric nations into civilization and compels all nations to adopt its mode of production. It "creates a world after its own image." All become dependent on the bourgeoisie. It has also increased political centralization.

Thus, we see that the means of production and of exchange, which serve as the basis of the bourgeoisie, originated in feudal society. At a certain stage, however, the feudal relations ceased to be compatible with the developing productive forces. Thus the "fetters" of the feudal system had to be "burst asunder," and they were. Free competition replaced the old system, and the bourgeoisie rose to power.

Marx then says that a similar movement underway at the present moment. Modern bourgeois society is in the process of turning on itself. Modern productive forces are revolting against the modern conditions of production. Commercial crises, due, ironically, to over-production, are threatening the existence of bourgeois society. Productive forces are now fettered by bourgeois society, and these crises represent this tension. Yet in attempting to remedy these crises, the bourgeoisie simply cause new and more extensive crises to emerge, and diminish their ability to prevent future ones. Thus, the weapons by which the bourgeoisie overcame feudalism are now being turned on the bourgeoisie themselves.

Commentary

The Communist Manifesto opens with a statement of its purpose, to publicize the views, aims and tendencies of the Communists. As such it is a document intended to be read by the public, and it is meant to be easily grasped by a general audience. It is also meant to be a broad description of what Communism is, both as a theory and as a political movement.

In this first section, Marx already introduces several of the key ideas of his theory. One main idea is that all of history until now is the story of a series of class struggles. Underlying all of history, then, is this fundamental economic theme. The most important concept being discussed here is the concept that each society has a characteristic economic structure. This structure breeds different classes, which are in conflict as they oppress or are oppressed by each other. However, this situation is not permanent. As history "marches" on, eventually the means of production cease to be compatible with the class structure as-is. Instead, the structure begins to impede the development of productive forces. At this point, the existing structure must be destroyed. This explains the emergence of the bourgeoisie out of feudalism. It will also explain the eventual destruction of the bourgeoisie. Marx believes that all of history should be understood in this way--as the process in which classes realign themselves in compliance with changing means of production.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of this theory of history is what it does not deem important. In Marx's theory, history is shaped by economic relations alone. Elements such as religion, culture, ideology, and even the individual human being, play a very little role. Rather, history moves according to impersonal forces, and its general direction is inevitable.

Marx believes that this type of history will not go on forever, however. The Manifesto will later argue that the modern class conflict is the final class conflict; the end of this conflict will mark the end of all class relations. This section begins to suggest why this might be, positing some of the ways in which the modern era is unique. First, class antagonisms have been simplified, as two opposing classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, emerge. Secondly, while exploitative relationships were previously hidden behind things like ideology, now the veil has been lifted and everything is seen in terms of self- interest. Thirdly, in order for the bourgeoisie to continue to exist, they must continually revolutionize the instruments of production. This leaves social relations in an unprecedentedly unstable state.

Section 1, Bourgeois and Proletarians (Part 2)

Summary

After examining the nature and history of the bourgeoisie, the Manifesto now turns to the proletariat. As the bourgeoisie developed, so did the proletariat, and it is the proletariat who will eventually destroy the bourgeoisie. The proletarians live only as long as they can find work, and they can find work only as long as their labor increases capital. They are a commodity, and are vulnerable to all the fluctuations of the market. Due to the development of machines and the division of labor, the proletarian's work has lost all "charm;" the proletarian is simply an appendage of a machine. Furthermore, as his work becomes more repulsive, his wage only decreases. Marx describes the worker as a soldier, and as a slave. Distinctions of age and sex are becoming less important as all people are simply instruments of labor. Furthermore, no sooner does the worker get his wages from his exploitative boss, then he is exploited by other bourgeoisie, such as his landlord.

The lower strata of the middle class, such as tradespeople, gradually sink into the proletariat. This is due to the fact that they lack sufficient capital, and the fact that technology has rendered their specialized skills no longer useful.

The Manifesto then describes the past history of the proletariat. As soon as this class was created it began to struggle with the bourgeoisie. This struggle originally involved the individual laborer, and later groups of workers, rebelling against the bourgeois that directly exploited them. These workers hoped to revive the medieval status of the worker. At this point, the workers were still disorganized, divided by geography and by competition with one another. Furthermore, when they did form unions, they were under the influence of the bourgeois, and actually served to further the objectives of the bourgeoisie.

However, with the modern development of industry, the proletariat increased in number, and became stronger and more concentrated. Furthermore, distinctions among laborers began to dissolve, as all shared equally low wages and equally unsure livelihoods. At this point, workers began to form trade unions and other associations, a process in which they are still engaged at the time of the Manifesto's writing. The proletariat is further helped in its unification by the increased means of communication made possible by modern industry, allowing for the struggles to take on national character. While the organization of the proletariat into a class is continually destroyed by competition among workers, each time it rises again stronger. Furthermore, as other classes try to use the proletarians to forward political their own ends, they give them tools to fight the bourgeoisie.

Marx explains that the only class today that is really revolutionary is the proletariat. All of the other classes that fight the bourgeoisie--such as the shopkeeper--are conservative, fighting to preserve their existence. Among the proletariat, however, the Old Society is already past preservation. "Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests."

Historically, the proletariat are also unique. In the past, when a class got the upper hand, it tried to subject all of society to its own mode of appropriation. However, the proletariat lack any property of their own to retain or expand. Rather, they must destroy all ways of securing private property at all. Another unique characteristic of the proletariat is that, while past movements were started by minorities, the proletariats are a vast majority, and are acting in the interest of that majority.

The proletarians' struggle is first and foremost a national struggle. Marx writes that he has traced the proletariat's development through a veiled civil war, up to the point of open revolution and the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie. Until now, every society has been based on class oppression. In order for a class to be able to be oppressed, however, its slavish existence must be sustainable, held steady: in contrast, laborers in modern industrial society are continually suffering a deterioration of their status; they become poorer and poorer. The bourgeoisie are thus unfit to rule, because they cannot guarantee "an existence to its slave within its slavery." Thus, with the development of Modern Industry, the bourgeoisie produces "its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."

Commentary

Marx spends a significant portion of this section discussing the plight of the modern laborer. He argues that the worker is commodified, and seen as part of the machinery. He matters only in so far as he produces, and he does not have control over the fruits of his labor. The story of the laborer is a story of flagrant exploitation, and has had great resonance with many of Marx's readers.

Marx also presents ways in which the proletariat are a unique class. They are connected by improved communication, and by the miserable existence they share in common. They are also in the majority in society, and their numbers are increasing. The most significant trait of the proletariat, however, is that they have nothing to lose. By the nature of being proletarians, they have no power or privileges they must defend. Rather, to help themselves they must destroy the entire system. Because of this, when they have their revolution, they will destroy the entire system of class exploitation, including all private property. Thus, the stage of history that Marx is describing is the last stage. However, it is important to understand that this stage is only possible because of all the other stages that came before it. The proletariat had to be ready for revolution.

Section 2, Proletarians and Communists

Summary

The Manifesto then discusses the relationship of the Communists to the proletarians. The immediate aim of the Communists is the "formation of the proletariat into a class, [the] overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, [and the] conquest of political power by the proletariat." The Communists' theory simply describes a historical movement underway at this very moment. This includes the abolition of private property.

Marx says that Communists have been "reproached" for desiring to abolish the "right" of acquiring private property through the fruits of one's labor. However, he points out, laborers do not acquire any property through their labor. Rather, the "property" or capital they produce serves to exploit them. This property, controlled by the bourgeoisie, represents a social--not a personal--power. Changing it into common property does not abolish property as a right, but merely changes its social character, by eliminating its class character. In a Communist society, then, labor will exist for the sake of the laborer, not for the sake of producing bourgeois-controlled property. This goal of communism challenges bourgeois freedom, and this is why the bourgeois condemn the Communist philosophy. Marx writes, "You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population." Despite what the bourgeois claim, Communism doesn't keep people from appropriating the products of labor. Rather, it keeps them from subjugating others in the process of this appropriation.

The Manifesto then addresses some objections to Communism. Many dissenters maintain that no one will work if private property is abolished. However, by this logic, bourgeois society should have been overcome with laziness long ago. In reality, it is presently the case that those who work don't acquire anything, and those who acquire things don't work. Other opponents hold that Communism will destroy all intellectual products. However, this reflects a bourgeois misunderstanding. The disappearance of "class culture" is not the same thing as the disappearance of all culture.

Marx moves to the arguments against the "infamous" Communist proposal of abolishing the family. He says the modern family is based on capital and private gain. Thus he writes, the Communists "plead guilty" to wanting to do away with present familial relations, in that they want to stop the exploitation of children by their parents. Similarly, they do not want to altogether abolish the education of children, but simply to free it from the control of the ruling class. Marx complains that the bourgeois "clap-trap" about family and education is particularly "disgusting" as Industry increasingly destroys the family ties of the proletarians; thus it renders family and education as means for the transformation of children into articles of commerce.

Communists are also criticized for their desire to abolish country and nationality. Marx replies that workingmen have no country; and we can't take from them what they don't have. National differences and antagonisms lose significance as industrialization increasingly standardizes life.

Marx then says that those charges against Communism based on religion, philosophy, or ideology "are not deserving of serious examination." Man's consciousness changes with the conditions of his material existence. "The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class." In response to the claim that there are certain universal ideas, such as that of Justice, that have transcended the vicissitudes of history, Marx replies that this universality is only an apparent one, reflecting an overriding history of exploitation and class antagonism. The Communist revolution is a radical rupture in traditional property relations. It should be no surprise that it accompanied by radical changes in traditional ideas.

We see then that the first step in the working class' revolution is to make the proletariat the ruling class. It will use its political power to seize all capital from the bourgeoisie and to centralize all instruments of production under the auspices of the State. Of course, in the beginning this will not be possible without "despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production." Probable steps in the revolution will include: the abolition of ownership of land; the institution of a heavy progressive or graduated income tax; the abolition of all inheritance rights; the confiscation of emigrants' and rebels' property, making all people liable to labor; State centralization of credit; State centralization of communication and transportation; State appropriation of factories, the gradual combination of agriculture and manufacturing industries, the elimination of the distinctions between town and country, and the establishment of free education for children.

When class distinctions have disappeared, public power will lose its political character. This is because political power is nothing more than "the organized power of one class for oppressing another." When the proletariat eliminate the old conditions for production, they will render class antagonism impossible, and thereby eliminate their own class supremacy. Bourgeois society will be replaced by an "association" in which "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

Commentary

One of Marx's most interesting claims in this section is that the ideas of religion and philosophy are actually rooted in people's material existence; particular ideas are only the results of certain relationships of production. The most enduring or prevailing ideas are simply those that serve the interests of the ruling class. Thus, the ruling class makes the rules that structure society, and supports those ideas that forward its own ends. For example, the bourgeoisie glorify property rights because they are the ones in society with property.

This is also the section where Marx gives a sense of what he thinks the revolution will be like. The workers become the rulers, and work to eliminate private property. It is important to consider in which instances the Manifesto is simply trying to describe a historical process, and in which instances it is also advocating particular methods and goals: Communism understands history to be an unchangeable force, but also as leading to a morally desirable outcome. The question thus arises, What is the Communist's role in the historical process? If the revolution is an inevitable force of history, we might even question why the Communist Manifesto is necessary.

Finally, this section is interesting because it exhibits Marx's techniques of responding to criticisms. Marx is harsh and often quite sarcastic about the critiques of Communism. Consider whether his approach is rhetorically effective. Would he be more convincing if he took a more serious tone about the critiques of Communism? Would the Manifesto retain its "revolutionary" character if he did change his tone?

Section 3, Socialist and Communist Literature

Summary

In this section, Marx presents and critiques three subsets of Socialist and Communist literature. The first subset is Reactionary Socialism. Reactionary Socialists include the Feudal Socialists, the Petty-Bourgeois Socialists, and the German, or "True" Socialists; all of these groups fight against the rise of the bourgeoisie and modern Industry, without realizing the historical process the bourgeoisie represent. Feudal Socialists were French and English aristocrats who wrote against modern bourgeois society. However, their chief complaint about the bourgeois was that it creates a revolutionary proletariat that will uproot the old order of society. Thus, they objected to the bourgeoisie because they were a threat to their way of life. The Petty- Bourgeois Socialists were a class that saw it would eventually lose its separate status and become part of the proletariat. Marx concedes that the Petty- Bourgeois publications successfully showed the contradictions of the conditions of modern production. However, their suggested alternatives to this contradictory system were either to restore the old means of production and exchange, or to push the modern means of production and exchange into the framework of old property relations. Thus, this socialism is "reactionary and Utopian" and can't accept the facts of history. Third there is German, or "True" Socialism. These German thinkers adopted some French socialist and Communist ideas, without realizing that Germany did not share the same social conditions as France. As contemplated by the German thinkers, the French ideas lost all practical significance and were "emasculated." These socialists supported the aristocracy and feudal institutions against the rising bourgeoisie, forgetting that the rise of the bourgeoisie is a necessary historical step. The "true" socialists support the interests of the petty- bourgeoisie, and thus support the status quo. They even reject class struggles. Marx claims that almost all of the so-called Communist and Socialist literature in Germany at this time are in fact of this character.

The second subset of Socialism is Conservative, or Bourgeois, Socialism. This subset reflects the desires of a segment of the bourgeois to redress social grievances, in order to guarantee the continued existence of bourgeois society. Followers of this idea include "economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, [and] hole-and-corner reformers of every kind." They want the advantages of the social conditions generated by Modern Industry, without the struggles and dangers that necessarily accompany them. "They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat." These bourgeoisie believe that the best society is the society in which they have power; they want the proletariat to keep its weak role, but to stop hating the dominant bourgeoisie. A second form of this kind of Socialism recognizes the fact that only changes in economic relations could help the proletariat. However, the upholders of this kind of socialism do not accept that such changes necessarily entail a destruction of the relations of production. Rather, they wish to make administrative reforms, which simply decrease the cost and amount of administrative work for the bourgeois government.

The third subset is Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism. This subset originated with the first attempts of the proletariat to achieve their own ends. The attempts were reactionary, and the proletariat had not yet reached the maturity and economic conditions necessary for emancipation. These socialists therefore looked for new social laws to create the material conditions necessary to free the proletariat. Their writings are important because they attacked every principle of existing society, and are thus useful for enlightening the working class. However, they are of a Utopian character: although their vision did reflect authentic proletariat "yearnings" to reconstruct society, it was ultimately a "fantastic" vision, providing no basis for practical action. Thus the Critical-Utopian Socialists become less significant as the modern class struggle takes shape; lacking practical significance, their "fantastic" attacks lose theoretical justification. Thus, while the founders were in many ways revolutionaries, their followers are mere reactionaries. They oppose political action by the proletariat.

Commentary

This section is principally a review of other Socialist thinkers. Marx argues that each approach fails because it misses out on a key component of Communist theory. The Reactionaries fail to realize that the inevitability of the bourgeoisie's rise, and of their eventual fall at the hands of the proletariat. The Conservative Socialists, similarly, fail to see the inevitability of class antagonism, and of the destruction of the bourgeoisie. The Critical-Utopian Socialists fail to understand that social change must occur in revolutions, and not by pure dreaming or words.

For a modern reader, Marx's discussion of the second subgroup perhaps deserves the most consideration. The Conservative Socialism that Marx condemns is precisely the attitude embraced by countries like the United States toward the plight of workers. Welfare, Social Security and a minimum wage are all measures that Marx would dismiss as attempts to preserve the capitalist system by making the situation of the proletariat tolerable. It is worth considering, then, whether Marx's critique is convincing. Basically, Marx seems to argue that these "reforms" are actually done in the interests of the bourgeois, in order to placate the proletariat and make them accept their social role. Marx believes that this form of Socialism is misguided; he contends that the only way to really address the grievances of the proletariat is through a restructuring of economic and social relations. This is a revolutionary act; the suggested reforms of Conservative Socialists are merely palliative. How does Marx's critique hold up to states such as the U.S. or Western European nations--nations that have instituted such "Conservative Socialist" programs? Is Marx correct in stating that these reforms serve the interests of the ruling capitalists, and not the workers? Looking back from the present, and having thus seen "Conservative Socialism" in action, does historical evidence still support Marx's claims of the inevitability of a proletariat uprising? Does it support the desirability of such an uprising?

Section 4, Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties

Summary

The Manifesto concludes with a discussion about the role of the Communists as they work with other parties. The Communists fight for the immediate aims of workers, but always in the context of the entire Communist movement. Thus, they work with those political parties that will forward the ends of Communism, even if it involves working with the bourgeoisie. However, they never stop trying to instill in the working class a recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, and to help them gain the weapons to eventually overthrow the bourgeoisie.

Thus, "the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things." They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by forcibly overthrowing all existing social conditions. The Manifesto ends with this rallying cry: "Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!"

Commentary

This final section reveals the political agenda of the Communists. Their final goal is always a proletariat revolution and the abolition of private property and class antagonism. Because they believe that history must go through a set of stages, however, this may mean sometimes supporting the bourgeoisie, in order to eventually make a workers' revolution possible. While the Communists have a strong theoretical foundation, integrating observations and predictions, they are also advocating those predictions, and attempting to accelerate their realization. Thus, they do not simply declare that workers shall one day unite. Rather, they call on workers to unite, promising them freedom and a better world. How separable are the political and theoretical messages of the Communists? Is the Communists' theory of history an essential part of its revolutionary message? Consider from a rhetorical perspective how the Communist cause might be helped or harmed by the claim that revolution is inevitable.

Political Economy of the Great Leap Forward

Permanent Revolution and State Feudal Communes

By Satya J. Gabriel

A bird flies above
A wooden man-made figure
Of a bird flying.

The Great Leap Forward was an extraordinarily creative intervention in Chinese economic development. It is one of those "moments" in Chinese history that is testament to Mao Zedong's willingness to experiment, as well as his political savvy in seizing control of the apparatuses of government out of the hands of his intellectual and political adversaries within the Communist Party of China (CPC). Given that more conservative leaders, such as Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping, described Mao's approach as "adventurism" and were, in general, not predisposed to experimentation (preferring, instead, to copy Stalinist industrialization, including the adoption of similar production technology and social arrangements as were found in the "western" capitalist economies --- what the leftists called "pulling the cart without watching the road") it is no mean feat that the Great Leap Forward could have been approved and adopted as policy. None of this is to be taken as indication of the Great Leap Forward's success, quite the contrary. The policy seems to have been an unmitigated disaster, generating a "crisis" in Chinese society that would ultimately be resolved in ways unfavourable to Mao's political, economic, and cultural vision of a future China. However, this doesn't change the fact that the policy was grounded in a logical theory of economic development (albeit not an orthodox version of Marxian theory --- Mao's theoretical arguments for the Great Leap Forward were, in fact, contrary to more conventional versions of Marxian theory, particularly the Stalinist interpretation of Marxian theory) and represented an unambiguous social invention --- an invention that was tested on a grand scale. Thus, when the invention proved faulty, the failure was similarly on a grand scale.

The failure of the Great Leap Forward was, no doubt, humiliating for Mao and the Left. But just as Mao had used the failure of the five-year plans as a weapon to beat the party conservatives into submission, the Right now used the Great Leap Forward to push back the Left and regain prominence within the Party. Liu Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping, and other more conservative members of the Party moved into positions of greater authority and influence and the Great Leap Forward --- which now appeared more like a Great Fall Downward --- was terminated.

Despite the failure of the Great Leap Forward and the later failure of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (henceforth referred to simply as the Cultural Revolution), the Maoist narrative of "permanent revolution," as embodied in the ideas of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, did not fail. It would be correct to say that the particular politics and economics of these two social movements has been largely discredited by mainstream social science and the current political orthodoxy in China, but not the ontological foundation for them: the Maoist narrative of the ongoing struggle within the social formation to destroy traditional (conservative) institutions, ways of thinking (consciousness), and social processes, such that a radically new set of institutions, ways of thinking, and social processes can be advanced remains a potent intellectual force in China.

Edited excerpt from http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/sgabriel/economics/china-essays/4.html

URGENT: Help Mr Faizad win the Outstanding Youth in Education Award!

Hello students of Mr Faizad,

I'm Mrs Eunice Toh -- Mr Faizad's GP colleague. I recently nominated him for the Outstanding Youth in Education (yes! he's still YOUNG!!) award given out by the Ministry of Education to capable young teachers and the nomination has been accepted.

The selection process requires me to submit a form that includes comments about Mr Faizad by his students.

Hence, this is an invitation to all of his students to give comments that will support this nomination.

Please try to give specific evidence in your comments rather than vague statements about how "awesome" Mr Faizad is...

Examples of areas you can comment on:
- how he motivates, encourages, inspires, challenges you
- how he helps you in character and moral development
- how he cultivates innovation and enterprise (like via this blog!)

Kindly send your SHORT comments to this blog OR if you want to be more discreet, my email add: low_wei_en_eunice@moe.edu.sg

Deadline: tomorrow, Thur 12 Feb 5pm latest.

So sorry about the tight deadline. I wasn't given much time to fill out the form.

Many thanks for your support.

Mrs E. Toh
GP tutor

Identify two ideas from the passage that challenge the status quo of your country. Do you think these ideas will work in your society?

Two ideas from the passage that challenge the status quo of Singapore are that of Plato’s and Nietzsche.

The first idea is that of Plato’s. Plato proposes that the primary function of the state is to advocate and promote justice. He believes that the state should be just by allowing everyone to follow their own inclinations and talents. He does not encourage the striving for advancement and cut-throat competition in society. This is a stark contrast to Singapore’s meritocratic stance. Singapore advocates meritocracy, where people have to prove their abilities in order to advance in society. With meritocracy, competition is even more intense as people constantly compete to climb up the social ladder. Furthermore, Singapore is a pragmatic country where society favours certain talents that can help enhance Singapore’s economic status in the world. Jobs in the engineering and scientific research field, which can bring in higher revenue and income, may enjoy a slight advantage over a career in the theatre and the arts. As such, some people who have talent in the arts may force themselves to take up a career in the science field, going against their natural inclinations.

If Plato’s theory were adopted in Singapore, upward mobility would no longer be forced amongst people in society. Everyone can follow their inclinations and interests, and face much lesser competition. As a result, Plato’s theory may serve as an antidote to Singaporeans’ hectic and stressful modern lives. However, this is unlikely to work well in Singapore, a small and open economy with no natural resources. If meritocracy was not advocated, and people are allowed to pursue whatever dreams and interests they have, there may be an unequal distribution of talent in each sector. There may also be no incentive for people to work hard since there is no competition to the top. Singapore relies largely on its human resources to compete on the global arena and hence needs to develop talent that can aid in its social and economic development. Plato’s theory would hinder Singapore’s goal towards social and economic progress if the best talent are not developed, and people were simply allowed to pursue their own interests and inclinations.

The second idea is that of Nietzsche. German philosopher Nietzsche advocates and believes in. He feels that there should be equality of capabilities and that one group pursues advantages relative to another. This is in stark contrast to what the Singapore government is doing. The government believes and tries to provide equality of opportunities. In Singapore, individuals are usually not denied of an entry point but how that progress henceforth would depend on how they fare.

Thus Nietzsche’s idea will probably not work in Singapore’s context where meritocracy is much prized and valued as it allows individuals equality on opportunities. Also such a concept is very important in ensuring peace and stability in Singapore due to its multi-racial society. By practicing meritocracy, unhappiness between the different racial groups due to unequal opportunities and discrimination can be avoided. As such, if Nietzsche’s idea were to be implemented in Singapore, there will be much unhappiness between racial groups especially if the people in a certain racial group have better qualifications for education and job opportunities for example.

In addition, being small and lacking in resources, Singapore has to make the most of its few resources. One of these is its people. By ensuring equality of opportunities the Singapore government ensures that the best possible candidates are picked for various tasks and jobs. This in turn ensures that the government makes that most of its human resource. If Nietzsche’s idea were to be taken up, then Singapore’s human resources will not be maximised and this would hinder its development and growth.

Nevertheless, Nietzsche’s idea might work in Singapore as by ensuring equality of capabilities the overly competitive nature of Singaporeans might decrease. This is so as everyone in society is equal and thus there would be no need to compete with each other since everyone will be able to produce the same result. However this would be detrimental to Singapore as Singapore would then lose its competitive edge and fighting spirit to compete with other countries as competition within our society will probably help to increase the rate of development of our efficiency and capabilities.

Inez Foong, Rachel Chin 09S03K

Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut (1961)

I'd like you to read this famous story and think about whether Nietzsche wasn't on to something when he criticized the naive idea of human equality.

---

THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.

Some things about living still weren’t quite right, though. April, for instance, still drove people crazy by not being springtime. And it was in that clammy month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron’s fourteen-year-old son, Harrison, away.

It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn’t think about it very hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn’t think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.

George and Hazel were watching television. There were tears on Hazel’s cheeks, but she’d forgotten for the moment what they were about.

On the television screen were ballerinas.

A buzzer sounded in George’s head. His thoughts fled in panic, like bandits from a burglar alarm.

“That was a real pretty dance, that dance they just did,” said Hazel.

“Huh?” said George.

“That dance – it was nice,” said Hazel.

“Yup,” said George. He tried to think a little about the ballerinas. They weren’t really very good – no better than anybody else would have been, anyway. They were burdened with sashweights and bags of birdshot, and their faces were masked, so that no one, seeing a free and graceful gesture or a pretty face, would feel like something the cat drug in. George was toying with the vague notion that maybe dancers shouldn’t be handicapped. But he didn’t get very far with it before another noise in his ear radio scattered his thoughts.

George winced. So did two out of the eight ballerinas.

Hazel saw him wince. Having no mental handicap herself she had to ask George what the latest sound had been.

“Sounded like somebody hitting a milk bottle with a ball peen hammer,” said George.

“I’d think it would be real interesting, hearing all the different sounds,” said Hazel, a little envious. “All the things they think up.”

“Um,” said George.

“Only, if I was Handicapper General, you know what I would do?” said Hazel. Hazel, as a matter of fact, bore a strong resemblance to the Handicapper General, a woman named Diana Moon Glampers. “If I was Diana Moon Glampers,” said Hazel, “I’d have chimes on Sunday – just chimes. Kind of in honor of religion.”

“I could think, if it was just chimes,” said George.

“Well – maybe make ‘em real loud,” said Hazel. “I think I’d make a good Handicapper General.”

“Good as anybody else,” said George.

“Who knows better’n I do what normal is?” said Hazel.

“Right,” said George. He began to think glimmeringly about his abnormal son who was now in jail, about Harrison, but a twenty-one-gun salute in his head stopped that.

“Boy!” said Hazel, “that was a doozy, wasn’t it?”

It was such a doozy that George was white and trembling and tears stood on the rims of his red eyes. Two of the eight ballerinas had collapsed to the studio floor, were holding their temples.

“All of a sudden you look so tired,” said Hazel. “Why don’t you stretch out on the sofa, so’s you can rest your handicap bag on the pillows, honeybunch.” She was referring to the forty-seven pounds of birdshot in canvas bag, which was padlocked around George’s neck. “Go on and rest the bag for a little while,” she said. “I don’t care if you’re not equal to me for a while.”

George weighed the bag with his hands. “I don’t mind it,” he said. “I don’t notice it any more. It’s just a part of me.

“You been so tired lately – kind of wore out,” said Hazel. “If there was just some way we could make a little hole in the bottom of the bag, and just take out a few of them lead balls. Just a few.”

“Two years in prison and two thousand dollars fine for every ball I took out,” said George. “I don’t call that a bargain.”

“If you could just take a few out when you came home from work,” said Hazel. “I mean – you don’t compete with anybody around here. You just set around.”

“If I tried to get away with it,” said George, “then other people’d get away with it and pretty soon we’d be right back to the dark ages again, with everybody competing against everybody else. You wouldn’t like that, would you?”

“I’d hate it,” said Hazel.

“There you are,” said George. “The minute people start cheating on laws, what do you think happens to society?”

If Hazel hadn’t been able to come up with an answer to this question, George couldn’t have supplied one. A siren was going off in his head.

“Reckon it’d fall all apart,” said Hazel.

“What would?” said George blankly.

“Society,” said Hazel uncertainly. “Wasn’t that what you just said?”

“Who knows?” said George.

The television program was suddenly interrupted for a news bulletin. It wasn’t clear at first as to what the bulletin was about, since the announcer, like all announcers, had a serious speech impediment. For about half a minute, and in a state of high excitement, the announcer tried to say, “Ladies and gentlemen – ”

He finally gave up, handed the bulletin to a ballerina to read.

“That’s all right –” Hazel said of the announcer, “he tried. That’s the big thing. He tried to do the best he could with what God gave him. He should get a nice raise for trying so hard.”

“Ladies and gentlemen” said the ballerina, reading the bulletin. She must have been extraordinarily beautiful, because the mask she wore was hideous. And it was easy to see that she was the strongest and most graceful of all the dancers, for her handicap bags were as big as those worn by two-hundred-pound men.

And she had to apologize at once for her voice, which was a very unfair voice for a woman to use. Her voice was a warm, luminous, timeless melody. “Excuse me – ” she said, and she began again, making her voice absolutely uncompetitive.

“Harrison Bergeron, age fourteen,” she said in a grackle squawk, “has just escaped from jail, where he was held on suspicion of plotting to overthrow the government. He is a genius and an athlete, is under–handicapped, and should be regarded as extremely dangerous.”

A police photograph of Harrison Bergeron was flashed on the screen – upside down, then sideways, upside down again, then right side up. The picture showed the full length of Harrison against a background calibrated in feet and inches. He was exactly seven feet tall.

The rest of Harrison’s appearance was Halloween and hardware. Nobody had ever worn heavier handicaps. He had outgrown hindrances faster than the H–G men could think them up. Instead of a little ear radio for a mental handicap, he wore a tremendous pair of earphones, and spectacles with thick wavy lenses. The spectacles were intended to make him not only half blind, but to give him whanging headaches besides.

Scrap metal was hung all over him. Ordinarily, there was a certain symmetry, a military neatness to the handicaps issued to strong people, but Harrison looked like a walking junkyard. In the race of life, Harrison carried three hundred pounds.

And to offset his good looks, the H–G men required that he wear at all times a red rubber ball for a nose, keep his eyebrows shaved off, and cover his even white teeth with black caps at snaggle–tooth random.

“If you see this boy,” said the ballerina, “do not – I repeat, do not – try to reason with him.”

There was the shriek of a door being torn from its hinges.

Screams and barking cries of consternation came from the television set. The photograph of Harrison Bergeron on the screen jumped again and again, as though dancing to the tune of an earthquake.

George Bergeron correctly identified the earthquake, and well he might have – for many was the time his own home had danced to the same crashing tune. “My God –” said George, “that must be Harrison!”

The realization was blasted from his mind instantly by the sound of an automobile collision in his head.

When George could open his eyes again, the photograph of Harrison was gone. A living, breathing Harrison filled the screen.

Clanking, clownish, and huge, Harrison stood in the center of the studio. The knob of the uprooted studio door was still in his hand. Ballerinas, technicians, musicians, and announcers cowered on their knees before him, expecting to die.

“I am the Emperor!” cried Harrison. “Do you hear? I am the Emperor! Everybody must do what I say at once!” He stamped his foot and the studio shook.

“Even as I stand here –” he bellowed, “crippled, hobbled, sickened – I am a greater ruler than any man who ever lived! Now watch me become what I can become!”

Harrison tore the straps of his handicap harness like wet tissue paper, tore straps guaranteed to support five thousand pounds.

Harrison’s scrap–iron handicaps crashed to the floor.

Harrison thrust his thumbs under the bar of the padlock that secured his head harness. The bar snapped like celery. Harrison smashed his headphones and spectacles against the wall.

He flung away his rubber–ball nose, revealed a man that would have awed Thor, the god of thunder.

“I shall now select my Empress!” he said, looking down on the cowering people. “Let the first woman who dares rise to her feet claim her mate and her throne!”

A moment passed, and then a ballerina arose, swaying like a willow.

Harrison plucked the mental handicap from her ear, snapped off her physical handicaps with marvelous delicacy. Last of all, he removed her mask.

She was blindingly beautiful.

“Now” said Harrison, taking her hand, “shall we show the people the meaning of the word dance? Music!” he commanded.

The musicians scrambled back into their chairs, and Harrison stripped them of their handicaps, too. “Play your best,” he told them, “and I’ll make you barons and dukes and earls.”

The music began. It was normal at first – cheap, silly, false. But Harrison snatched two musicians from their chairs, waved them like batons as he sang the music as he wanted it played. He slammed them back into their chairs.

The music began again and was much improved.

Harrison and his Empress merely listened to the music for a while – listened gravely, as though synchronizing their heartbeats with it.

They shifted their weights to their toes.

Harrison placed his big hands on the girl’s tiny waist, letting her sense the weightlessness that would soon be hers.

And then, in an explosion of joy and grace, into the air they sprang!

Not only were the laws of the land abandoned, but the law of gravity and the laws of motion as well.

They reeled, whirled, swiveled, flounced, capered, gamboled, and spun.

They leaped like deer on the moon.

The studio ceiling was thirty feet high, but each leap brought the dancers nearer to it. It became their obvious intention to kiss the ceiling.

They kissed it.

And then, neutralizing gravity with love and pure will, they remained suspended in air inches below the ceiling, and they kissed each other for a long, long time.

It was then that Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General, came into the studio with a double-barreled ten-gauge shotgun. She fired twice, and the Emperor and the Empress were dead before they hit the floor.

Diana Moon Glampers loaded the gun again. She aimed it at the musicians and told them they had ten seconds to get their handicaps back on.

It was then that the Bergerons’ television tube burned out.

Hazel turned to comment about the blackout to George.

But George had gone out into the kitchen for a can of beer.

George came back in with the beer, paused while a handicap signal shook him up. And then he sat down again. “You been crying?” he said to Hazel.

“Yup,” she said,

“What about?” he said.

“I forget,” she said. “Something real sad on television.”

“What was it?” he said.

“It’s all kind of mixed up in my mind,” said Hazel.

“Forget sad things,” said George.

“I always do,” said Hazel.

“That’s my girl,” said George. He winced. There was the sound of a riveting gun in his head.

“Gee – I could tell that one was a doozy,” said Hazel.

“You can say that again,” said George.

“Gee –” said Hazel, “I could tell that one was a doozy.”

The Prince

Niccolo Machiavelli

---

CHAPTER XVII

Concerning Cruelty And Clemency, And Whether It Is Better To Be Loved Than Feared

COMING now to the other qualities mentioned above, I say that every prince ought to desire to be considered clement and not cruel. Nevertheless he ought to take care not to misuse this clemency. Cesare Borgia was considered cruel; notwithstanding, his cruelty reconciled the Romagna, unified it, and restored it to peace and loyalty. And if this be rightly considered, he will be seen to have been much more merciful than the Florentine people, who, to avoid a reputation for cruelty, permitted Pistoia to be destroyed. Therefore a prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty; because with a few examples he will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to arise, from which follow murders or robberies; for these are wont to injure the whole people, whilst those executions which originate with a prince offend the individual only.

And of all princes, it is impossible for the new prince to avoid the imputation of cruelty, owing to new states being full of dangers. Hence Virgil, through the mouth of Dido, excuses the inhumanity of her reign owing to its being new, saying:

Res dura, et regni novitas me talia cogunt
Moliri, et late fines custode tueri. ¹

Nevertheless he ought to be slow to believe and to act, nor should he himself show fear, but proceed in a temperate manner with prudence and humanity, so that too much confidence may not make him incautious and too much distrust render him intolerable.

Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.

Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony. Besides, pretexts for taking away the property are never wanting; for he who has once begun to live by robbery will always find pretexts for seizing what belongs to others; but reasons for taking life, on the contrary, are more difficult to find and sooner lapse. But when a prince is with his army, and has under control a multitude of soldiers, then it is quite necessary for him to disregard the reputation of cruelty, for without it he would never hold his army united or disposed to its duties.

Among the wonderful deeds of Hannibal this one is enumerated: that having led an enormous army, composed of many various races of men, to fight in foreign lands, no dissensions arose either among them or against the prince, whether in his bad or in his good fortune. This arose from nothing else than his inhuman cruelty, which, with his boundless valour, made him revered and terrible in the sight of his soldiers, but without that cruelty, his other virtues were not sufficient to produce this effect. And shortsighted writers admire his deeds from one point of view and from another condemn the principal cause of them. That it is true his other virtues would not have been sufficient for him may be proved by the case of Scipio, that most excellent man, not of his own times but within the memory of man, against whom, nevertheless, his army rebelled in Spain; this arose from nothing but his too great forbearance, which gave his soldiers more licence than is consistent with military discipline. For this he was upbraided in the Senate by Fabius Maximus, and called the corrupter of the Roman soldiery. The Locrians were laid waste by a legate of Scipio, yet they were not avenged by him, nor was the insolence of the legate punished, owing entirely to his easy nature. Insomuch that someone in the Senate, wishing to excuse him, said there were many men who knew much better how not to err than to correct the errors of others. This disposition, if he had been continued in the command, would have destroyed in time the fame and glory of Scipio; but, he being under the control of the Senate, this injurious characteristic not only concealed itself, but contributed to his glory.

Returning to the question of being feared or loved, I come to the conclusion that, men loving according to their own will and fearing according to that of the prince, a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others; he must endeavour only to avoid hatred, as is noted.

Note

1. ...against my will, my fate,
A throne unsettled, and an infant state,
Bid me defend my realms with all my pow'rs,
And guard with these severities my shores.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thinking It Over:

What are the reasons Machiavelli gives for saying that it is preferable to be feared by the population than to be loved?

Taking It Further:

1) Looking at the state of modern liberal Western democracies today, are his views still relevant or are they archaic?

2) Are Machiavelli’s views of politics relevant to the context of Singapore’s political scene?

An Extract from The Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes

Chapter XIII

OF THE NATURAL CONDITION OF MANKIND AS CONCERNING THEIR FELICITY AND MISERY

Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself.

And as to the faculties of the mind, setting aside the arts grounded upon words, and especially that skill of proceeding upon general and infallible rules, called science, which very few have and but in few things, as being not a native faculty born with us, nor attained, as prudence, while we look after some what else, I find yet a greater equality amongst men than that of strength. For prudence is but experience, which equal time equally bestows on all men in those things they equally apply themselves unto. That which may perhaps make such equality incredible is but a vain conceit of one’s own wisdom, which almost all men think they have in a greater degree than the vulgar; that is, than all men but themselves, and a few others, whom by fame, or for concurring with themselves, they approve. For such is the nature of men that how so ever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more eloquent or more learned, yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves; for they see their own wit at hand, and other men’s at a distance. But this proveth rather that men are in that point equal, than unequal. For there is not ordinarily a greater sign of the equal distribution of any thing than that every man is contented with his share.

From this equality of ability arise the equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end (which is principally their own conservation, and sometimes their delectation only) endeavour to destroy or subdue one another. And from hence it comes to pass that where an invader hath no more to fear than another man’s single power, if one plant, sow, build, or possess a convenient seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared with forces united to dispossess and deprive him, not only of the fruit of his labour, but also of his life or liberty. And the invader again is in the like danger of another.

And from this diffidence of one another, there is no way for any man to secure himself so reasonable as anticipation; that is, by force, or wiles, to master the persons of all men he can so long till he see no other power great enough to endanger him: and this is no more than his own conservation requireth, and is generally allowed. Also, because there be some that, taking pleasure in contemplating their own power in the acts of conquest, which they pursue farther than their security requires, if others, that otherwise would be glad to be at ease within modest bounds, should not by invasion increase their power, they would not be able, long time, by standing only on their defence, to subsist. And by consequence, such augmentation of dominion over men being necessary to a man’s conservation, it ought to be allowed him.

Again, men have no pleasure (but on the contrary a great deal of grief) in keeping company where there is no power able to overawe them all. For every man looketh that his companion should value him at the same rate he sets upon himself, and upon all signs of contempt or undervaluing naturally endeavours, as far as he dares (which amongst them that have no common power to keep them in quiet is far enough to make them destroy each other), to extort a greater value from his contemners, by damage; and from others, by the example.

So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory.

The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. The first use violence, to make themselves masters of the other men’s persons, wives, children, and cattle; the second, to defend them; the third, for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue, either direct in their persons or by reflection in their kindred, their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name.

Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man. For war consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of time is to be considered in the nature of war, as it is in the nature of weather. For as the nature of foul weather lieth not in a shower or two of rain, but in an inclination thereto of many days together: so the nature of war consisteth not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is peace.

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same is consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thinking It Over:

In Hobbes’ opinion, what are the 3 primary causes of quarrel between Man?

Taking It Further:

1) Do you agree with Hobbes that Man is in a constant state of war? Why?

2) How would such a mindset affect the way contemporary societies are organised? Is this broadly beneficial or harmful to mankind?

Online: http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/leviathan/