Friday 8 May 2020
HOBBES'S LEVIATHAN - Part of "The State In Economic Theory"
Hobbes managed for the rising capitalist bourgeoisie an epistemological
feat that has not been equaled since he wrote: - he managed, that is, to
combine the positivist scientific
hypothesis of Galileo-Newtonian mechanics with the jusnaturalist political convention of innate human
rights, and thereby to erect bourgeois political practice on effectual
scientific grounds. Hobbes begins with the positivist
scientific hypothesis of the “universal conflict” between human beings taken as
wholly egoistic atomic individuals, and from there he develops “rationally” -
with the “rationality” of the “laws” of mechanics - the jusnaturalist political convention (common-wealth) that will make
social life possible based on the “natural rights” of these conflicting
individuals. (This astute twining of positivist authoritarianism and jusnaturalist
contractualism is masterfully unjumbled by
In order to erect his political theory, Hobbes starts from the Euclidean
axiom that each human being represents a “point” or “body” entirely unconnected
to other human “points” or “bodies” and entirely self-interested or,
mechanically put, having its own momentum or “appetitus” or “conatus” –
which Hobbes calls “Power”. From this
axiom he deduces that the original, most “natural” state of human beings, the
“state of nature” or status naturae,
is a state of civil war (bellum civium)
or “the war of all against all” (bellum
omnium contra omnes). This “clash of wills” or appetites, this “war of all
against all”, can lead logically only to a deterministic mechanical equilibrium in which there is no “room for manoeuvre for the individual freedom of the will”
(Schumpeter quoted above) because each individual will is bound by the wills
and boundless appetites of other wills, or else to the assured self-destruction
of human beings. This is Hobbes’s scientific
hypothesis taken directly out of Galileo-Newtonian mechanics.
The way out of equilibrium or stasis
is provided by the ultima ratio, the
absolutely indispensable right to and need for self-preservation, which leads
these atomic self-interested individuals to reach freely a political con-vention, an agreement or “social contract”
that can avert mutually assured destruction. Here the positive empirical evidence of a society that the bourgeoisie has
reduced coercively to little more
than a moral jungle from which all notion of “natural law” has been expunged
meets with and satisfies the jusnaturalist
(natural-law) requirement that individuals must agree freely and rationally to a political regime that will protect them
from civil war. Hobbes acknowledges that what coerces individuals to accept
this bourgeois political regime based on “the laws of the marketplace” is the metus mortis, the fear of death at the
hands of any other individual. And given that each individual is axiomatically
defined as being “equal” in the ability to harm another in the state of nature,
then it follows axiomatically that each individual decides freely (by political
convention, otherwise known as “social contract”) and rationally (by scientific hypothesis,
following the definition of in-dividuals in conflict) to erect a “common
wealth” or State or status civilis
that will protect them from certain death.
The central feature of capitalism is that the bourgeoisie has tried as
far as is humanly possible without tearing asunder the very fabric of human
society to reduce this society to the state of absolute possessive individualism.
That is why all accounts of bourgeois economic theory must start with the
axiomatic postulate of this possessive individualism. Hobbes did not neglect to
include in the “possessive” part the ability of individuals to buy or sell
their own “power”, meaning both their physical possessions and their
labour-power, in exchange for physical possessions. In the Leviathan, he describes “the value or worth or price of a man” as “so much as would be given for the use of his power”. Clearly, Hobbes had
already an embryonic notion of what Marx would theorize later as
“labour-power”, the commodified form of living labour in capitalist industry.
As Loasby has very perceptively pointed out (in Equilibrium and Evolution), the “complete decentralization” of
economic decisions that is implicit in Hobbesian political theory and then in
Walrasian equilibrium economic theory makes the co-ordination of economic decisions
“a matter of life and death”. This is indeed another factor that makes the
Hobbesian-Walrasian schema or blueprint absolutely axiomatic for the analysis
of capitalism. But this interdependence of human economic action is still
subordinated to the axiomatic primacy of individual self-interest;
consequently, it cannot form part of equilibrium theory except as a Hobbesian ultima ratio or dira necessitas ob metum mortis, dire necessity in fear of death,
as we explained above.
Make no mistake: the Hobbesian mechanical
science we mean here is not an “objective science”, - for as Nietzsche
demonstrated, there is and there can be no such “thing”! The science we intend here is a political practice based on the
inflexible application of axiomatic rules to human society by a historically
specific social class – the capitalist bourgeoisie. It was Max Weber who
undertook the monumental project to separate the spheres of “value-rationality”
whereby ends can be adjusted and connected rationally to available means and
“purposive rationality” whereby means can be adjusted and approximated to
chosen ends that remain irrational by definition. The bourgeoisie would be
blind deaf and mute without this inflexible science, which is why it has
erected the most fabled monuments to it. This science consists for the bourgeoisie
in placing political decisions in a precise
relationship to the existing relations of power in society that it has
imposed to its own advantage so as to be able to reproduce them according to its
own axiomatic postulates or schema. And then, of course, in presenting these
political decisions as “that
peculiar jumble of conditioning and freedom, which economic life shows us”, which is
how Schumpeter defines “economic science”.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment