Plato

Introduction
Plato was born in Athens in 427 BC when the civilization of ancient Greece was at the zenith
of glory and eminence. He belonged to royal blood of aristocracy, from his mother’s side he
was related to Solan, the law giver. He made efforts to discover the eternal principles of
human conduct i-e justice, temperance and courage which alone imbibed the happiness to
the individual and stability to the states. In 399 BC, the turning point came in the life of
Plato, the defeat of Athens by Sparta made him to despise democracy.
He wandered abroad for twelve years in Persia, Egypt, Africa, Italy and Sicily in the hours of
disillusionment, absorbing wisdom from every source and tasting every creedal dogma.
Then he returned to Athens and opened an academy. He wrote about 36 treaties all in the
form of dialogues. His academy became the best school in Athens.

Work of Plato
“The Republic” is the most important and authentic work of Plato. It was about political
philosophy, ethics, education and metaphysics.
Other works of Plato include: “The Politicus”, “The Apology”, “The Meno”, “The Protagoras”,
“The Gorgias”, and “The Critias”.

The Republic and Plato

“The true romance of the Republic is the romance of free intelligence, unbound by
custom, untrained indeed by human stupidity and self will, able to direct the
forces, even of customs and stupidity themselves along the road to a national
life.” (Prof. Sabine)

The Republic is an excellent product of Plato’s maturity. It is a major contribution to political

philosophy, education, economics, moral aspects of life and metaphysics.

Plato’s Republic known as “Respublica” in Latin is translated from Greek word “Politeia or
Polity” which means a political constitution in general. It is an achievement of
comprehension, perfection and universality of thought. It presents a picture not of any
existing state in Greek but of an ideal state in which weakness of the existing states were to
be avoided.

Rousseau said, “The Republic is not a mere work upon politics but the finest
treatise on education that ever was written.”

Main feature of the Republic is the virtue of knowledge. Plato was of the view that different
classes and individuals had different capacities for the attainment of virtues. The labor class
showed the least capacity. Philosophers were the best entitled to rule the state because of
their superiority in virtue. Plato considered justice to be the supreme virtue and his ideal
state be dwelt with it. We can say that the Republic is his master piece. Plato’s Republic is
the crowning achievement of art, science and philosophy.

According to Baker, “The mainspring of the Republic is Plato’s aversion to

contemporary Capitalism and his great desire to substitute a new scheme of
Socialism.”

Criticism
The Republic contains a good deal of criticism on contemporary institutions, opinions and
practices. The Republic represents a strong protest against the teachings of Sophists and
the existing social and political corruption.

Plato stresses that state should not be an assembly of corrupt and selfish individuals but be
a communion of souls united for the pursuit of justice and truth and also for the welfare of
the people.

Plato’s Ideal State

“Until philosophers are kings or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit
and the power of philosophy and political greatness and wisdom meet in one,
cities will never rest from their evils.” (Plato)

The Republic of Plato is interpreted as Utopia to end all Utopias, not because it is a
romance, but because he constructed an ideal state in it. He compares the construction of
an ideal state with an act of an artist who sketches an ideal picture without concerning
himself with the fact whether individual characteristic features of imaginative picture are to
be found anywhere or not? In the same way, Plato never thought of the possibility of the
institutions of his ideal state, being capable of ever becoming a reality. He never thought of
the impracticability of this idea concerning his ideal state.

Plato built his state on the analogy of an individual organism. He believed that the virtues of
an individual and of the state were identical. He was of the view that an individual
presented almost the same features and qualities on a smaller scale as society on a bigger
scale.

Features of an Ideal State

1.Rule of Philosophy
Plato was of the view that in an ideal state the philosopher-ruler should be prominent. He
should has a broaden vision of unity of knowledge. Philosopher-kings are immune from the
provisions of law and public opinion.
2.No unqualified absolutism
Though, neither, there is any restraint of law nor of public opinion over philosopher-rulers
but that is not an unqualified absolutism. It is not all despotism, because rule of philosophy
is not free from the basic articles of the constitution.

3.Control over the education system

Philosopher ruler should control the education system in an ideal state.

4.Justice in ideal state

Justice is the main feature of Plato’s Republic and it is also present in his ideal state. Justice
is the bond which binds every member of society together. It forms a harmonious union of
individuals.

5.Censorship of art and literature

In ideal state, there should be a complete censorship of art and literature. It is necessary so
that nothing immoral things might falls into the hands of the young individuals.

6.System of Communism
Plato was of the view that guardian class should live under the system of communism of
property and family. The rulers and soldiers do not possess any property of their own.

7.Equality among men and women

According to Plato, equal opportunities should be given to both men and women for their
economic, social, intellectual and political uplift. We can say that Plato was the first feminist
of his time.

8.Principle of Functional Specialization

Plato was of the view that due to multiple wants, an individual could not fulfill all his desires
by himself alone due to lack of capacity. Thus co-operation among individuals should be
necessary to satisfy their mutual desires. Some people are specialized in performing some
certain tasks.

Criticism

1.Plato built his ideal state on the analogy of individual and this identification leads to
confusion. He failed to distinguish ethics from politics. His ideal state is based not merely on
analogy but almost identification between the individual and the state, which is quite wrong.

2.Plato fails to condemn the institution of slavery and regard it as fundamental evil.

3.Plato’s system of communism of women and temporary marriage is detestable and

unethical.

4.Plato is a moralist rather than a political idealist. His assumption that the state should
control the entire lives of its citizens is false and contrary to human liberty.

5.By the system of functional specialization, Plato tends to dwarf the personality of the
individual. There is no possibility of any full development of human personality in his ideal
state.

6.Plato completely ignores the lower class in his ideal state which forms the great bulk of
population. Such negligence may divide the society into two hostile groups.
 Comparison between Plato and Aristotle

Aristotle, the favorite and most brilliant pupil of Plato, is more conscious of his differences
than of the points of agreement with him. The differences which these giants of philosophy
were not the outcome of any grudge or ill-will, but reflected their own way of solving the
existing problems of their state.

Similarities
1.Both upheld slavery and justified its continuation in true spirit of Greek ideals. Each
regarded slaves as an indispensable part of the community for the manual performance and
overall development progress of the state.

2.Both despised foreigners and regarded races other than Greeks fit for subjection and
bondage and as mentally inferior to the Greeks.

3.Both condemned democracy and wanted to replace it with some sort of constitutional or
ideal polity while Plato echoed in condemning democracy, as “What could have been
more ridiculous than this mob-led, passion-ridden democracy, this government by
a debating society, a mobocracy.” On the other hand Aristotle was of the view
that “the people are not capable of self-government.”

4.Both wanted to impose limitations on citizenship. Both taught that all manual labor should
be done by slaves or non-citizens.

5.Both opposed the views of Sophists that the state came into birth for the sake of life and
continues for the sake of good life. It is this conviction which makes Aristotle a true
Platonist.

6.Aristotle’s “Political” is no less a manual for statesman than the “Republic” of Plato.

Differences
1.While Plato draws conclusion through the use of allusion and analogy, Aristotle strikes at
the very point with definite and clear-cut dogmas and doctrine.

2.While Plato believes in the abstract notions of justice, virtue and idea. Aristotle judges the
speculative fundamentals on the basis of exact comparison and deduces a thought
presentable and acceptable even in modern civilization.

3.Where Plato is visionary, imaginative and utopian, Aristotle is logical, realist and scientific
in his approach of propounding theories.

4.If Plato believes in the doctrine that the reality of a material thing lies in its idea not in its
form. Aristotle believes that reality in the concrete manifestation of a thing, and not in its
supposed inherent idea.

5. Plato believed in the phenomenon of unity through uniformity. On the other hand
Aristotle was of the view that unity could be achieved through diversity in universe and
men.

6. Plato inseparably mixed ethics and politics. He subordinated political theories to ethical
considerations. In Aristotle it was quite the reverse. Ethics and politics were not only
separated, but the former was made to sub serve the later.

7. Plato was the propounder of new philosophy; Aristotle was a systemiser of already
existing knowledge, and made freshly streamlining and fascinating by his powerful
influential and charming style for practical adoption for state functions.

“Plato seeks a superman who will create a state as good as ought to be. Aristotle
seeks a super science will create a state as good as can be. Thus, all who believe
in new worlds for old are disciples of Plato, all who believe in old worlds made
new by the toilsome use of science are disciples of Aristotle.” (Maxey)
 Aristotle

“Aristotle was the unimpeachable authority on every science and art known to his
day.” (Maxey)

Aristotle was born in 384 BC. His father was Physician. He studied in Plato’s Academy for
about 17 years. He was attached to Plato’s Academy for two reasons:

1.It was the cradle of education in Greece for advanced studies.

2.He was so much influenced by Plato’ teaching.

He served as tutor of Alexander the Great in 343 BC and kept his school in the Lyceum for
12 years. After the death of Alexander the Great, the Athenians revolted and prosecuted the
accused persons of whom Aristotle was one of the many. He was charged for impiety but he
fled to avoid punishment.

During the middle Ages, he was simply considered “the Philosopher”. The recovery of his
manuscripts in the thirteenth century marks a turning point in the history of philosophy.
According to Dunning, “the capital significance of Aristotle in the history of political
theories lies in the fact that he gave to politics the character of an independent
science.”

He is founder of science of logic. His monumental treatise “Politics” is the most valuable
works on Political Science. The “Politics” is a chief work on the science and art of
Government giving full justification for existing of the institution like the state, slavery and
family is calculated to suggest the remedies for the ill of the body-politic of the city-state.
Though it is generally said that “Politics” is an unfinished treatise and often obscure but the
half understood words of Aristotle have become laws of thoughts to other ages.

Zeller says, “Politics of Aristotle is the richest treasure that has come down to us
from antiquity, it is the greatest contribution to the field of political science that
we possess.”

Aristotle as Father of Political Science

The title of fatherhood of Political Science bestowed upon Aristotle is not without
justification. He was brought up in the order of medicine as his father was a physician of the
king of Macedonia. Since his childhood he got every opportunity and encouragement to
develop a scientific bent of mind. Instead of turning towards literature like his great master
Plato, he built the terminology of science and philosophy.

In the words of Renan, “Socrates gave philosophy to mankind and Aristotle gave
science to it.”

Aristotle gives us definite and clear-cut dogmas, instead of groping in illusions and
imaginations. He does not believe in abstract notions of justice and virtue, but has a
concrete approach. He discarded utopian philosophy of Plato and advocated logical and
scientific theories based upon realism. Aristotle supported the principle of unity through
diversity. He was of the view that reality lay in the concrete manifestation of things. He
separated ethics from politics.

We can say that Aristotle laid the foundation of a real political science by his keen and
practical political approach and systematic treatment of the subject. He may be called the
“Scientist of Politics” because of his empirical study. He collected his data with care and
minuteness, clarifies and defines it and draws logical conclusions which deserve nothing but
admiration and praise.

Aristotle’s Views on Origin of State

“Man is a political animal, destined by nature for state life.”

“State exists for the sake of good life and not for the sake of life only.” (Aristotle)

Aristotle was of the view that the origin of the state is present in the inherent desire of man
to satisfy his economic needs and racial instincts. The family is formed by male and female
on the one hand and master and slave on the other hand. Then they work for achievement
of their desires. They live together and form a such family in household which has its moral
and social unity and value.

Aristotle said, “Family is the association established by nature for the supply of
man’s everyday wants. But when several families are united and the association
aims at something more than the supply of daily need, then come into existence
the village. When several villages are united in a single community, perfect and
large enough to be quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating
in the bare needs of life and continuing in existence for the sake of good life.”

Three elements are essential to build the state on perfect lines i.e., fellowship, practical
organization and justice. A man without state is either a beast or a God. According to
Aristotle, “he who by nature and not be mere accident is without a state is either
above humanity or below it, he is tribe-less, lawless and heartless one.”

The family is natural and inborn instinct, similarly the state is also natural for
individuals. Baker said, “The state is the natural home of the fully grown and natural
man. It is an institution for the moral perfection of man to which his whole nature
moves.”

Aristotle was of the view that state is a “Political Koimonia”, an association which
represents a functional unity of varied and reciprocal parts made by the pursuit of a
common aim in which their nature, their habits and their training lead them all to
join. Maclwain said, “The state is a kind of Koimonia which is a supreme over all
others, and embraces them all.” State is an association of human being and the highest
form of association existing for the sake of perfect and healthier life.

Functions of the State

1.The state is not merely an association of associations but it is a highest natural
association for pursuits of spiritual class of common life of virtue.
2.The state is based on the element of justice
3.It also aims at the highest good of the community for its proper realization of demands
and needs in it.
4.The state functions to ensure a perfect and self-sufficing life of all its components
members.
5.The state also ensures to fulfill all the natural needs of its members and to provide
opportunities to the individuals for the attainment of moral, intellectual and physical
excellence.
6.According to Aristotle, “Man is essentially good and the function of the state is to develop
his good faculties into a habit of good actions.”

Rule of Law
Aristotle believed in natural laws but not the natural rights. The absence of law is the
negation of good laws and this meant lack of constitutional laws. Law was superior to the
Government because it checked the latter's irregularities. Rule by law was better than
personal rule because law had as impersonal quality which the rules lacked.

Sabine paid tribute to Aristotle in these words, “the supremacy of law is accepted by
Aristotle as a mark of a good state and not merely as an unfortunate necessity.”

Justice means that every citizen in the state should abide by the dictates of law and fulfill its
moral obligation towards community members. According to Aristotle there should be two
kind of justice:
1.Distributive Justice
It is mainly concerned with voluntary commercial transaction like sale, hire, furnishing of
security, acquisition of property etc.
2.Corrective Justice
It deals with proper allocation to each person according to his capacity and worth.

Aristotle emphasis that reward and honors should not be offered to the virtuous few but to
others as who collectively contribute in the welfare of the state and should be
proportionately rewarded.

Theory of Revolution

Decay and disturbance in political life brought crucial changes in the Governments of the
city-state in Greece, made Aristotle to contemplate deeply and to stress the causes of the
Revolution and its remedies. Aristotle’s theory is divided into two parts:

1.First part is a practical manual of conduct advising democrats, aristocrats, monarchs and
oligarchs and even tyrants as how to keep themselves in power.
2.Second part is a treatise on the philosophical basis of the good and stable governments.

What is Revolution?

To Aristotle, if any change occurs in the existing system or constitution of the state, it
means revolution. For example, if in the state the constitution has changed from monarchy
to democracy, it is a revolution. Aristotle was of the view that if the constitution remains the
same, but the ruling party has been transferred from one man to another, it is also a
revolution.

General Causes of Revolution:

1.The main feature of revolution is to be the craving of men for equality. Equality has two
characters-absolute and proportional. The proletariat are passionate to secure absolute
equality for the availability of the same rights that are possessed by few. The few struggle
for proportional equality for perpetual upgrading superiority in power and privilege.

2.Strong desire for justice becomes another feature of revolution. Aristotle was of the view
that men turn to revolution when they think they have not got their dues.

Particular Causes of Revolution:

1. Desire for gain and profit.

2. Universal desire for honor and prestige

3. The possession of sovereign power by an individual or group so as to create fear and

apprehension in the minds of the subject

4. Undue priority and prominence of individuals caused great stir in the heart of the
subdued people

5. Disproportionate increase of power and wealth in any part of the state

6. Elections intrigues and moral degradation kept up in the selection of some people

7. Carelessness shown in granting public offices to disloyal citizens and undue favoritism
shown to the individuals

8. Too much power concentrated in one man or class of men for political gains

9. Dissimilarity of different elements in the state

10. The rivalries of people of different races in the state

11. Dynastic quarrels and conflicts

12. Free immigration of outside races with different notions of justice and law

Revolutions in Particular kind of State:

1.Democracy
In democracies, revolutions are led by the dogmatic policies of demagogues in attacking the
rich.

2.Tyranny or Oligarchy
In oligarchies, revolutions take place due to two reasons:
a)Oppressive or Totalitarian rule
b)Rivalry among the ruling dictators

3.Aristocracy
In aristocracies, revolution held to the policy of narrowing down the circle of the
Government. Aristocracy tends to become oliogarchy, through the undue encroachment of
the richer classes polity to become democracy, through the undue aspiration of the poorer
class. According to Dunning “Stability can be maintained only by proportionate
equality and by giving to each his own.” Aristotle was of the view that democracy is
more secure and stable than oligarchy.

Remedies for Revolution:

1.Abundant political power should not be concentrated in the hands of one man or one class
of men.

2.The various classes in the state without any discrimination of color and creed should be
treated alike and with proper consideration

3.Honors and rewards should be distributed as fairly as possible only to deserving ones
because inequalities of offices and honors drive men to revolt.

4.Political offices should be within reach of every individual who is able of performing his
functions best.

5.The Government should be so vigilantly organized that the political office-holders cannot
make money out of their offices. Bribes and other kinds of illegal gratification should be
made quite impossible to accept.

6.A Government would gain popularity and political stability if it so arranges things that the
internal details of the administration, particularly the administration of public finances is
open to public scrutiny.

7.Proper education should be imparted to the citizens in the spirit of constitution.

8.Political stability and internal solidarity can be gained by maintaining proportionate

equality.
9.The habit of obedience and submission to law should be instilled. Lawlessness and
anarchy should not be allowed to creep in even in small and trifling matter.

10.In oligarchy and aristocracy, the inferior class must be well treated and the principles of
democratic equality must be followed among the privileged classes. In democracy, the poor
and the rich should be encouraged to take part in the state administration which does not
affect the sovereign power.

Aristotle also suggested various methods in making oligarchies and tyrannies-stable which
are to be followed by a tyrant.

a)A tyrant must employ spies particularly females to trace out disloyal persons to gallows
the concerned.

b)He should follow an aggressive policy abroad

c)He should always warn people about constant fear of invasion from outside

d)He should keep the people busy and never allow them to remain in vertigo and lethargy.

e)He must extend enthusiasm in religion

f)He should punish the guilty so that crimes must be ended for the peaceful order in the
state.

g)He should increase the material well-being of the citizens.

h)He should perish the intellectual life of the citizens to perish revolutionary tendencies.

i) He should adorn his city and must work for its glory

j)He must have respect for the good.

Aristotle put the security of the state above everything else. He even permitted interference
in the privacy of individual’s life when necessary in the interests of the state. According to
Aristotle “A revolution constitutes more a political than a legal change. It had the
effect of reversing ethical, social and economic standard."
 Machiavelli

“Machiavelli had been represented as an utter cynic, an impassioned patriot, an

ardent nationalist, a political Jesuit, a convinced democrat and an unscrupulous
seeker after the favor of depots.” (Sabine)

“In Machiavelli we find the frankest and the most brutal analysis of the
selfishness, audacity, cunning, deception, treachery, malevolence, cynicism,
hatred and lust that were necessary for a prince.” (H. Thomas)

Machiavelli, the hated beloved prophet of secularism, had one of the enigmas of modern
history, whom Allama Iqbal has characterized as the “Sharp Agent of Devil” was born in
Florence in 1469. Little is known about his early education. However he was known as a
well-read fellow in Italian and Latin classics. The Florence was ruled by the Medici family in
1494, the Medicis were expelled from the city and Florence became a republic. In the same
year, Machiavelli first joined public life as a chancery clerk. In 1498, Machiavelli became
second chancellor and secretary of the Council of Ten, a body which had responsibility for
war and interior affairs. He held that post for fourteen years.

He was strong, vigorous and intelligent man. On many occasions, his services were required
as diplomatic observer in royal courts abroad. He was very much impressed by Cesare
Borgia in Romagna. Cesare Borgia became the model for “The Prince”, Machiavelli’s best
known work. In 1506, Machiavelli persuaded the counsel to adopt his plan for formation of a
citizen army. But he failed in his plans because Medicis re-established their control over
Florence. The Medici exiled him and forbid his presence in Florence. Soon afterward
Machiavelli having been wrongly accused of implication in the Boscoli conspiracy against the
Medici was imprisoned and tortured. He eventually freed and permitted to return to his
family.

Machiavelli, as a true Florentine was naturally shocked to see the political upheaval and
social decay in his beloved country and he determined to save her from all intrigues,
disorders and petty wars. He denounced all the church doctrines and held the Popes
responsible for the plight state of affairs. He tirelessly struggled for the attainment of glory
and magnificence of Rome by consolidating all scattered forces. He enunciated the
philosophy of art of Governments for effective discipline and stability in the state. He
advocated strongly for using the harsher methods and oppressive means for the stability of
the state. He firmly believed that “fear is the domineering weapon for a Prince for complete
obedience and is mightier than love.”

Moral Indifference of Machiavelli

The reasons of Machiavelli’s moral indifferences are following:

1.Machiavelli does not believe in any ethical dogmas or in any divine law because of
intentional segregation of politics from religion.

2.In Machiavelli’s philosophy, moral judgments are wholly subordinate to the existence of
political and temporal existence and welfare.
3. Machiavelli calculated that the institution of Papacy brought decline and destruction to
the glory of Rome. He wanted to practice pagan virtues of cunningness, duplicity and
knavery for achieving successful goals.

4.He did not at all deny the excellence of moral virtues, but he refused to accept them
essential to the political stability. He pleads that the religion must be skillfully exploited as a
useful weapon for achieving the annexing designs by the sovereign.

5.Machiavelli stands courageously for the preservation of his state. He says that there must
be no consideration of what is just or unjust, merciful or cruel, glorious or shameful; on the
contrary, everything must be disregarded.

6.He imparts priority to the state and puts it above morality and religion, because it is the
highest form of social organization and the most essential of all institutions for the
protection and promotion of human welfare.

7.Machiavelli’s advocacy of unreligious and his indifference to morality have become so

much disrupted that even his name has become a by-word for fraud, force and dishonesty.
He wrote primarily for the exaltation of the state.

In modern world, some of the States Heads acted as “Prince of Machiavelli” by freezing all
channels of human progress and liberty and also by reducing the citizens to that of animals
and slaves. The Prince and the Discourses are still modern theories and are being practiced
in many secular countries of modern age.

Machiavelli and State Diplomacy

Machiavelli wrote his most important work “Prince” and dedicated it to de Medici, the prince
of Florence. “Prince” of Machiavelli is neither an academic treatise nor a book on political
science. It is a memorandum on the art of Government and of State diplomacy. It gives an
awe-inspiring technique for successful ruler-ship and as such is a guide to the rulers and
kings of his time and of succeeding times, about the best means of maintaining their power.

The whole argument of Prince is based upon the premise directly derived from Aristotelian
philosophy, that the state is the highest form of human association and that consideration
for the state welfare must be given priority and preference than the well-being of the
individuals. These premises led to the conclusion that it was Caesar and not God to be
worshipped. Here Machiavelli personified Caesar with a state and almost identifies the state
with the ruler. Caesar must make himself worthy of this worship by a cruel, ruthless and
successful seizure of power. A prince must possess the qualities of wisdom, egoism,
selfishness and brutalities for the attainment of his motives. A prince must consider his
friend and neighbors his ardent foes and does not repose any confidence in them.
Machiavelli was of the views that:

“Virtue brings ruin, while vice brings security and prosperity.”

“Cruelty is better than mercy.”

“A wise ruler ought not to keep faith when such observance may be turned against
him.”
The main point of Machiavelli’s state diplomacy are following:

1.Impart priority to your own interests. The strong must impose intimidatory laws upon the
weak to arrest their rebelliousness.

2.Honor to nobody but to yourself. He who aspires to acquire mastery can afford to have no
rivals.

3.Do evil but pretend to do well. Machiavelli was of the view that to be good is harmful but
to pose to be good is useful diabolic attitude. Let mercy be on your tongue and evil in your
heart.

4.The Prince should have no regard for the rights of others, especially foreigners. He should
impose heavy tax upon them to the point of robbing them.

5.A Prince should not be prodigal with the money of his own people, but he should be very
liberal and generous with the money plundered from other countries through aggression and
other mean resources.

6.A Prince must discard all the canons of leniency and decency.

7.A Prince, in order to crush his competitors, must turn into a murderer and a looter.

8.The Prince must kill his enemies and if necessary, his friends. He must remain vigilant and
alert from his relations so that he may not be deposed, exiled and murdered.

9.Use force and duplicity rather than benign ness in dealing with other people. It is better to
be creator of horrors than to be maintainer of love and affection. When you over-power
your enemy, root out the entire roots of his family, otherwise some of his relatives will
become vindictive to take revenge for the wrong you have inflicted.

10.Concentrate all your efforts on war. In the Machiavellian state, all regular channels of
human activities are barred and all roads lead to war.
 Montesquieu

“Of all French political philosophers in the eighteenth century (other than
Rousseau) the most important was Montesquieu. Of them all he had perhaps the
clearest conception of the complexities of a social philosophy, and yet he too was
guilty of extreme over simplification.” (Sabine)

Montesquieu was born in 1689 at Chateau de la Bordeaux in a noble aristocratic family. His
father was an eminent French lawyer. At the age of twenty seven he became president of
Parliament of Bordeaux, the most important of parliaments in France except that of Paris.
For a long period of twelve years he continued as chief magistrate at Bordeaux, but he was
not satisfied with the job because he was an extensive reader of literature and history and
had deep sympathetic ties with the intellectual movements of his days. At last he left
presidency and moved to Paris. In 1728 he visited Austria, Hungary, Venice, Rome,
Switzerland, Holland and lastly England where he remained for above two years. During his
tour, he came across the leading politicians and political thinkers in England and he was
deeply impressed by the English conception of liberty and by the English system of
Government.

After his return he settled at La Brede and kept himself busy with the task of writing of
political philosophy. At that time France although under absolute control of King Louis XIV,
yet was more fertile for growth of political theory but Frenchmen were not satisfied with the
political situation, as were their fellows across the channel.

Important works of Montesquieu are:

1.The Persian Letter: He published these letters in 1721. it embodied a brilliant satire on
the existing political, religious and social institutions in France.

2.Reflections and the causes of the Greatness and Decline of the Romans. This book
was published in 1734.

3.The Spirit of Law published in 1748. This book won a great fame and immortality for
Montesquieu because it came out after fourteen year unremitting labor and he made it a
masterpiece for all ages.

Montesquieu’s doctrine of Separation of

Powers

Montesquieu expounds his theory of separation of powers to set forth the governmental
organization in order to safeguard the political liberty. He believed that the separation of
powers among the different organs of the government is the best safeguard against
tyranny. He pleads that each power must be exercised by a separate organ and a system of
checks and balances should thus be established for solidarity and harmony of the state.
The theory of separation of powers among Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of
government was best realized in the British Constitution. He came to realize that for
maintaining liberty, the separation of powers was absolutely essential. Montesquieu did not
rely upon observation. Locke and Harrington had taught him what to expect and for the rest
he adopted the myth which was current among the English
themselves. Bolingbroke said, “It is by this mixture of monarchial, aristocratically
and democratically power blended together in one system and by these three
estates balancing one another, that our free constitution of Government has been
preserved so long inviolate.”

According to Montesquieu there are three kinds of power:

1.By virtue of the legislative power, the prince or magistrate exerts temporary or
permanent laws and amends or abrogates those laws, which are contrary to the will of the
subject.

2.By virtue of the executive powers, he makes peace or war, sends or receives
Ambassadors, establish the public security and provide protection against invasions.

3.By virtue of the judiciary powers, he is vested with the powers to punish criminals and
also to safeguard the life and property of the individuals.

When the executive and legislative are united in the same person, there can be no liberty
because apprehensions may arise. If the judiciary power be not separated from the
legislative and the executive then again there will be no liberty. When it is combined with
the legislative, the existence and liberty of people would be exposed to arbitrary rule. When
it is combined with executive organ, then there will be violence and oppression in the
capacity of a mortal God.

It is quite obvious from all above cited discussion, that the separation of powers among the
three organs of governments fully ensures liberty and freedom, by imposing healthy checks
on the despotism of the government bureaucrats. Montesquieu was of the view that liberty
is an indispensable fundamental for human progress and glory. Everyone is born to enjoy it
without any distinction of color, creed and religion.

Criticism:

1.Montesquieu’s study of English constitution is not very correct until this day; there is no
full separation of powers between different governmental agencies. There the House of
Lords is a legislative as well as a judicial body. The Lord Chancellor partakes of all the three
functions of government.

2.If all the branches are made separate and independent of each other, each branch will
endeavor to safeguard its interests and possibly may jeopardize other’s interest.

3.Perfect separate power in the functions of the government is impossible.

4.Mill was of the view “the separation of powers will result in a clash between the
three different organs of the government because each one will take interest only
in its own powers.”

In spite of all inconsistencies in the theory of separation of powers, it too wielded a

considerable influence in Pakistan, France and America. Montesquieu is placed in the first
rank of those distinguished thinkers who in the eighteenth century, held high standard of
idealism in all that pertains to liberty.

Montesquieu’s views on Forms of Government

The classification of government of Montesquieu is base partly on the number of those who
hold political power and partly on the manner in which that power is exercised. He gives
more importance to the principle on which government is based than to its nature. He
assigned a particular basic principle to every form of government. The principle of
democracy was virtue, of an aristocracy virtue-cum-moderation, of monarchy honor while
that of despotism was fear. He enunciated the dangers attending each form of government
if it lost its basic principle.

Montesquieu forms the government into three types:

1)Republic:
Montesquieu was of the view “A republican government is that in which the body or only a
part of the people, is possessed of the supreme power.” To him, when in a republic, the
body of the people is possessed of the supreme power it is called democracy. Sovereignty
rests with the people in democracy. In Republics, there can be no exercise of sovereignty
but by the votes of the people and these votes express their own will.

2)Monarchies:
Montesquieu remarks that monarchial government is that in which a single person governs
the state by fixed and established laws. He was of the view that the most intermediate
power is that of nobility. This in some measure seems to be essential to a monarchy, whose
fundamental maxim is no nobility no monarch, but there may be despotic process.

3)Despotism:
A despotic government is that in which a single person directs all functions of the
government with his own capricious will, without any law and without fixed rules. His own
words become laws of the land and complete subordination to these laws a expedient.

Each of the form is associated with its peculiar principle:

a) Democracy is based upon political virtue

b) Aristocracy is based upon moderation
c) Monarchy is based upon honor
d) Despotism is based upon fear and oppression

Relation between Forms of Government and religion & Size of State:

Montesquieu was of the view that certain religions had a definite affinity for certain types of
governments. Islam goes well with Democratic Republican form of government, wherein
fundamentals of religion i-e., equality, fraternity and freedom are deeply inculcated and
practiced for the security of mankind and glory of the state. Roman Catholicism is closely
affiliated with monarchial form of government with arbitrary rule and Protestantism even in
this modern age is deeply attached with despotism and cruel expansionism.

Republican form of government is possible only in a state of small size; monarchy suited the
moderate-sized state while a big country or an empire must have despotic government.
Real democracy is possible only ion small city-state. France of Montesquieu’s time was too
large for a republic form of government, Monarchy would suit her best. Montesquieu
declared monarchy, a worst form of government and he unlike Machiavelli discarded the
doctrine of aggrandizement and expansion.

Criticism:

1.It is quite wrong to assume, as Montesquieu does, that democracy and aristocracy are
sub-types of republican form.

2.It is a quite unfair to place despotic government at par with monarchial and republican
forms. Despotic state is not at all state because it is established by the absence of
established law, and hence it is a lawless state, which should not be included in the plan at
all.

3.Montesquieu’s scheme creates distinction between the republican and monarchic form
based upon the number of persons who possess the supreme power, the distinction
between the monarchic and despotic types depends upon the way in which the power of
governments are to be exercised.

Montesquieu as the Aristotle of 18th Century

1.Montesquieu follows the inductive and historical methods of Aristotle and like him, takes
keen interest in the practical political activities.

2.Like Aristotle, Montesquieu too pays his attention on the influence of physical
environment on the life of man and social institutions.

3.Montesquieu steps into the shoes of Aristotle, when he recognizes basic types of
government i-e, republican, monarchial and despotic.

4.Montesquieu closely follows Aristotle when he says that the fundamental types of political
constitutions are fixed once and for all but they are different to some extent under the
impact of the local conditions.

5.Montesquieu’s observation that the law of a society gives to its unique and particular
character, has its parallel in Aristotle’s statement that the constitution of a state determines
the very life and character of its people, if there occurs a change in the constitution, the
state itself becomes altogether a different state.
 Western Political Thought---Thomas Hobbes

“Hobbes was in fact the first of the great modern philosophers who attempted to
bring political theory into intimate relations with a thoroughly modern system of
thought, and he stroke to make this system broad enough to account on scientific
principles, for all the facts of nature, including human behavior both in its
individual and social aspects.” (Sabine)

Thomas Hobbes was born near Malmesbury in 1588. He was the victim of broken home. His
father, the Vicar of Westport, deserted his wife and children when Hobbes was still a boy.
Hobbes received his early education in Wiltshire, a place in Malmesbury. At the age of
fifteen years, he joined Oxford. He got the degree of graduation at the age of nineteen. His
soul remained insatiate with the University education and found it worthless.

On leaving Oxford, he became tutor to the heir of William Cavendish who later on became
Earl of Devonshire. His contact with royal family brought him into contact with most
important personalities of the period. He left England during the horrors of civil war and was
forced to take refuge in France, where he joined the supporters of royal absolutism. He lived
for about twenty years in France whose autocratic Government appealed him considerably.

It was this period in which he wrote his master piece of work “The Leviathan”, published
in 1651. He attacked the ancient institution of Papacy and also won disfavor from royalists.
It was an important work of Hobbes which brought him immortal fame in the history of
Western political thought.

Hobbes built up a systematic philosophy of state, taking his stand neither on tradition nor
on theology but on his study of human nature. It was the crucial period when upholders of
constitutional rule were fiercely fighting for the annihilation of the supporters of Divine Right
of Kings. Hobbes saw the miserable condition of his beloved country and ardently advocated
for the maintenance of authority and order, and he constructed a system of strong and
responsible sovereign Government on the basis of the then very popular doctrine of social
contract. Hobbes was, thus, as much a creature of his times as Machiavelli was. However he
found a link between Renaissance and the Restoration.

Hobbes’s Conception of State of Nature

Hobbes was of the view, “The only basis of human action is a perpetual and restless
desire of power after power that ends only in death. By nature man is selfish and
egoistical. Every one is striving for the gratification of his appetites and these
appetites are different from individual to individual because of physical
constitution, education and experience."

Hobbes’s man lived originally in state of nature without the benefits of Government. All
human actions were regulated by two things:

1.The instinct of self-preservation

2.Individual egoism

According to Hobbes, the state of nature was “a state of war of all against all in which
the chief virtue of mankind were force and fraud.” There was no Government of civil
laws to maintain peace and order, but a Government of fear, danger and coercion.

Hobbes said, “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. In such condition there is no place for industry
because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth, no
navigation, no use of commodities that may be imported by seas, 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.”

Logical Conclusions:
1.Hobbes was of the view that there was no distinction between right and wrong in the
state of nature. Only force, deceitfulness and intimidation were the order of the day. The
only slogan echoed “Kill when you can, usurp what you can.”
2.There can be no private property in the state of nature for possession of a thing depends
upon the power of upholding it.

According to Hobbes, man undoubtedly wanted peace and tranquility; but his fear of others,
his anxiety to retain what is already had and his never ending desire for self
aggrandizement on the basis of ‘mine and mine’ led him to perennial conflict and anarchy in
the state. Man is the state of nature becomes the slave and tool of impulses and passions.
Later on man realized that peace had definitely more utility than constant was and fear of
violent death brought man’s passions into line with his reasons.

Man could live in harmony and peace with one another either through fear of punishment or
desire for profit. And this purpose could only be achieved by establishing a strong and stable
Government capable of inspiring awe and fear by using harsh and arbitrary methods who
disobey its laws and of giving attractive rewards to those who do conform.

Hobbes and Theory of Sovereignty

Hobbes’s sovereign was presented as a Mortal God vested with absolute and unchallenged
power to rule over his subjects arbitrarily. He was the smasher of the regular channels of
democracy, a way of life. Hobbes’s sovereign suffocated all the social and cultural
communication between the people bringing about a reign of oppression and harshness.

Hobbes said, “By this authority, given him every particularly man in the wealth, he
has the use of so much power and strength conferred upon him, that the terror
thereof, he is enable to form the wills of them all to peace at home and mutual aid
against their enemies abroad. And in him consists the essence of the
Commonwealth which is one person, of which acts a multitude, by mutual
covenants one with another have made themselves, every one the author, to the
end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall thinker expedient,
for their peace and common defense.”
Features of Sovereignty

1.The sovereign is absolute and all powerful. His powers to frame laws of the land are not
restricted by any human agency.

2.He is the singular law-making authority.

3.No condition, explicit or implicit, can be imposed on the sovereign, for his power is
unlimited.

4.Subjects have no authority to call any explanation from the sovereign for his misdeeds.
They have no right to threaten, to punish him, to banish or depose him.

5.The sovereign is the fountain of justice and honor.

6.The sovereign has full power to declare war against any country or nation whenever he
likes.

7.Sovereignty is indivisible; inalienable and unpunishable.

8.The sovereign formulates laws regarding property and taxation etc, and he has full rights
to allow or disallow freedom of speech to his subject.

9.The sovereign has to protect his people from internal disruption and external aggression
for the preservation of peace and glory of the state.

10.If the sovereign ignores the pact, he can do so, because he is no party to the contract.

Types of Sovereignty

According to Hobbes the difference of commonwealths consist in the difference of the

sovereign or the person representative of all and every one of the multitude and it is
manifest, there can be put three kinds of commonwealth:

1.If the representative is one man, the commonwealth will be known as Monarchy.

2.If the representative is composed of an assembly, the state will be called a democracy.

3.When the representative is an assembly, but only a part of it, then it is called aristocracy.

Hobbes ardently favors monarchical form of Government. There must be an important

monarch to serve the end for which the state is established. But a monarch without absolute
power will utterly be failed for the attainment of his ideals. That is why; Hobbes is ranked as
one of the great champions of absolute sovereignty.

Hobbes gives a perfect and most satisfactory theory of sovereignty which is all powerful
authority within the state. It is absolute, unlimited, non-transferable and irrevocable.
Hobbes excelled Machiavelli’s Prince, an evil genius in exalting political authority. Machiavelli
had made politics independent of religion but Hobbes set politics above religion and ethics.
The powers vested in sovereignty must be absolute, unlimited and all powerful.
Criticism

The political theory of Thomas Hobbes has been bitterly criticized on different grounds ever
since this day.

1.The whole conception of social contract and an organized society resulting from it is
unhistorical. There are no examples in history when Hobbes’s men gathered together and
signed a contract for the formation of a civil society.

2.Hobbes portrays a dismal picture of the state of nature, which is far from satisfactory. He
paints a darker side and completely ignores a brighter side of human nature. His picture
reflects the evils of his man. He declares man selfish, solitary and brutish. But human
nature has two essential aspects, good and bad. He always speaks of the badness of human
nature.

3.Hobbes was of the view that the state of nature is a state of war, the war of all against
all, in which the cardinal virtues are force and fraud. How could such a man go against his
own nature and suddenly enter a “state not of war, but of peace, not of force and fraud but
of right and justice.”

4.Hobbes says that there were no laws in the state of nature. This is baseless.

5.Hobbes’s sovereign appears to be the representative of the people, who follows public
opinion and looks after public welfare. This is the only one aspect in which Hobbes has
recognized the limitations of his Leviathan.

6.Hobbes did not foresee the distinction between the Government and the state. While the
Government of a state might be replaced with another because of its corruption or
inefficiency, the state as a reality remains intact and does not sink into lawless condition.

7.Hobbes appears to be a mixture of anarchy and absolutism. The only remedy to control of
good behavior of men was the coercive power of the sovereign.

8.The Hobbesian system condemns the state for purely negative functions. It is sole
function in the preservation of life and maintenance of order.

9.The civil society created by Hobbes is not much of a society. It is like a flock of cattle
driven by the omnipotent Leviathan who sums up in himself the life of all and who is a
universal regulator of thoughts and actions of all.

Hobbes was a materialist and rationalist to the core of his heart. His political philosophy
indicated the absolute sovereignty of whatever Government happened to be in power. He
bade people render unto Caesar and unto God whatever Caesar commanded. His state
absorbed the will of all its members in matters secular and spiritual and it was wrong to will
or act against it.
 John Locke

“Successful revolutions are stimulating to those who believe in them. Locke is the
most fortunate of all philosophers for, he completed his work in theoretical
philosophy just at the moment when the Government of his country fell into the
hands of men who shared his political opinions. His political doctrine is embedded
in the American Constitution.” (Bertrand Russel)

John Locke was born at Wrington in north Somersetshire in 1632. His father was an
attorney and land-owner of modest means. He got his early education at home and later on
he was admitted to Westminster School. In 1652, he was sent to Oxford for higher
education. At that time he was only twenty-two and entered Christ Church College (Oxford).
His university career was not very shining because the narrow discipline of the place dulled
his enthusiasm for formal studies. In 1660, he got the degree of Master of Arts. After taking
the M.A. degree, Locke was appointed as a tutor in Greek.

Locke did not like teaching profession and he started medicine. He was greatly influenced by
Descartes and became physician. Later on he became the confidential Secretary of Lord
Shaftsbury, the founder of the Whig Dynasty. He went over to the Parliamentary side and
was later on made a field marshal in the rebel forces. When Charles II became king, he was
made Earl of Shaftsbury in 1672.

In 1682, Shaftsbury was charged with the crime of conspiracy. He was arrested and tried
for treason. He was, however, acquitted but was compelled to leave England. Locke also
facing his persecution fled with him to Holland and remained there until the bloodless
Revolution. After the glorious revolution of 1688, he came under the liberalizing influences
that were beginning to be felt in England and he devoted his entire intellectual faculties
towards literary work and to numerous controversies arising out of his works.

Sabine attributes John Locke in these words, “his sincerity, his profound moral
convictions, his genuine belief in liberty in human rights, and in the dignity of
human nature united with his moderation and good sense, made him the ideal
spokesman of the middle-class revolution.”

Locke’s father, a renowned attorney of his time exerted a considerable influence in making
him zealous advocate of liberty, equality and democracy. Locke completely discarded the
Hobbes’s conception of man who depicted as utterly selfish, irrational, solitary and brutish.
He portrayed his men in the state of nature fully possessed a sense of sociability bringing all
men in togetherness of mutual benefit and for the progress of civil society. He advocated for
the elimination of the coerciveness and intimidation over the subject for peaceful progress
of the state.

Bases of his Philosophy

Sensationalism:
Locke was of the view that all knowledge and beliefs come through our senses and
experiences. There is nothing in mind except what was first in the sense.

Utilitarianism:
He is one of the great pleader of utilitarianism. His conception is quite apparent from his
contention that “happiness and misery are the two great springs of human action.” He was
of the view that morality is pleasure and pleasure is only conformity to universal law.

Optimistic Conception of Human Nature:

Locke believes in the inherent goodness of human beings. He says that man is a rational,
sensible and social creature. He feels love, sympathy and tenderness towards his fellow-
beings and is capable of being actuated by altruistic motives. He wants to live in peace and
harmony with others.

Rejection of Absolute Monarchy based on Divinity and Heredity:

Locke refuted emphatically the hereditary principle in kingship advocated most fervently by
Filmer in his Patriarcha and upheld by the Anglican Church. Filmer contended that political
power is derived from the authority of father over his children and that regal authority is
subjection of children to parents, and since the actual monarchs are the heirs of Adam,
therefore they can demand from the citizens unflinching loyalty. Locke points out the
injustice of primogeniture (the principle by which property descends to the eldest son)
which is unavoidable if inheritance is to be the basis of monarchy. Further, Adam can have
only one heir, but no one knows who he is. And if the true heir could be discovered, would
all existing monarchs put their crowns at his feet. Moreover, in case of this discovery all
kings except, at most one, would be usurpers and would have no right to demand the
obedience of their de facto subjects.

Locke’s View on Natural Rights of Man

Locke appears to be a true democrat when he says that the establishment of a

commonwealth stands for the complete security of natural rights of men. Natural rights of
citizens are:

1.Right to life
2.Right to property
3.Right to liberty

“Most distinctive contribution of Locke to political theory is the doctrine of natural

rights.” (Dunning)

Locke was of the view that the right of property is a most important because all other
natural rights are analogous to the right of private property. He further maintained that the
right to private property existed in the state of nature under the operation of natural law.
Locke thought of natural rights as things which man brings with him from birth. Society
exists to protect them; they can be regulated only to the extent that is necessary to give
them effective protection.

“The life, liberty and estate of one person can be limited only to make effective the
equality valid claims of another person to the same rights.” (Sabine)

According to Locke, “God, who has given the world to men in common, has also
given reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life and convenience. The
earth and all that is therein, is given to men for support and comfort of their being
and all the fruits it naturally produces and beasts it feeds, belongs to mankind in
common, as they are produced by the spontaneous hand of nature, and nobody
has originally a private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of them,
as they are thus in their natural state. Whatsoever he removes out of the state
that nature has provided and left it in, he ahs mixed his labor with and joined to it
something that is his own and thereby makes it his own property.”

Locke’s Conception of Popular Sovereignty

Locke is regarded as the champion of people’s rights and a harbinger of their sacred and
fundamental liberties. His social contract did not create the irresponsible, cruel and
absolutist “Leviathan” of Hobbes, but reserved the sovereign rights to the final judge of all
actions, the community. The ultimate supreme power is not vested in the scepter of king;
but it remains in the hands of the people.

Locke did not advance the idea of legal, absolute and indivisible sovereignty. The very idea
of it was discarded by him because Machiavellian and Hobbesian conception of sovereignty
brings about a reign of terror for the people who would loudly whisper for freedom and
equality. He initiated the conception of popular sovereignty, which has been firmly accepted,
a best way of rule by the succeeding thinkers and the whole world own him too much,
because real and practical democracy was strongly enunciated.

Locke stood for a Government which should be subject to a number of limitations. It cannot
rule with coercion and intimidation and tax them without their will. A government which
violated its limitations is not worthy of obedience. The state is created for certain
conveniences and it must justify itself by creating those conveniences.

The basic rights of the individual life, liberty and property are to be protected rather than
restricted by the state. The king has neither the divine authority nor any moral justification
to over load the subject. All men are equal in the eye of Almighty God and their basic rights
must not be violated under the civil laws of the state.

Locke’s Government created by the unanimous consent of the majority should have freedom
of speech, of election and of religious worship and in order that it may be prevented from
becoming too autocratic and arbitrary. This democratic government should be run by a
system of checks and balances. In other words, the government should be divided into
three main organs i-e, legislature, executive and judiciary. And of these three, the
legislature should be supreme, as is evidently available in the modern constitutions.
 Jean Jacques Rousseau

“Rousseau was the father of the romantic movement, the imitator of system of
thought which infer non-human fact from human emotions and the inventor of the
political philosophy of pseudo-democratic dictatorship as opposed to traditional
absolute monarchs. Hitler was the outcome of Rousseau.” (Bertrand Russel)

Rousseau was born on June 28, 1712 at Geneva of parents of French Protestant ancestry, in
a middle class family. His father, Isaac, was a skilled watchmaker, but abandoned this
profession to become a dancing master. Rousseau left school at the age of 12, learnt
various crafts but adopted none. He also worked as an apprentice under a cruel engraver.
He filled with a wonder lust that was never to be satisfied. Restless, impulsive, unstable he
embraced the career of a vagabond as others might enter upon a profession and thereafter
for twenty years he led the life of a vagabond wandering in different places. In 1742, he
gravely mediated to lead a regulated life, went to Paris and tried his luck at different
schemes, the opera, the theatre but his efforts ended in fiasco. Then he opened a small
hotel.

The year of 1749 was a turning point in his life, chance brought Rousseau fame and
immortality. The Academy of Dijon announced a prize for the best essay on the subject “Has
the progress of sciences and arts contributed to corrupt and purify morals”. He thought a
strong plea that progresses of sciences and arts had tended to degrade human morality.
Rousseau depicted in the essay, an early state of society in which all men lived under
conditions of simplicity and innocence, and traced the purging evils of society emanated
from the artificialities introduced by civilization. He won the prize. Hearn
Shaw remarked, “it created a great sensation in the artificial society of the Age of
Reason. It was the first ramble of the Revolution.”

The publication of his book “Social Contract” aroused the indignation of the French
Government, which ordered his arrest. He escaped to Geneva, where the Democratic
Council burned his book and threatened his life. He took refuge in Germany, where an angry
mob almost strangulated him. He fled to England where only one man, Hume, took him into
his affection. By this time, however, Rousseau’s suffering had greatly perturbed his brain
and he was tormented by a prosecution mania. He suspected that Hume was plotting to
poison him. He thought that “Everyone hurts me because of my love for
mankind.” Finally his fear of being murdered drove him to commit suicide.

Hearn Shaw said, “Rousseau led a life of fugitive for sixteen years and he drove
through a period of deepening gloom, failing health, broken spirit, haunting
terrors, paralyzing illusions and accumulating despair.”

Rousseau’s State of Nature

“Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains. Many a one believes himself the
master of others, and yet he is greater slave than they. How has this change come
about? I do not know. What can render it legitimate? I believe that I can settle
this question.” (Rousseau)

Man is born free only in the sense that freedom is his inborn right; it is the necessary
condition for the development of the various potentialities of human nature. We can say
that he is born for freedom that he ought to be free. The second part of the first sentence
that he is everywhere in chains imply that customs and conventions of society and state
regulations imposer upon him certain artificial and unnecessary restraints which arrest the
development of his personality.

Rousseau, a philosopher of the heart rather than of the head, presented his State of Nature
to be an earthly paradise though he himself confessed that the conception of the State of
Nature was quite hypothetical. As Rousseau says, “A state which exists no longer,
perhaps never existed, probably never will exist and of which none the less it is
necessary to have just idea in order to judge well our present state.” He always
maintained that the natural state was also better than the social state. For, in it, the natural
man, or the noble savage, lived a solitary, happy and carefree life of the brute was
independent, contented and self-sufficing.

In short, Rousseau’s man was a non-social being unknown to good or evil or the coming
death. Thus the noble savage was in the state of paradise, everyone being equal to the
other. Man’s life in the state of nature was regulated not by reason but by the feelings of
self-preservation and hatred towards incalculable massacre and incredible violence.
According to Rousseau, “primitive man was near animal than man; he lived an
isolated and solitary life having no ties and obligations. He was guided by two
sentiments self-interest and pity, and having no oral obligation with other men he
could not be good or bad, virtuous or vicious. He led a solitary life completely
devoid of language and wandered about the primeval forests begetting his
offspring by the way, hunting for his food, and concerned only with the
satisfaction of physical needs. In a word, the natural man was neither happy nor
unhappy.”

But with the appearance of fixed homes, family and property, the knell of human equality
was sounded. But even this primitive society was tolerable. The least subjects to
revolutions, the best for man. Only when the serpent entered into the society in the form of
private property, was the life of man changed from prosperity to adversity.

Rousseau was of the view “the first man having enclosed a piece of land he thought
himself of saying this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him the
real founder of social inequality and injustice.” The institution of private property
created a sense of jealousy and struggle, converted usurpation into an acknowledged right
and led to the promotion of society. He became subject to violence, bloodshed, crimes
against property and person and all the evils of society and civilization including slavery.
Thus the life of man became pitiable, miserable and intolerable. As Rousseau says, “the
problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the
whole common force the person and goods of each associate and in which each
while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone and remain as free as
before.”
 Rousseau’s General Will

“The development of the theory of the general will in the Social Contract was
involved in paradoxes, partly because of cloudiness of Rousseau’s ideas but partly;
it seems, because he had a rhetorician’s liking for paradox. Manifestly, in view of
his criticism of the natural man, he ought to have avoided the notion of contract
altogether as both meaningless and misleading.” (Sabine)

The will of each individual merged into a General Will, which is the cardinal pillar in the
Rousseau’s philosophy, has aroused keen controversy and has been subjected to severe
criticism. It has been remarked by Bertrand Russell that the doctrines enshrined in his
Social Contract, “though they pay lip service to democracy, tend to the justification
of the totalitarian state.”

Dr. McDoughall defines General Will as “The General Will is conceived as coming to
be when every individual in a group or society has a conception or idea of the
group as a whole and identifies his good with the good of that whole.”

Rousseau explains that by the free act of those who enter into an agreement, all their
powers and rights vested in the community and their respective wills are superseded by the
General Will. He was of the view that man possesses two kinds of wills:

1. Actual Will:
It is related to the will of the individuals. It is irrational will of man. This Will makes self-
confined and self centered.

2. Real Will:
It is rational will of the individual. It always aims at general welfare of the society. It leads
to eternal decision imparting self-satisfaction to the individual. It is based upon reason and
rationality.

Rousseau’s whole arguments depended upon the fact that a community of citizens is unique
with its members, they neither make it nor have rights against it.

Rousseau said, “The social order is a sacred right which is the basis of all other
rights. The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect
with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in
which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and
remain as free as before. Each of us puts his person and all his power in common
under the supreme direction of the General Will, and in our corporate capacity, we
receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.”

Rousseau clearly distinguishes the General Will from will of the majority and the minority.
The General Will may or may not coincide with any of these Wills; it may sometimes be
coincident with the Will of an individual.
Characteristics of the General Will:

1. Unity:
It is not self-contradictory. It is indivisible, because if it were divided it would not remain
General Will but would become Sectional Will.

2. Unlimited:
It is unlimited. Rousseau assigns absolute powers to his sovereign by following the Hobbes’s
line of action.

3. Inalienable:
The General Will and sovereignty are inalienable and undetectable.

4. Un-representable:
The General Will cannot be represented. That is why Rousseau laid the foundation of direct
democracy. The General Will can conveniently be realized in a small city state where the
population can assemble and pass laws for their interest. It does not admit of representative
democracy.

W. T. Jones appreciated Rousseau’s theory in these words, “The notion of the General
Will is not only the most central concept of Rousseau’s theory, it is also the most
original, the most interesting, and historically the most important contribution
which he made to political theory.”

Criticism:

1. Rousseau’s theory of General Will is incomplete and vague.

2. It is in actual practice difficult to distinguish the General Will from the Will of all. The
General Will is not the unanimous Will of the whole people because that might be the Will of
all. General Will has its own merits and demerits.

3. Rousseau’s belief that an individual has his actual and real Wills at the same time is quite
wrong. An individual’s Will is a corporate thing, one complete whole, incapable of any
division.

4. He was of the view that the General Will neglects the force of moral law which dictates to
anyone as to what is just and unjust.

5. There arises a sort of conflict between the common interest and the interest of the
individual. The General Will assigns a very high place to the state and the individual will
have to sacrifices his interest over the interest of the state.

6. Rousseau’s concept of General Will is rather abstract and narrow. In actual practice, it is
nothing if it does not mean the Will of the majority.

7. It pre-supposes common interests, which is difficult to define or determine. These

interests grow out of organic relations between members of a community and are hardly
possible in the multinational states of today with their conflicting ideals and interests.

8. This theory is not applicable to the bigger state in population and territory, and does not
admit of representative government.

9. It is rarely and for a short time that general will is actually realized. Self-consciousness
can exist only at periods of great crisis in the life of a nation, when the whole society is in
danger.

10. Where we are determined to decide what are the visible manifestation of this Will,
Rousseau leaves us in the realm of darkness. He stresses that General Will always tends to
the public advantage and that is infallible. But it does not follow that the deliberations of the
people are equally correct.
 John Stuart Mill

“If the caliber of writers is to be judged by their effect on policy, Mill must rank
high. As logician, economist and political philosopher he was regarded as a
prophet in his own age.” (John Bowle)

Introduction:
John Stuart Mill was born on May 20, 1806 in London. He was the eldest son of his father
James Mill who was the disciple of Bentham. J. S. Mill started the learning of Greek
language at the age of three and then Latin at the age of eight. As a young boy of twelve,
he had studied the philosophy of some of the great philosophers, such as Plato, Herodotus,
Homer, Aristotle and Thucydides. He also learned French language and acquired a great
fluency.

Mill was trained by his father and by John Austin. He was greatly influenced by Bentham’s
utilitarian philosophy and his programmes for reformation. But with the passage pf time,
many of the evils against which the early utilitarian had been working hard, had ceased to
exist and Benthamism began yielding before other philosophic systems. The biological
speculations of Darwin and Spencer and the sociological researches of Auguste Comte
stirred the passionate seekers of learning and knowledge with the initiation of new currents
of thought and Mill was also influenced by them. He modified Bentham from ethical,
sociological, psychological, economic and political points of views.

The year of 1856 was a year of tribulations and chaos on account of Indian freedom fighters
and formidable aggressions of foreign masters. History of India was written with Indian
blood and in this crucial period of life and death, Mill served the East India Company as an
Examiner of Indian Correspondence. In 1858 he retired. Then he became the radical
member of the Parliament and remained almost in the limbo of oblivion. Mill died on 8th
May, 1873 at Avignon.

He wrote following books:

1. A system of Logic
2. Some unsettled questions in Political Economy
3. Essay on Liberty
4. Consideration on Re-tentative Government
5. Utilitarianism
6. Thoughts on Parliamentary reforms
7. Subjection of Women
8. Principles of Political Economy
9. On the improvement of Administration of India during the last 30 Years (1858)

Importance of J. S. Mill in the History of

Political Thought
J. S. Mill sought after vivid ideas with the ardency of a mystic, the patience and arduous
industry of a man of science. He encountered opponents with magnanimity and generosity.
In praise of his immortal ideas which will ever echo in the corridors of time, it has been
said, “No calculus can integrate the innumerable pulses of knowledge and of
thought that he had made to vibrate in the minds of generation.”

Mill was the great prophet of sane Individualism or Liberalism. He insisted upon the
importance of human progress in its richest variety. He was one of the stoutest champions
of individual liberty. When we turn the pages of antiquity, Plato distinctively appears to be
the first feminist, passionately advocating the cause of women to take part in the functions
of the government. J. S. Mill too was a great feminist and he practically pleaded their
causes in the parliament. He firmly believed for equality of women for the benefit and uplift
of the state. Mill’s impact of Feminism obviously appeared in the early 20th century when
the Feminist Movement fought for women freedom for participating in the functions of the
state.

Mill was one of the foremost individualists of all times. He ranked with Rousseau, Jefferson
and Milton as an ardent crusader of individual liberty. He humanized utilitarian philosophy.
He was a staunch enemy of despotism and monocracy and a great supporter of democracy.
He combined political liberalism with economic socialism and approval of a common
ownership in the raw materials of the globe and an equal participation of all in the benefits
of the combined labor. Mill’s political philosophy contains following important facts:

1. His theory of liberty was his most important contribution to the history of political
philosophy.

2. He favored democracy as the best form of government as a result of adult franchise.

3. He supported universal suffrage granting the right of voting to women also, with a
system of proportional system.

4. He opposed the secret ballot because it led to favoritism and corruption and vigorously
proposed for open ballot system.

5. He recommended a second chamber. He believed that the final legislative authority

should rest with the House of Commons, but at the same time he assigned the task of
drafting bills, before they come to the parliament for consideration to the House of Lords.

6. Mill’s method was analytic. He believed that study of history combined with a knowledge
of human nature and a careful analysis of political phenomenon would result in a gauging of
tendencies of great value to legislators and statesmen.

7. Bentham thought of quantitative pleasures. Mill believed in qualitative pleasures. He

drew a distinction between several kinds of pleasures, considering some as higher while
others as lower.

Prof. Sabine said, “Mill’s ethics was important for liberalism because in effect it
abandoned egoism, assumed that social welfare is a matter of concern to all men
of goodwill, and regarded freedom, integrity, self-respect and personal distinction
as intrinsic goods apart from their contribution to happiness.”

Mill’s Views on Individual Liberty

J. S. Mill is universally regarded as a passionate advocate of liberty. He vigorously

whispered for imparting great importance to individual liberty and emphasized that
governmental interference in individual activity should e reduced to the minimum. In the
middle of the 19th century, due to the utilitarian reforms, the scope of administrative
activities increased. Parliament became the supreme and unchallenged law-making
authority, who enacted such laws which vividly obstructed individual liberty. With the
imposition of increasing state regulations, human activities were suffocated and he firmly
believed that liberty was a prime factor for the development of the society. At that time,
policy of Laissez fair was being abandoned in favor of greater regulations by the state. The
people became politically conscious and demanded universal suffrage.

When Mill wrote, utilitarian liberalism was generally accepted in England. The democratic
efforts made by the earlier utilitarian had been largely successful and political power had
been extended to a considerable proportion of the population. A large number of old evils
and inequalities had been removed. In this process some of the dangers of democracy
became visible, and the tendency toward state centralization led political theory to the
scope of state activities and to the liberty of the individual. The leader in the intellectual life
of the period was J. S. Mill.

Mill’s essay on liberty which equals in eminence to Milton’s Aeropagitica was a strong
advocacy for the freedom of thought and expression with Miltonian favor against legislative
interference as well as against the pressure of the public opinion. He recognized the
necessity to the mental well-being of mankind of freedom of opinion and freedom of
expression of opinion. The limitations of the power of government over individuals lose none
of its importance when the holders of power are regularly accountable to the community. In
political speculations the tyranny of the majority is now generally included among the evils
against which society requires to be on its guard.

Mill apprehended that the growth of democracy and the increasing legislative powers of the
state tended to reduce individuals to a common type and to swamp them in the tyranny of
collectivism. He believed that social progress could not be achieved if each and every
individual is imparted with fuller opportunity for free development of his personality. Mill
favored freedom of thought, speech and action. He believed in toleration of opinions and
unhampered freedom of discussion. He had confidence that truth would definitely survive in
the struggle of ideas.

Freedom of the Individual:

Originality in conduct and thought and individuality are essentially basic features efforting
towards social welfare. When individuality is quelled by the law of a monarch or an
aristocrat, the evil of it may be counteracted by the custom of the masses, but when the
masses make the law of repression, custom unites with legislation to confirm the evil.
Individual development enriches the world by a variety of characters. But he imposes two
limitations on this liberty:

1. The individual was not at liberty to do any harm to his fellow beings.

2. He must share labors and sacrifices to secure the society or individuals against harm.

Mill pleads for certain freedoms for the individual without which he cannot develop his
personality properly. These are:

a. Freedom of conscience
b. Liberty of thought and of its expression in speech and writing
c. Liberty of pursuits and tastes
d. Liberty of association
e. Liberty to adopt his own profession in life
f. Liberty of religion and morals

Mill laid great stress on liberty of thought and expression. Mill’s theory of liberty of the
individual is based upon three essential elements:

1. A strong plea for the importance of impulse and desire in the individual and letting the
individual follow his own impulses in actions which concern him alone.

2. Insistence on the view that spontaneity and individuality are essential elements in
individual and social welfare.

3. Revolt against the tyranny of custom, tradition or public opinion which might hinder the
expression and development of individuality.

Important points of Mill’s Individual Liberty:

1. Mill advocated that individual is sovereign over his body and mind. He must be left free in
all actions that concern himself alone. And society has no right to impose any restraint over
the individual because restraints as such in an evil and retards the progress of the
individuals.

2. Mill assumed that the activities of every individual are either self-regarding or other-
regarding. In the sphere of self-regarding activities may be included matters which affect
the agent only, having no concern with others e.g. gambling, drinking etc.

3. Mill believed in the individualistic or atomistic conception of society. He says that

individual is not responsible to society for his actions in so far as they concern the interest
of himself and do no affect others.

4. Mill vigorously advocated for absolute and unfettered freedom of thought and expression.
5. The freedom of action and association was to be limited by the condition that none
should jeopardize other’s rights and freedom.

Criticism:
Mill was bitterly criticized because of his certain inconsistencies on the doctrine of liberty at
the hands of Earnest Barker who said, “Mill was the prophet of an empty liberty and
an abstract individual.”

Mill’s theory was criticized on the following ground:

1. Mill assumed that the individual is sovereign over his body and mind. He should be left
free to act as he wished and society cannot impose any limitation on his freedom. The
soundness of this statement may be doubted. The sovereignty of individual over himself is
not a self-evident proposition. As Mill himself admits, “there can be circumstances
under which it may become legitimate for others to intervene in a purely personal
matter, e.g, when one is about to commit suicide, surely no one will call it an
attack upon one’s liberty.”

2. The bifurcation of human actions into two-self-regarding and other regarding as made by
Mill is quite impracticable. No individual is an island in himself. There is very little that one
can do which does not affect another person. It is but natural and each action of individual
will definitely affect the others. Therefore, it is difficult to set apart a sphere of conduct
which should be regarded exclusively the affair of the individual concerned.
 Karl Marx

“With Marx, socialism became international or cosmopolitan n scope in contrast to

the association or national industrialism of his predecessors.” (R. G. Gettell)

Introduction:
Karl Marx born in a prosperous family became a victim of misfortunes, a prey of perpetual
crushing poverty and a painfully sensitive to see the incredible sufferings of humanity
because of economic inequality, social disparity, incalculable violence and mal-treatment
towards laborers at the hands of feudal lords and industrialists. He was born at Treves in
Prussia on 5th May, 1818. His aristocratic Jewish parents embraced Christianity when Karl
Marx was only a child. At the age of 17, he became a law student at Bonn University. In
1826, he left for the University of Berlin. In 1843, he married Jenny, a member of petty
nobility who remained a faithful counterpart throughout his life.

In 1841, Karl Marx got his degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Jena on the
tropic of “The Difference between the Natural Philosophy of Democratus and Epicurus.” He
mixed with the revolutionaries and his radical thinking made him suspicious which created
obstacle in the security of employment as a university teacher. Then he entered into the
field of journalism. Karl Marx studied Hegel very thoroughly and noted basic fallacies in his
idealistic philosophy.

In early 1845, Karl Marx left Paris for Brussels. But before he left France, he got an ever-
lasting friendship with Friedrich Engel which brought many changes in his life. Marx-Engel
collaboration was one of the history’s most unique prominent and enduring collaboration.
Friedrich Engel became the friend, disciple and passionate seeker of knowledge and a warm
partner. In the summer of 1845, Friedrich took Karl Marx to England and there he was
introduced to the founders of the “German Workers Educational Union” that had recently
started in London. After remaining for sometime in London, he again came back to Brussels.
Marx had to flee from one country to another on account of his conspiratorial activities.
Then he steeled down in London till his death.

“England has often been called the mother of Exiles”, but for Karl Marx, it became the
dwelling place of miseries and misfortunes. He experienced great distress and poverty along
with his big family. In spite of lot of misfortunes and hardships, Karl Marx made endeavors
relentlessly to unchain the working classes from the bondage of capitalism. Karl Marx
worked round the clock in the British Museum for developing the economic theories of
capital. Karl Marx wrote many pamphlets defending himself and severely criticizing his
opponents. He died as a wounded soul on March 14, 1883. He led a life of full of pangs and
despondency and faced the hardships of worldly agency with determination, courage and
perseverance. In a speech over his grave in High ate Cemetery, Friedrich Engel declared
that “his name and works will live on through the centuries.”

Karl Marx was a great writer and will ever live on the pages of existence. He wrote the
following master works:

1. Communist Manifesto immortalized Karl Marx. He wrote this with the assistance and
help of his faithful friend Friedrich Engel. This is considered the Bible of the Communism all
over the world.
2. Das Kapital is considered as the foundation stone of communism.
3. Poverty of Philosophy
4. A Contribution to the critique of Political Economy
5. The Holy Family
6. Revolution and Counter Revolution

Political Philosophy of Karl Marx

Karl Marx is rightly called the Father of Modern Communism. The theory of communism
owes its birth to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel. According to the theory of communism, the
only practical thing was to acquire mastery over the governing laws of society. Apart from
this, Karl Marx and Engel wanted to know the causes of economic changes in human
society. They also wanted to explore what further changes are required. They concluded
that the changes in human society were not the least accidental like changes in external
nature. They worked out a scientific theory of society based on the actual experience of
men. Karl Marx applied this theory to the society in which he lived mainly Capitalist Britain.
He was of the opinion that it was quite impossible to separate his economic theories from
historical and social theories. Marx attacked the existing capitalist institutions. He did not
believe in the essential goodness of man. He conceived of a man more as an economic as a
political animal.

Karl Marx borrowed from Hegel the apparatus of Dialectics but substituted matter of
Hegelian idea. He built his concept of dialectic materialism by interpreting Hegel’s World
Spirit as an economic force. Karl Marx held the view that the meaning of history lay in the
interpretation of material world. Karl Marx is correctly divisible into three portions:

1. A purely philosophical section on dialectics

2. Pure economics
3. Historical materialism

Hegel’s influence over Karl Marx:

Karl Marx remains incomplete without the study of Hegel. It is true that Karl Marx rejected
the substance of Hegel’s political philosophy and it is a stark reality in history that Karl Marx
adopted the dialectical method developed by Hegel, as the basis for his historical
materialism. Hegel was of the view that history gained its meaning from the interaction of
ideas. There was a perennial struggle of ideas for dominance over one another. Out of this
struggle of ideas, new ideas emerged and these new ideas corresponded more closely to the
ultimate perfection of God himself.

Every idea according to Hegel, is incomplete with inherent contradiction. The

incompleteness or inherent contradictions is every idea led naturally to its opposite, which
may be called anti-thesis. From the struggle between the two, i.e. ‘thesis’ and ‘anti-thesis’
there emerged the truth embraced by both which may be called “synthesis”. This ‘synthesis’
becomes a new thesis and again there came an ‘anti-thesis’ and again emerged a
‘synthesis, and the process repeated itself in an unending chain. Karl Marx opined that
history unfolded according to a dialectical plan. Here he fully agrees with Hegel. But he was
of the view that ideas were not the controlling factors. Ideas do not control the reality.
These are the outcome of material conditions.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel developed communism as an ardent opposing force to
capitalism. Appalling degradation of man in society and crushing poetry were the real basis
for the communist protest. The degradation was accompanied by uncontrolled
industrialization in the middle of the nineteenth century. The whole Europe was engulfed in
moral turpitude, degeneration and oppression which fully justified the advent of
communist’s bitterness and scorn against the capitalistic structure of society. This caused
great frustration among the masses and consequently they became inquisitive to bring
about social justice.

Karl Marx was a social scientist. As a social scientist, he made efforts to look at this injustice
quite impersonally. But these consequences according to Karl Marx were essentially involved
for the accumulation of capital. Karl Marx viewed that in each and every society
industry, “the wages paid to the workers are not the equivalent of the full value
they produce, but only equal to about half of this value or even less. The rest of
the value produced by the worker during his working day is taken outright by his
employer.”

“The truce and the false together in Karl Marx constitute one of the most
tremendously compelling forces that modern history has seen. For the power of
his message and for his influence upon the future movement of the communism,
Karl Marx can be sure of his place amongst great masters of political
thought.” (Wayper)

Proletarian Dictatorship

The Proletariat class comprises of the workers, laborers or wage-earners would naturally be
in the vast majority in every society. Karl Marx was of the view that it is then quite natural
that the dictatorship of the proletariat would be a democracy of the majority.
The “Communist Manifesto” also says “The first step in the working class revolution
is the raising of the proletariat to the position of the ruling class, the victory of
democracy. The proletarian movement is the conscious movement of the immense
majority in the interest of the immense majority.” Karl Marx believed in the
inevitability of this class struggle and the ultimate victory of the proletariat after a
successful bloody revolution, he did not like to leave this development to the forces of
economic evolution. He wanted that this revolution should be precipitated through
organization and energetic sophisticated action on the part of workers. All the confronted
titanic forces should be crushed by the laborers.

The Marxian ideal was to bring about proletarian dictatorship through violent means and not
through peaceful evolution, resulting in the political and economic domination by the
proletarians. The proletarian revolution against the bourgeoisie class in the state is directed
towards the achievement of two ends:

1. Firstly, this proletarian revolution has to destroy the capitalist structure of society. In
destroying the capitalist stat it is very essential for the proletarian revolution to destroy all
the social, political, legal and other such institutions of the capitalist state.
2. Secondly, the proletarian revolution has to replace all the social, political, legal and other
institutions with new institutions. These new institutions should be such as it suits the needs
of the proletarian class.

Karl Marx said, “Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the
revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this
also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the
revolutionary dictatorship of proletariat.” Lenin was the true follower of Karl Marx. He
was of the view that Communism is to be achieved in two stages. The first stage of
Communism follows immediately after the seizure of power by the proletarian. In
this stage of communism, society would not be a free society. This stage of
communism contains the blend of vestiges of old and bourgeoisie order. In the old
capitalist state, the capitalist employer and exploiter used to suppress the
minority and in the new stage of Communism or in the proletariat dictatorship it
would be proletariat class which would suppress the minority or the capitalist. The
Communist state differs from the capitalist state in two ways:

a) In it the majority i.e. the workers will expropriate the majority.

b) The revolutionary proletariat will abolish all classes and then disappear as a class.

The proletarian dictatorship in the transitional period is not a fluctuating period of “Super
Revolutionary” deeds and decrease. On the contrary, the dictatorship of the proletariat must
be regarded as an entire historical epoch full of external conflicts and civil wars. In the
dictatorship of proletariat there is a constant organizational work along with economic
progress. In the dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletariat will be given full opportunity
to educate itself.

Lenin said, “Under the dictatorship of the proletariat we will have to re-educate
million of peasants and petty proprietors, hundreds of thousands of office workers
and bourgeoisie intellectuals to subordinate all these to proletarian state and to
proletarian leadership, to overcome their bourgeoisie habits and traditions, to re-
educate in a protracted struggle under the controlling auspices of the dictatorship
of the proletariat, the proletarians themselves, for they will not be able
themselves of own petty bourgeoisie prejudices at the first stroke as if by magic,
or at the behest of the Virgin Mary, or by a slogan, resolution or decree it can be
done only in the course of a long and difficult mass struggle against the mass of
petty bourgeoisie influence.”

The Communist holds that the proletarian dictatorship means the despotic rule of the
Communist minority. It will be a victory of democracy and not a despotism of a minority.
The proletariat class in power will not maintain the affairs of the state with repression and
violence. Laski was of the view that the dictatorship of the proletariat means, not the
anti-thesis of democracy, but the anti-thesis of the dictatorship of the
bourgeoisie. It will be exercised through elected bodies and subject to public
opinion. Lenin also remarks in this regard, “Revolutionary dictatorship of the
proletariat is power won and maintained by the violence of the proletariat against
the bourgeoisie power that is unrestrained by any law.”
The dictatorship of the proletariat is not an end, but a means to an end the creation of
society in which the basic principle of life and social organization would be, “from each
according to his capacity, to each according to his needs.” The dictatorship of the
proletariat is transitory in nature. After the establishment of the society, dictatorship of the
proletariat will not remain. The state will wither away. All functions of the state will
administer themselves and administration will be a matter of technical and scientific
knowledge instead of exercise of political will and authority. There will be an ideal society of
the free and the equal without any internal disruption and mutual dissension.

Karl Marx and Capitalism

Karl Marx devoted a great part of his life to the study of capitalism I order to describe the
capitalist method of production of his own age and for all ages to come. By studying
capitalism, Karl Marx wanted to know the guiding principle of its change. Karl Marx studied
the capitalism with missionary spirit to make a scientific forecast on its development. The
salient feature of the feudal production was production for local consumption. In the age of
feudalism, persons used to produce for themselves and for their feudal lords. In those days,
production was meant for consumption. Gradually feudal units of production began to break
up. Profit became the only aim of production in the modern world. Production for profit
required two things, capitalists’ means of production, and the laborers whose only chance of
getting a livelihood was to sell his labor.

In this new system of production, there was a complete change. Now the laborers produced
things not for their personal use. On the contrary the production was meant for the
capitalist to sell for money. In this new system of production, things were produced not for
consumption but for sale in the market. Laborer received his wages for his capitalist
employer for his work and the capitalist employer received profit. Karl Marx is of the view
that profit arises in the course of production. Sale of products does not produce profit.

According to Karl Marx, the exchange value of product depends upon the Labor
Time spent in its production. A product has a great exchange value if more human
labor has been put into its production. Labor time spent in producing labor power
means the time spent in producing the food, shelter, clothes and other such things which
are essential for the laborer maintenance. Nowadays a laborer is able to produce in a day
more than is necessary to his survival but he is paid by his employer a wage commensurate
with a subsistence level of existence. The difference is called surplus value. In the modern
capitalist society this surplus value is appreciated by the capitalist employer.

Karl Marx is of the view that capitalists are permanent profit makers because they
appropriate surplus value. It is very true that there is always a difference between the
exchange value of a product produced by laborer and the value of labor power. In simple
terms this difference may be called surplus value. Karl Marx opined that under capitalist
structure of production in each and every factory and industry, “the wages paid to the
workers are not the equivalent of the full value they produce, but only equal about
half this value or even less. The rest of the value produced by the worker during
his working days is taken outright by his employer.”
In the capitalist system of production, the capitalist always become greedy and ambitious to
increase the amount of surplus value which means more profit for him. Lust for profit is the
prime factor in the capitalist system of production. The capitalist make more profit only by
exploiting the laborer. According to Karl Marx exploitation of the laborer is another salient
feature of capitalism. This exploitation results in class struggle. Class struggle is perennial
and perpetual in the capitalism. The worker is fighting for the existence of his life and he
wanted to avoid intimidation and ultimately class struggle starts. The laborer demands
higher wages and shorter hours of work for improving his position. On the other hand, the
capitalist wants to make more profits and hence there is a constant clash and struggle
between the capitalist and the laborer, which can never come to an end so long as the
capitalist system of production lasts.

Karl Marx is of the view that property in any form is not capital, unless it is used to
produce surplus value. The early accumulation of capital was very largely open robbery.
But there was another way also through which capital came into existence. According to
Karl Marx the primitive accumulation is the real origin of capital. He ridicules the legend of
men, moderate in food and drink who served from their meager living. Karl
Marx said, “This primitive accumulation plays in political economy about the same
part as original sin played in theology. Adam bit the apple, and thereupon sin fell
upon the human race. In times long gone by there were town sorts of people; one,
the diligent, intelligent and above all frugal elite: the other lazy rascals, spending
their substance, and more in riotous living. Thus it came to pass that the former
sort accumulated wealth and the latter sort had a t last nothing to sell except their
own skin. And from this original sin dates the poverty of the great majority that,
despite all its labor, has up to now nothing to sell but itself and the wealth of the
few that increases constantly although they have long ceased to work.”

With the victory of the proletariat, the class struggle puts an end to this process by ending
capitalist system of production. Apart from class-struggle, there are other obstructions to
the smooth development of capitalism. In other words we may say that these obstacles as a
matter of fact are inherent in the capitalism. The most important among these obstacles, is
the economic crisis. This crisis creates a great obstacle to the smooth course of capitalist
development. Whenever economic crisis occur, it checks the expansion of capital. Economic
crisis do not check the expansion of capital, but often led to the destruction of the capital
accumulated in past years. Karl Marx said, “In these crisis there broke out an
epidemic that, is all earlier epochs, would have become an absolutely the epidemic
of over-production.”

Theory of State

“The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common
affairs of the bourgeoisie as a whole.” (Karl Marx)

State is thought of as parliament or some representative institution. Karl Marx concluded

that the development of the state had nothing to do with any form of representative
institutions. But he was of the view that state is a machine through which the ruling class
imposes its will on the majority. According to Karl Marx, state is not meant for the
promotion of the welfare of its people nor bestows any right of political obligation and
obedience but its coercion and that a class coercion. The state acts as an agency of class
coercion in the hands of dominant economic class rather than an association of citizens is
the pursuits of a common purpose.

According to the Communist theory, the state is nothing but a tool of the dominant
class in society. Economic is the domineering factor which becomes the base of all
structures of the society. According to Aristotle the state came into birth for the sake of life
and state continues to exist for the sake of good life. According to classical view, state is an
institution meant for the proper development of the personality of its each and every
citizen. Laski said, “State strives to hold a just balance between the different
elements in society. It strives by its policy to effect such an adjustment of the
relationship between citizens and will enable each of them to realize, if he so
desires, the fullest implications of human personality.”

Karl Marx vividly differs from the classical views regarding state. He says the state has
never and can never aim at the common good of the community as a whole. According to
Communist Manifesto, the state is the executive committee of the bourgeoisie. Karl
Marx said, “State is nothing more than the form of organization which the
bourgeoisie necessarily adopt both for internal and external purpose for the
mutual guarantee of their property and interest.”

According to Karl Marx, there was no state in primitive society and as soon as human
society was formed it bifurcated into two classes. It became very essential for the privileged
class to have an armed force for the purpose to maintain the privileges of the privileged
class and secondly to protect the interests of the privileged class. Friedrich
Engel said, “This public force exists in every state, it consists not merely of armed
men, but of material appendages, prisons and repressive institutions of all
kind.” Naturally, the ruling class having the apparatus of force and absolute rod of
authority will always coerce upon the other classes of society. Fear and intimidation of the
ruling class constrained the people to subdue for complete obedience and hence the Marxian
state aims at crushing the independent will of its subjects. Communists hold the views from
the record of history that the state exists only to help the capitalist in exploiting and
suppressing the laborers.

Karl Marx viewed state as a product of class antagonism. Lenin said, “Where, when and
to what extent, the state arises depends directly on which where and to what
extent, the class antagonism of a given society cannot be objectively reconciled.
And, conversely the existence of the state proves that class antagonisms are
irreconcilable.” Karl Marx was of the view that the state will be able to wither away
completely when society has realized the value, “From each according to his ability: to
each according to his needs.” Then there would be no problem of production and its
distribution. There would be no question of mine and thine. Every one will work voluntarily
according to his ability and capacity and will get share according to his needs and
requirements.
Classless Society:
Karl Marx was of the opinion that class struggle is perpetual and constant between man and
man and consequently man always fought for his own existence. It ends only if the final and
ultimate victory of the labor is achieved. This is a known factor that in the capitalist
structure of society, but not over the means of production and its direction was vested in
the hands of the capitalist. Proletariats in that society are neglected people always living at
the sweet mercy of capitalist. When violent bloody revolution in the name of communism
bring about complete and ultimate victory to the proletarian revolutionaries, and the
complete annihilation of the aristocratic and capitalist class in the society ushers a new
epoch of social equality and economic parity. With the advent of proletarianism, a new
system of legal, economic, political and production world emerges out. In this new system,
all the functions of the government and the means as well as technique of production were
to be controlled by the society.

Friedrich Engel said, “Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more
completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians it
creates the power which under penalty of its own destruction is forced to
accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation
of the vast means of production already socialized into state property. It shows
itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political
power and turns the means of production into state property.” All the class
distinction in society would disappear, and with the disappearance of the class distinctions in
society, the class struggle would also come to an end. The proletariat would use their power
to eliminate private ownership of means of production. As soon as private ownership of
means of production is eliminated, all class distinction would automatically vanish and
society would become a stateless and classless society.

Criticism:

1. Karl Marx’s theory of state stands against the classical theory of state. According to
classical view, the main reason for the existence of the state is the promotion of the good of
the community. On the contrary, Karl Marx’s state is a machine by which one class exploits
and suppresses the other.

2. Karl Marx’s views do no explain the exact nature of the state. It gives a wrong
conception. He says that the ruling class is the representative of an economic class and the
ruling class is always interested in pursuing its own interests. This is incorrect view of Karl
Marx. The example of medieval kings and emperors stand against the theory of Karl Marx as
they were not the representative of an economic class and consciously pursuing the
interests of their own class. On the contrary, the ancient and medieval kings were the
representatives of the whole society.

3. Karl Marx’s theory of stat is quite applicable to the first half of the nineteenth century,
but for twentieth century it is quite inapplicable. In the first half of the nineteenth century,
Laissez-faire policy was predominant but today its forces are no longer reliable. Now we live
in an era of democratic socialist planning. Nowadays state is meant for the promotion of the
common good. Thus it can be said that Karl Marx’s theory of state is not at all applicable to
the states of modern times.

4. The conception of Karl Marx that victory of proletariats over the capitalists would result in
the disappearance of class distinction is absolutely incorrect and untrue for glaring reasons
that he had created class distinction i.e. bourgeoisie and proletariat, two great hostile
camps and two prominent classes constantly indulging in class struggle and warfare which
culminated into oppression and chaos.