Quick viewing(Text Mode)

A Thesis Entitled Leftist Leviathan by Samuel E. Gold Submitted to the Graduate Faculty As Partial Fulfillment of the Requiremen

A Thesis Entitled Leftist Leviathan by Samuel E. Gold Submitted to the Graduate Faculty As Partial Fulfillment of the Requiremen

A Thesis

entitled

Leftist Leviathan

by

Samuel E. Gold

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Master of Degree in

Master of Arts in Philosophy

______Dr. Benjamin Grazzini, Committee Chair

______Dr. Ammon Allred, Committee Member

______Dr. Roberto Padilla, Committee Member

______Dr. Amanda Bryant-Friedrich, Dean College of Graduate Studies

The University of Toledo

May 2018

Copyright 2018, Samuel Emory Gold

This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright , no parts of this document may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author. An Abstract of

Leftist Leviathan

by

Samuel E. Gold

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Philosophy Degree in Master of Arts in Philosophy

The University of Toledo

May 2018

This paper is a five-chapter exploration into the relationship between a Hobbesian notion of , and the implementation of in the Union. The of has been most often interpreted through a particular reading of the German , which. as a result, has rendered Hobbesian philosophy synonymous with a strict, authoritarian like the Nazi party in

Germany. However, simplifying the role of sovereign authority Nazism misses the strong parallels present between the relationship of the sovereign and the commonwealth, and the implementation of Marxism under Josef Stalin’s rule in the . This model, wherein the Soviet citizens have been removed from the political realm forms an analogous relationship to what is present under the Hobbesian . This is not to say that Marxism can be read back to Hobbes, but, rather, that Stalin’s implemented a version of the social contract which inadvertently drew upon Hobbesian influence. Through an assembling of primary and secondary sources, this thesis aims to show that a left-leaning reading of Hobbes is not only possible, but has a real-world example to draw upon.

iii

I would like to dedicate this thesis to my who have been supportive of my time spent studying philosophy. I would not be the person I am now without your guidance, love, and sacrifice. Thank you.

Acknowledgements

As my six years in philosophy at the University of Toledo come to an end, I would like to take this page to thank the members of my committee for all their help.

From the first mention of my desire to write a thesis on Thomas Hobbes and , you all demonstrated an enthusiasm for and desire to see me succeed which inspired me to pursue this even more. This thesis could not have evolved into a coherent work without your collective guidance and for that I be forever thankful.

v

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... iii

Acknowledgements ...... v

Table of Contents ...... vi

1 A Leftist Leviathan? ...... 1

1.1 Hobbes and Socialism ...... 8

1.2 Intended Methodology ...... 13

1.3 Structure ...... 16

2 Thomas Hobbes: How Becomes Socialism ...... 21

2.1 Establishing a Hobbesian Framework ...... 21

2.2 Hobbes’ Historical Context...... 24

2.3 Understanding Leviathan and the Social Contract...... 29

2.4 A Hobbesian Account of the and Citizen ...... 34

3 Marxist Theory: Connecting the Dots...... 52

3.1 On Marx ...... 52

3.2 Parallels in , , and Determinism ...... 59

3.3 Engels and the State, Bridging Theory with Practice ...... 61

3.4 How Does Marxism Parallel the Hobbesian State? ...... 64

4 The Leviathan Incarnate? Josef Stalin and the USSR ...... 68

4.1 ’s Influence on Stalin’s Approach to ...... 72 vi

4.2 Stalin’s Adaptation of the Hobbesian Sovereign ...... 75

4.3 The Five-Year Plan: An Ideological Synthesis ...... 77

4.4 The Sovereign-Subject Relationship in ...... 83

5 What We Have Learned ...... 91

References ...... 96

vii

Chapter 1

A Leftist Leviathan?

As with any thesis, the aim of writing mine is to help cement my own ideas in a relatively small and unimportant archive of fellow graduate student work. In all likelihood, this work will be relegated to an obscure corner of leftist academia, and nothing more. In our modern geopolitical climate, a politically conservative individual would likely look at any work with the word “Leftist” in the title and immediately furrow their brow. An individual with these beliefs would either outright reject my writing without careful consideration, or they will read it only with the intention of finding points of disagreement.

In all likelihood, I will not sway many opinions of those who think differently than I do, however, I ask that those who continue reading this do so with an open mind, and a willingness to reevaluate previous notions of power, sovereignty, and leftist .

At an individual level, humans tend to jump to quick conclusions on a cornucopia of topics. As impulsive creatures, we make up our minds on ideological grounds that lack significant substance, and will often be hesitant to change them even when provided with

1

substantial evidence that must call into question what we hold to be true.1 This is something which occurs daily; we read news headlines or overhear discussions of current events and quickly formulate opinions determined by our own confirmation bias. While this kind of behavior is acceptable within an individualistic sphere, on a large scale, this sort of attitude inevitably leads to dogmatic groupthink amongst likeminded individuals. As we begin to unravel the themes of this thesis, and better understand the of power structures, and the necessity of sovereign power, we can better understand, end empathize with the political philosophy of a controversial individual like Thomas Hobbes. If this particular thesis can teach anything, then, regardless of political perspective, is that we must be very willing to evaluate any preconceived notions

Perhaps to put this idea of revision in a better context, let us take, for example, this particular passage on a public execution:

On 2 March 1757 Damiens the was condemned ‘to make the amende honorable before the main door of the Church of ’, where he was to be ‘taken and conveyed in a cart, wearing nothing but a shirt, holding a torch of burning wax weighing two pounds’; then, ‘in said cart, to the Place de Greve, where, on a scaffold that will be erected there, the flesh will be torn from his breasts, arms, thighs and calves with red-hot pincers, his right hanve, holding the knife with which he committed the said parricide, burnt with sulphur, and on those places where the flesh will be torn away, poured molten lead, boiling oil, burning resin, wax and sulphur melted together and then his body drawn and quartered by four horses.2

Set before us is a portion of the opening passage of ’s book, Discipline and

Punish. Here, the French describes a scene of a man, Robert-Francois

1 If no better example comes to mind, think of the current debate on climate change. Despite a near unanimous belief amongst scientists in regards to the impact of human beings on climate change, there still exist those who believe climate change is not real, or that our impact is utterly insignificant. 2 Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish, pg. 3. 2

Damiens, convicted of regicide, being drawn and quartered—a punishment where the offender is pulled apart by their limbs. Foucault describes an utterly brutal scene in which

Damiens suffered greatly because he could not be drawn and quartered properly. Foucault tells us that, “they were forced, in order to cut off the wretch’s thighs, to sever the sinews and hack at the joints…”3 This is, of course, utterly barbaric and unimaginable by modern standards. In the contemporary system, we pride ourselves on administering human punishments—with a supposed focus on rehabilitation of the convicted criminal.4 Even the most heinous of criminals that are given the death penalty receive it in a private location, with only a handful of spectators, a vastly different scenario from the social phenomenon that is a public execution.

Foucault, however, argued that this punishment served a certain function that was no longer present in contemporary of justice. The very nature of the execution was to reinforce the legitimacy of the sovereign’s power.5 “The aim was to make an example, not only by making people aware that the slightest offence was likely to be punished, but by arousing feelings of terror by the spectacle of power letting its anger fall upon the guilty person.”6 The public spectacle of punishment meant that the ordinary citizen would witness the repercussions of the wrongdoings; convicted criminals

3 Ibid., pg. 3. 4 In The Birth of Biopolitics, a compilation of Foucault’s lectures, he signified that the shift from punishment of the offender to the focus of rehabilitation as a significant change—for the worse—in the justice system. 5 Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish. pgs. 34-35. 6 Ibid., pg. 54. 3

(regardless of the legitimacy of the medieval justice system)7 were subjected to excruciating punishments not only as a way of making up for their wrongdoings, but to discourage likeminded behavior. Above all else, Foucault points out, the sovereign feared the power of the masses.8 While the criminal proceedings leading up to the execution were private, the final matter was displayed publicly as a demonstration of the power they possessed.

This, however, would quickly change. As modern institutions of justice began to undergo reforms, the focus of these prisons shifted, supposedly for the benefit of the individuals incarcerated. The end result was the death penalty being eliminated as a public action, instead placing it within the confines of a building cut off from the public view. For

Foucault, this was a bad alternative, as the public spectacle of punishment served a very necessary role. As the focus of institutions shifted towards a more private role, punishment became focused on the state ensuring their stranglehold of power over the individual citizen—Foucault makes this explicitly clear when discussing the modern disciplinary .9 When the goings on of punishment are withheld from the average individual, the mystique and power of is magnified—something we will return to later.

Foucault claimed that “[t]he public execution is to be understood not only as a judicial, but also as a political ritual. It belongs, even in minor cases, to the ceremonies by

7 Foucault acknowledges that the medieval justice system was not fair. The accused did not have a right to defend themselves, know what kind of evidence there was against them, or who had accused them of a supposed crime until they were presented before a magistrate to hear their sentence. 8 Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish. pg. 35. 9 Ibid., pg. 218. Here, the state no longer had to rely on demonstrations of force to demonstrate their legitimacy, but instead were able to rule through stronger control over the economy, a juridico- that relied upon parliamentary style , and the implementation of science. 4

which power is manifested.”10 As such, Foucault uses the example of public torture to demonstrate how the sovereign’s ability to exert power over the body underscored the sovereign’s legitimacy—something which is no longer necessary within modern political institutions. As we will see, Hobbes constructs the purpose of sovereignty in a parallel manner. The sovereign ought to fear the power of the people, and as such, use their own strength to reinforce their legitimacy and maintain order. The purpose was not solely to scare their citizens, after all, the public execution includes compassion with the church present to evoke —rather, in medieval society, as in Hobbes, the sovereign maintained the penultimate authority regarding the regulation of their subjects, and this was a strong reminder of it. Moving with this thesis, then, we will see how

Foucault’s conception of sovereignty and demonstrations of force in medieval Europe happens to connect well to Hobbes’ writing.

Through force, the sovereign demonstrates why their word is law. This was a context-specific action, however, and certainly one that we would consider uncivilized.

According to Foucault, however, in the modern prison system, punishment is not necessarily more humane, just removed from the public spectacle. The panopticon, a model

Foucault borrowed from English philosopher , serves as an alternative extension of sovereignty manifested in constant surveillance. Here, inmates are incarcerated in a prison that resembles a kind of zoo.11 The incarcerated believe they are being observed by a warden and guards at all times, and internalize the conception of the

10 Ibid., pg. 47. 11 Ibid., pg. 203. Foucault describes the scene of the panoptic prison as one akin to the menagerie 5

sovereign—they learn to police themselves. Foucault describes this system as one in which the inmates are a spectacle for observation; prison does not rehabilitate inmates, nor does it address the socioeconomic issues which forced them into unfortunate circumstances, rather it removes them from the public view. Like the public execution, this kind of punishment fits a certain role within a changing sociopolitical environment. As the development of the nation-state emerges, and we begin to see the role of the individual emerge, and punishment is adapted, but, that does not necessarily suggest that a prison system is necessarily better than the execution. While one is swift and graphic, the is private, with the outside world having no conception of what might be happening within.

For a thesis focused on Thomas Hobbes, why we are opening with a discussion of

Foucault’s retelling of a Renaissance punishment must surely raise some questions. The purpose of mentioning this was not to briefly critique previous forms of the justice system, but instead to provide a certain context for how this thesis will be framed. Foucault’s writing gives us an example of an historical phenomenon, which we at first have a negative disposition towards—the public spectacle of torture and public punishment. Assuming we agree with the thesis Foucault posits, then we must revisit our previous beliefs, and perhaps recognize that while modern institutions are certainly different from the past, that does not necessarily mean they are better. We must be willing to revisit ideas—specifically within their own social and historical context—that might seem foreign and backwards to us.

To truly understand any individual or event, one must understand the social circumstances around it; this helps to ensure a well-formulated opinion is crafted in as objective a manner as possible. The tendency in academics to push into blanket classifications often results in over-simplification or misrepresentation of theory, this 6

creates an entirely different set of problems when it comes time to unpack these theories.

In recent memory, few seem to fit this bill as well as Thomas Hobbes or Karl

Marx. As will be discussed in more detail to come, individuals have a tendency to simplify and extract only specific information from these two to conform to whatever agenda they might have; the result, then, is a skewed perspective—in which only the darkest or most offensive aspects are remembered.12 As such, this thesis aims broaden the scope by which

Hobbes and Marx are read—introducing interpretations which demonstrate how these theories are somewhat intertwined.

In this thesis, then, we will be demonstrating how the political philosophy of

Thomas Hobbes, as seen through his works, Leviathan and De Cive, lines up with the implementation of Marxism under Josef Stalin’s rule of the USSR. This is not to say that

Hobbes himself was a proto-communist, but, rather, that his theory played an unintentional influence in the leadership of a communist nation. To demonstrate this, parallels will be drawn between Hobbes political writings and the real-world actions of Stalin, using the

Soviet premier as a kind of ideological middle ground between the writings of the two theorists. This thesis argues that the actions of Josef Stalin are the ultimate synthesis between creating the classless workers , and fulfilling the role of the sovereign within the commonwealth.

12 Without derailing too much from the discussion at hand, this could be briefly summarized as Hobbes advocating for things like brutally repressive ; likewise, people more conservative individuals have a tendency to lump together certain kinds of actions as being Marxist/socialist regardless of whether or not those actions have any kind of connection to Marxist rhetoric at all. The end result of popular and uninformed opinions on these subjects is an inability to produce productive discussion about these individuals, as there has not been a sufficient discussion of historical context/framework that can better justify their actions. The aim in this thesis, is to better understand, and relate to some of these actions. 7

The focus is not on Stalin directly, however, but instead to demonstrate the not so obvious influence that Hobbes appeared to have upon Stalin, given that the material conditions necessary for socialism, in accordance with traditional Marxism, were incompatible with the Soviet Union under Stalin during the era of the New Economic Plan.

To accomplish this task, there must be a better understanding of the social conditions that lead Hobbes (as well as the socialists being analyzed) to develop such political opinions.

Using Discipline and Punish as an ideological framework, we must be prepared to dig deep beneath the surface to make connections between the role of Stalin as a centralized, authoritarian leftist, and the Leviathan in Hobbes’ political philosophy.

1.1 Hobbes and Socialism

Despite frequent complaints about invasions of privacy, taxation, and bungled foreign policy, among others, there is no denying the ultimate necessity of government.

Throughout our recorded , the foundation of any successful society stems from the strength and order provided by their governmental structure. According to the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, even a bad government is better than no government at all.

A lack of government and the structure it provides opens up opportunity for chaos to run free. So, while it may appear that from time to time our government is utterly incapable of doing its job properly, and when individuals begin to lose faith that our even care about our well-being at all, we can take some form of consolation in knowing that this system more than likely is still a better system for us than . But the question remains then: does it have to be this way? This is to say, must we always live in such a way that we despise our government only slightly less than we despise living in anarchy? Does there 8

exist a possibility of a governmental structure, that at least in theory, exists primarily as an entity which promotes economic fairness and a mindset that prioritizes the happiness of its citizens through the removal of economic and societal oppression? These kinds of beliefs would be traditionally—and rightfully so—attributed to the likes of and

Friedrich Engels, but as I intend to show, they can be traced even further back, to Thomas

Hobbes.

Throughout my own studies, I have noticed that Hobbes is frequently misinterpreted, categorized incorrectly, or is outright ignored by those that have an in political philosophy. To many, Hobbes was little more than a bitter old man with a staunch hatred of democracy, and firm belief that the most efficient and superior governmental structure was . To be fair in this regard, conventional wisdom would indicate that this over simplification was right; a quick internet search beginning with “why Hobbes…” will be followed by statements like “hated democracy” or “believed in monarchy”. However, this thesis will bring to light how this interpretation of Hobbes is questionable. In fact, the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes extends beyond the influence of supporters of monarchy to Marxist who adopted principles of his writings alongside those of Marx and Engels.

Admittedly, it is true that Hobbes despised what he perceived as the terror of the rule of the masses;13 but, before we begin to it is important to establish a context behind why the Englishman held these beliefs. In the most simple of analyses, one could argue that Hobbes’ hatred of his fellow man stemmed from a rather pessimistic view of human

13 Hobbes, Thomas. De Cive, pg. 198-199. 9

nature: humans were inherently wicked and desired nothing more than to benefit themselves, even at the expense of others.14 Without order crafted through organized government, Human beings, would live in what Hobbes called the state nature,15 a place in which there are no rules, no order, and any kind of actions can be justified on the grounds that one must do what is necessary to survive. This suggests that in the morality is an afterthought, and can be used as a kind of justification or explanation for why people do bad things: it is simply a part of our nature.

If humans were to be left to their own devices, Hobbes insisted it would only be a matter of time before our species wiped itself off the face of the Earth. Without regulated intervention, our penchant towards chaotic behavior prevents us from coexisting peacefully without order. As such, Hobbes believed that what we need is a form of strict, but fair government, in which individuals cede their natural to do as they please in exchange for guaranteed protection. Doing so, he believed would protect us from avoiding a life that was “poore, nasty, brutish, and short.”16 In his work, De Cive, but most notably in

Leviathan, Hobbes alluded to a form of government in which one body would regulate the legislative and judicial aspects of day-to-day life on behalf of the civilian population in exchange for the citizens of this commonwealth ceding their natural rights—meaning they had to obey the particular rules of the system, in exchange for protection from threats that endanger their way of life. This individual, or group of individuals, known as the

14 Hobbes, Leviathan, pg. 190. 15 Ibid., pg. 186. 16 Ibid., pg. 186. 10

Leviathan, runs commonwealth, and exists outside the sphere of society.17 The Leviathan is supposed to be omnipotent, and omnibenevolent (or at least powerful and kind enough) and they have absolute authority over the citizen population in exchange for protecting said people.

On an initial reading, this theory appears to resemble a system a lot like monarchy; which one might expect from Hobbes’ critical account of democracy as seen in De Cive.18

Further, Hobbes lived through the Second Civil in England, led by Oliver Cromwell, who deposed the monarchy, with a poorly run democracy, and watched as his country was torn to shreds from infighting.19 The general ineptitude of the government put in place after

Cromwell’s , combined with his rather pessimistic view of humankind as we exist in our natural state sealed the fate of democracy in Hobbes’ mind: giving people the option to choose their leaders, and a general reliance on the masses to choose for themselves would more often than not be a bad decision. However, we must not forget that the overarching goal of the political system of Thomas Hobbes is not to install a king to rule, but instead to create a system by which an individual, or individuals lead their commonwealth to economic and social prosperity by ensuring that all citizens are treated fairly and equally.

17 This, of course is not necessarily practical, but according to Hobbes is how one could ensure the ruler(s) would be capable of absolute fairness. 18 Hobbes, De Cive, pg. 197. In this writing, Hobbes has several chapters in which he systematically picks apart the flaws that he perceived arise when beings that consistently prove to be irrational are given the freedom to make political decisions for themselves. 19 Alan Ryan, On Hobbes, pg. 3. 11

Prosperity in this sense is not merely economic success—Hobbes was not examining this from a purely economic standpoint20—but rather to be free from fear of death, the ability to travel about the commonwealth, and to exchange ideas which cultivate a cultural identity of the commonwealth itself. Moving forward, it will be imperative to recognize that when this thesis refers to the prosperity of the commonwealth, it does so from a perspective removed from a capitalist context.

In accordance to how this thesis reads Leviathan, the sovereign, replaces previously existing systems of government, and creates one in which the individuals work for the common benefit of the state, or commonwealth. Here, class roles erode, and life for the average citizen is not about survival, but mutual benefit.21 Individuals voluntarily join a system in which citizens are all given equal rights and equal freedom—via a social contract—with rules and norms decided for us by an uninvolved, impartial leader. In this sense, we see the eventual eradication of the class system: there are no nobles, no , or , just citizens working towards the mutual benefit of their society.

This thesis argues that Hobbes’ political theory works because it relies on a unified effort amongst all citizens of the commonwealth, who work towards a collective goal of

20 Having lived in pre-capitalist times, it cannot be immediately assumed that the sovereign would prioritize economic . Tom Sorell in, “The Burdensome Freedom of Sovereigns” found in Leviathan after 350 Years, presents the notion that economic would produce prosperity within the commonwealth, but this thesis will show how interests derived from are actually counterproductive to the success of the commonwealth. 21 This will be addressed in greater detail in chapters two and four, but briefly, Hobbes system of governance rejected the divine mandate, which meant that the lost claim to the legitimacy of their power, as well as their right to land. This move towards the elimination of an entire class (coupled with the accusations of Hobbes faced later in life) suggests a significant leap towards a leveled social playing field—people do not have a right to private , nor access to an elite on the basis of their birth, rather, under the subjection to a singular sovereign, there is no political , other than the subject-sovereign relationship, of which everyone is equal beneath the might of . 12

maintaining a prosperous state, and isolating political power. In this world, the citizens of the commonwealth willingly cede their ‘natural rights’ in exchange for protection and a fair rule from the sovereign.22 The focus of the commonwealth is not on survival of the individual, but rather, how individuals with mutual interests can thrive under singular political rule. This communal mindset, then, leads us to the focal point of this thesis:

Hobbes’ political writings, although not directly, laid the foundation for Stalin’s rule in the

Soviet Union. At the time, the material conditions necessary for true socialism were not possible in a largely agrarian and technologically “backwards” Soviet Union. Instead,

Stalin assumed responsibility as an absolute sovereign, consolidating power, and governing the nation on his own. While Stalin himself did not read Hobbes, and would have considered himself a socialist, his actions indicate otherwise. When we establish a foundational knowledge of both Leviathan, as well as the economic policies of traditional

Marxism, we will see that the firm authoritative power he displayed was not in accordance with traditional Marxism. This is not to say that these two ideologies are incompatible, however, it is quite the opposite. The Soviet Union in the early-to-middle twentieth century, through revolution, had ideologically prepared itself for socialism, but was economically unprepared. Stalin, then, inadvertently borrowed from Hobbes, and fulfilled the role of the sovereign as he maneuvered the Soviet Union into a world power—ensuring the nation’s safety and prosperity. As such, we will see that the political philosophy of

22 Again, here we must remember that the sovereign does not necessarily have to be a king, but could be a democratically elected individual, group of people, or, as we will be discussing here, a party that took hold of a country with the well-being of the citizens in mind. 13

Hobbes is not merely that of far-right conservative , but has significant synthesis with socialist politics.

1.2 Intended Methodology

The purpose of this paper, then, is to rectify the more egregious misinterpretations of Hobbes’ writings, and further to cement his place in political philosophy as more than just an anti-democratic , but as someone whose philosophical concepts can be observed in the actual implementation of communism in the Soviet Union. To demonstrate this, we must first understand some of the most important aspects of Hobbesian philosophy.

In Leviathan, Hobbes does not require that the actual Leviathan of the Commonwealth be a monarch; although Hobbes preferred monarchy because it was the better alternative to

Cromwell’s democracy, Hobbes showed reluctance to use a term like King; instead preferring to refer to them as a sovereign. This is important because it means leadership, although isolated and absolute, does not derive from a divine mandate, rather, the sovereign can be anyone that demonstrates their leadership ought to be respected.23

We must, then, understand the absolute power of sovereignty. Having spent most of his life in a country wrapped in utter chaos from infighting and weak leadership, Hobbes argued that strong, centralized government was an utter necessity to ensure the safety of the commonwealth. If the commonwealth is secured from the threat of violence, and its citizens are able to act and move freely about, this can be considered a prosperous society.

As a result, a sovereign state of authority ought to be imposed, that would handle the law-

23 The sovereign could presumably be an oligarchical structure acting in unison. 14

making process for the citizens, rendering them all equal on a class-level, at least in theory.

This is even something we see today in our own government. For better for worse, as

Americans we trust our own government with sovereign authority to act in our best interests and keep us protected from threats both outside and inside, at the expense of our

“natural rights”—the , of course, being that our system is perpetuated by a not- so-violent revolution that occurs every four years, whereas Hobbes wanted a one-time revolution in which whomever, or whatever took helm as the Leviathan would hold power indefinitely until they had proven unfit for the job.

Once a firm foundation of Hobbesian political philosophy has been established, we can begin to dissect the language used in the writings of Marx, Engels, and the revolutionaries that followed these teachings. Most notably, we have to understand a term like class. A class, in a Marxist definition, is the social and economic status that someone possesses. Some people are fortunate enough to be born into higher classes and are afforded luxuries, while most are not. Class-, according to Marx, is something that he ultimately desired for the (working forces) to establish. It is the acknowledgement that sparks the action in which the lower classes recognize that they are, in fact, being oppressed, and can thereby revolutionize and eliminate the system that oppresses them. This is easier said than done, as political systems are, by nature designed to oppress individuals so that others may succeed, but both Hobbes and Marx propose a system that would cause the elimination of class, and both of which could be sparked through a recognizing of class-consciousness by the lower class.

This is, of course, but one brief example that will be further expanded upon in the thesis itself, in addition to concepts like the social contract, the estrangement of the 15

individual, and the necessity of unity amongst the population of a commonwealth. This will enable us to better view the idea of a benevolent Leviathan—for the people by the people—rather than an oppressive, absolute monarch, and how it connects to the practical implementation of a communist system of government. Through the analysis of primary documents belonging to the aforementioned political theorists, secondary works, and my own analysis, the parallels between Hobbes’ theory and Stalin’s leadership will begin to fall in line.

With that said, it would be doing this topic an injustice if we did not look at the practical application of Marxist rhetoric, and how it applies the Hobbesian principles that theorists like Marx wrote about. For this section, the thesis will draw primary from

Vladimir and in the Soviet Union. Each revolutionary adapted their own synthesis of Marxist ideology and Hobbesian principles that furthers the idea of how entwined these two theories are. The adaptation of traditional Marxism, especially as seen during the first of Stalin’s Five Year Plans will clearly demonstrate the overlapping influences of Marx (directly) and Hobbes (indirectly). When this thesis reaches its conclusion, then, the reader will be able to fully understand how one could make the argument that Thomas Hobbes, the staunch monarchist, was, inadvertently, influential on communist thought.

1.3 Structure

These past few paragraphs have begun to introduce the ideas of this thesis, but they have only scratched the surface regarding the organization of this work, and the secondary research I will be using. 16

This thesis will contain five chapters, the first of which is this introduction. The second chapter will discuss terms like “state”, “class”, and “sovereign” that will be used throughout the paper. We will examine the philosophy of Hobbes, which itself will be divided into two parts. The first will include a biographical background on Hobbes to better understand the social context of his political writings. The second section will be an analysis of Hobbes’ primary works; I will quote directly from the texts Leviathan and De

Cive, and supplement it with my own analysis of the governmental structure that Hobbes is creating in his work. Moreover, the use of secondary sources like Judd Owen and Richard

Ashcraft will demonstrate the true role of the sovereign, as well as how a commonwealth can be considered prosperous from a non-economic standpoint.

Carl Schmitt, who is known as perhaps one of the biggest proponents of , and the Hobbes of the ,24 was incredibly interested in the nature of sovereignty, as we will see in , and The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy.

Schmitt’s interest in sovereignty stemmed from what he perceived to be the failure of liberalism.25 The solution to a system that he believed did not work, was a strong, centralized sovereign power, which led him to Hobbes. Looking at both of Schmitt’s works will allow us to see how Schmitt used Hobbes’ model of centralized power within the commonwealth as authority is derived from those who establish ; or, the one who decides the exception.26 In this sense, the reader can better understand how Hobbes’ views were adapted in a more modern context regarding the world of law making. Not only

24 Thomsen, Jacob Als, "Carl Schmitt - The Hobbesian of the 20th Century?"pg. 5. 25 Paul Kahn, Political Theology, pg. 41. 26 Ibid., pg. 1. 17

specific to Schmitt’s , but in keeping Schmitt’s writings in mind, as we progress through the thesis, we can see how the leaders of the Soviet Union had this same thought process on sovereignty and rule-making as well.

Chapter three will function as an interlude between Stalin and Hobbes. Here, we will return to the likes of Foucault, who, aside from providing a framework for the thesis, provides incredibly beneficial analysis on the power structure of government, as we will attempt to connect it to the actions of Joseph Stalin. We will also have a direct analysis of the accounts of both Marx and Engels, implementing their terminology like “class” and

“”, as well as Marx’s plan for the eventual eradication of the state as we know it, and the formation of a . This will be contrasted to the absolute state proposed in Hobbes, which, of course, sounds diametrically opposed to what Marx and Engels presented, but this thesis poses the question, at what point in time, does an absolute state, unlike anything we have ever experienced, cease to be a state? Through further analysis of Marx and Engel’s writing, we will aim to show how the absolute state no longer exists in within any current conception of what a nation-state is, and we could effectively consider it sufficiently comparable to the in Marx.

Engels, much like Hobbes, was incredibly interested in the formation of the state.

In his work, The Origin of the Family, and the State, Engels historicizes the formation of the state as something that comes from a natural progression; moving from a stage he refers to as savagery,27 into a more civilized, modern society. Engel’s depiction of the savage stage, as we will see, is remarkably similar to the state of nature as seen in

27 , The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. Pg. 87. 18

Hobbes’ work. Likewise, both men come to a similar conclusion: the state arises as a necessary response to the otherwise barbaric outside world. The direction that each one takes is somewhat different, in that Hobbes argues for the absolute state, and Engels would argue for state eradication, but again, this thesis will attempt to show how an absolute state breaks the rules of statehood as we know them, and functions quite similarly to how Stalin adapted Marxist theory.

Chapter four, then will demonstrate how these ideas were implemented in the revolutionary practices of Joseph Stalin. We will examine Stalin’s social policies to see in what ways he functioned as a true socialist, and in what ways he differed. As such, this chapter will seek to connect traditional Marxist rhetoric with Stalin’s implementation of more Hobbesian policies. If we are successful in doing so, then this chapter will serve as the cornerstone of the thesis itself. Stalin will be adequately portrayed as an individual, who recognized the Soviet Union’s inability to truly adopt socialist economic policies in its contemporary state. As such, through an understanding of Hobbes’ Leviathan, and

Marxism, combined with our own analysis and interpretation of Stalin’s actions, will show that his actions were a true synthesis of ideologies that many individuals have mistakenly believed are incompatible. We seek to prove, however, that Stalin was, in fact, a Leftist

Leviathan in his own right.

Finally, there will be a short conclusion chapter. Here, I will show what, in my own opinion is the definite relationship between the absolute, classless, social-state that Hobbes proposes in Leviathan, and the classless, workers’ utopia presented in the writings of Marx and Engels. The previous chapters, having introduced us to the terminology of these primary political philosophers, accompanied by analysis both from myself and experts in 19

the field of political philosophy, and having been analyzed from the perspective of those who put Marx’s words into action, will serve to reinforce the argument of this thesis.

Regardless of Hobbes’ intentions when writing Leviathan, the system he proposed is most akin to a classless, equal society, in which the goals of the commonwealth are tantamount to the goals of individuals; in this absolute state, individuals are free from worry of the terrors of the outside world, the sovereign guarantees equal treatment of the citizens, freeing them from worry of the likes of labor exploitation, and providing the citizens with the best quality of life—truly socialist ideals. To do this, then, we have to first begin with,

“what Hobbes really meant.”28

28 Catlin, George E.G., “Thomas Hobbes and Contemporary Political Theory.” pg. 2. 20

Chapter 2

Thomas Hobbes: How Liberalism Becomes Socialism

The focus of this chapter will be twofold: understanding the primary argument in favor of the absolute authority of the sovereign in Hobbes’ Leviathan, and putting together the various moving parts that allow is to draw parallels between Hobbes’ own brand of political science and Marxism. As these moves are made, we will observe how Josef Stalin synthesized the two ideologies, employing a Hobbesian model of sovereignty in the Soviet

Union at a time when the material conditions in the union were not appropriate for traditional Marxism.

2.1 Establishing a Hobbesian framework

Thomas Hobbes lived at an interesting time in human history. On one hand, his interest in the role of the individual within society, as well as his conception of human nature crafts a political philosophy that some have referred to as proto-liberal.29 On the other hand, Hobbes was a staunch advocate of isolated power, insisting that democracy led to inevitable insurrection. True early liberals like , maintained similarly socially

29 Owen, Judd. “Tolerant Leviathan: Hobbes and the Paradox of Liberalism” pg. 134. 21

liberal views such as the belief that we are endowed with natural rights, “the preservation of life, the liberty, health, limb, or of another,”30 a proposition that Hobbes grants as well.31 Hobbes, then, is in a position that few others historically have been. Hobbes’ work posits that individuals ought to submit themselves to the authority of their monarch, yet, the sovereign still ought to have more of a responsibility to be receptive to the needs of their commonwealth. Thomas Hobbes, then, sits awkwardly in between two : socially tolerant liberalism, and subservience to an absolute monarch. Almost singlehandedly, Hobbes draws these two spheres together, sitting in the middle of this hypothetical Venn Diagram.32

As this thesis intends to prove, Hobbes’ political theory has, historically been misunderstood. German theorist Carl Schmitt’s adaptation of the role of the sovereign, borrowing from the Hobbesian terminology and a questionable interpretation of the social contract, relied on a poor reading of Leviathan to construct a philosophical ideology that justified the Nazi Party in Germany. This is not simply a one-off for Schmitt, either;

Political Theology, as well as The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy among other writings, attack the notion of democratic government.

Like Hobbes in seventeenth century England; Schmitt saw himself as being confronted with political instability and the threat of . And as Hobbes had done before him Schmitt saw the problem as originating in the

30 Locke, John. Second Treatise on Government. Pg. 117. 31 Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. pg. 190. Within the state of nature, Hobbes identifies that we have certain “natural” rights. While these refer more to our ability to act as we please in nature; more akin to free will than anything else, it is still worth noting that these rights are also applicable to the commonwealth as well. As will be shown in this chapter, the commonwealth under the sovereign is not entirely oppressive. 32 If we look at the ideology of democracy and that of monarchy as separate entities, then Hobbes draws upon elements of both, bringing them together to form a more liberal defense of . 22

absence of a strong single authority and they both pointed to the state as the ordering principle.33

The problem for Hobbes scholarship, then, is that Schmitt’s political philosophy justified genocide and an oppressive regime in the form of the Nazi Party. For Schmitt, the logical response to the chaos of democracy was an authoritarian state—one with aggressive policies of “ethnic cleansing” to establish a dominant and pure race. This is not the case in

Leviathan, and is why there is attention brought to it in the first place.

As will be presented here, there are a plethora of ways that Hobbes can be read: an early proto-liberal or an anti-democratic , ala Schmitt, are two of the most common. The interpretation in this thesis, however, is different; Hobbes leans more towards a liberal line of thought, but broadly labeling him as such is an oversimplification as his writing demonstrates a radically different interpretation of human nature as well as well as the belief that human activity ought to be restricted by government authority.

Hobbes’ sovereign authority bridges the gap between these two extremes, which can be examined in the leadership of Josef Stalin. Regardless of whether Schmitt read Hobbes

“correctly”, the mere association between the two means we should interpret Hobbes in a way that, at the very least, does not conflate Hobbesian sovereignty with systematic genocide.34

33 Thomsen, Jacob Als. “Carl Schmitt- The Hobbesian of the 20th Century?” pg. 10. 34 Moving forward, we will connect Hobbes’ model of sovereignty with Josef Stalin’s leadership of the Soviet Union. Stalin, of course presents his own set of issues regarding questionable leadership towards the end of his reign, but our examination of him will be limited to a specific context within the span of the first Five Year Plan, where he embodied a true synthesis of Hobbesian and Marxist ideals. 23

Even in a contemporary setting, the discussion of Nazism and totalitarian forms of government are relevant in political discussion. Now more than ever, it is necessary to put distance between what Hobbes said, and what those who interpreted Hobbes wanted him to say. As we move forward, it will be essential for us to understand Hobbes removed from his Schmittian context. If one is to look at Hobbes as something other than the villain of the twentieth century, his commentary on the nature of human beings, and his overall political philosophy give us insight to someone that was deeply affected by the social circumstances of his time. As such, before we begin a discussion of the actual text of

Leviathan, we ought to become better acquainted with the personal life of Thomas Hobbes insofar as it will be relevant to better understanding the that Hobbes disliked democracy. If we are to “save” Hobbes, so that he is not permanently remembered as a proto-fascist, the time is now. Following the Foucauldian framework, introduced in the previous chapter, it is our aim here to better understand the root causes that influence individuals thought processes; we must be prepared to shed preconceived notions and approach the idea of embracing the writing of Hobbes more openly. There is no questioning that context is everything, and to understand, let alone appreciate a figure as controversial as Thomas Hobbes, we must first understand the political context of England throughout the course of his lifetime.

2.2 Hobbes’ Historical Context

Thomas Hobbes was born in 1588, in Malmesbury, England, supposedly prematurely, as the ringing bells indicating the arrival of the Spanish Armada sent his

24

mother into a shock.35 Later in life, Hobbes would remark that in this instance, “my mother gave birth to twins: myself and fear”.36 Of course, this is simply a story and likely untrue, but it is fitting nonetheless. Through the course of his life, Hobbes grew to hate most of society, believing humans are destructive creatures in their natural habitat. Having been born prematurely from the stress imposed upon his mother by the Spanish fleet, one could observe that Hobbes’ entire life was chaotic.

Hobbes’ adult life would be marred with controversy and struggle. He did an excellent job of making more enemies than friends; and on multiple occasions fled his native England. The first instance of this occurred during the English Civil War37, and a second time, later in his life, when he was accused of Atheism. It did not help that Hobbes appeared very much antagonistic when engaging in philosophical discourse. Hobbes wrote in absolutes; using strong declarative statements, he spoke to his readers with a kind of tone that would make one assume he had never been wrong before. In his personal correspondences, Hobbes was polite, but appeared to have a certain superiority amongst his peers. In a letter to Charles Cavendish, Hobbes wrote,

I am farr from beleiuing ye reports ye come hither concerning your conversation in Paris. Neverthelesse for the satisfaction of my particular affection to yourself, & of my long obligation to your house, I have taken

35 Ryan, Alan. On Hobbes. pg. x. 36 Rick, Jonathan. “Hobbes-The Core Curriculum”. This is a web page from Columbia University. Dr. Rick, here, lists ’s Brief Lives, as well as Noel Malcolm’s, Aspects of Hobbes as his sources for this particular section, although he does not state which quotes can be attributed to which sources. 37 Without going into too much detail at this point; this was the point at which Hobbes had found himself at odds with both the Aristocracy as well as the Cromwell-led reformers. On the one hand, Hobbes was not in favor of a divine mandate, instead believing that a ruler ought to be selected on the principle of their merit. Conversely, Hobbes did not ideologically identify with those in favor of a , as Hobbes believed strongly that power ought to be isolated, as Democratic rule gave way to factions. Seeing the writing on the wall, Hobbes fled for the European continent while watching the English Civil War from afar. 25

occation to write unto you a word or two touching the nature of those faults that are reported to you. And seeing I belieue you are no more guilty of them than all other men of your age, I hope how seuerely soeuer I shall censure the crime you shall haue no cause to think I censure you, but that I say is rather counsayle for the future then reprehension of any thinge past.38 This is admittedly one single correspondence being taken largely out of context, but the tone is certainly worth mentioning. In this particular instance, Hobbes appears to have a sharp, albeit considerate tone; mentioning that his writing is for the purpose of benefiting

Lord Cavendish—namely in policing his behavior. In this instance, Hobbes wrote as an admitted subordinate, yet used the language of an instructor, instructing Cavendish on the appropriate way of treating servants, speaking to other statesmen, and even appropriate conduct around women.39 Admittedly, this interaction has little relevance to our discussion of Leviathan and its parallels to the Soviet Union under Stalin, however, this kind of attitude would set the tone in the particular writings we will be looking at—and is therefore worth mention.

After finishing his early formal , Hobbes attended nearby Oxford, where he was exposed to history and the philosophy of . “He did not much care for , yet he learned it, and thought himself a good disputant. He took great delight there to go to the bookbinders' shops and gaping on maps.”40 Like many other aspects of education,

Hobbes found the syllogisms of Aristotelian logic uninteresting, yet he stuck to his studies and mastered it, regardless. Whether he found Aristotle bland, Hobbes embraced it anyway; the logic of Aristotelian syllogisms formed a significant basis for the reasoning in Hobbes’

38 Noel, Malcolm. The Correspondence Volume 1:1622-1699. pg. 52. 39 Ibid., pg. 53. 40 Aubrey, John. Brief Lives. pg. 150. 26

personal philosophy. The validity of Aristotelian logic, then, reinforced the notion of absolute truths within our world; Hobbes parlayed this belief in absolutes in the language of his political philosophy—especially on human nature.41 Hobbes also began to take more of a scientific approach to everyday aspects of his life. Living through the early stages of the Scientific Revolution, his work began to take a more calculated approach to his reasoning.42 With Aristotelian logic as his base, he began to take an interest in emerging fields of math and science like optics and geometry.43 This is observable in the general nature of his writing. Everything was calculatable, and there must exist an objective, definite answer for all of life’s questions.

Having taken this hard-lined, science-driven attitude towards it would only be a matter of time before this kind of absolutist mentality would bleed over into Hobbes’ political writings. The first notable treatise that would provide the background of his political philosophy was called De Cive, or, On the Citizen. Hobbes was interested in the role of the individual within society, namely, how do we protect our natural rights and material possessions? Hobbes first discussed concepts of human nature and how we operate outside of formalized civilization. Although we might have rational mechanisms relating to survival instincts, that does not necessarily mean that we make rational decisions when removed from the state of nature. Hobbes tells his reader that, “In the state of nature, is the measure of Right.”44 Without the threat of force, nothing obligates us to act in a

41 Pecharman, Martine, Hobbes on Logic, Or How to Deal with Aristotle’s Legacy. pg. 24. 42 Wolin, Sheldon. Politics and Vision. pg. 219. 43 While Hobbes is still most well-known for his political philosophy, The Oxford Handbook of Hobbes includes chapters on his lesser known writings on fields of philosophy like logic, as well as math, sciences, and religion. 44 Hobbes, Thomas. De Cive. pg. 117. 27

particularly moral or logical manner. Rather, there ought to be an agreement between individuals—to act in the best interest of the collective group¸ to promote our overall well- being. Hobbes wrote that, “The only effect therefore of an oath is this: to cause men, who are naturally inclined to break all manner of faith, through fear of punishment to make the more conscience of their words and actions.”45 The only way to maintain a rational, functioning society is to construct a system that imposes rationality in the form of government. “We do not therefore by nature seek society for its own sake, but that we may receive some honour or profit from it”.46 De Cive, then, advocates for a different conception of an autocratic form of government; human nature demonstrates that selfishness could only be corralled via threat of violence—and democracy does not provide a stable foundation to ensure this threat could be carried out.

In the 1640’s, it had become apparent that Parliament would not back the leadership of the English Crown. The factions that arose within proved Hobbes’ thesis correct as the implementation of democratic principles had a damaging effect on political stability.

Dissent arose between members of Parliament that favored loyalty to the crown, and those who favored something more democratic.47 Believing that this would be a brutal conflict, and one that he had already staked his claim in—demonstrating allegiance to the Crown—

Hobbes fled to France to avoid punishment or death. Having already delved headfirst into the world of political philosophy, Hobbes began revisions of the underlying themes in De

Cive, crafting a critique of humankind and its destructive nature, not just from a theoretical

45 Hobbes, Thomas. De Cive. pg. 133. 46 Hobbes. De Cive. pg. 111. 47 Ryan, Alan. On Hobbes. pg. X. 28

standpoint, but something tangibly shaped by real world experiences. Leviathan, then, was not just “written as a response to the gradual rise of Cromwell, after his separation from the more conservative Presbyterians in Parliament and the Army,”48 but something grounded in the notion that we simply are not fit to govern ourselves, nor capable of policing one another without a strong, authoritative presence doing that job for us— something that the present political systems had proven to be the case.

2.3 Understanding Hobbes’s Leviathan

Leviathan presents itself much in the way that Niccolo Machiavelli’s work, The

Prince, does: a kind of instruction manual for how a strong, fair leader ought to rule over a nation of individuals. Hobbes’ magnum opus begins by painting a picture of a hypothetical world where humans exist within a state of absolute chaos—the state of nature.49 This state is not a literal, physical place, but as a kind of metaphor for human nature when left unchecked. Up until this point, history had shown that people, when given the chance, would act in a short-sighted manner, looking only at their immediate self- interest. Within the state of nature, there are no rules—the external conditions that bind us together, what Hobbes would call the Social Contract,50 are nonexistent. Here, individuals act freely as they wish, without laws, and there would be little incentive for any one person to behave rationally. If an individual knows they are stronger or smarter than anyone else, there is nothing preventing them from simply taking whatever they want from other

48 Patterson-Tutschka, Monica. “Hobbes Smashes Cromwell and the Rump: An Interpretation of Leviathan”. pg. 3. 49 Hobbes, Leviathan, pg. 186. 50 Ibid., pg. 192. 29

members of society. The society present in the state of nature is reminiscent of early stages of civilization mentioned by Friedrich Engels in his work, The Origin of the Family,

Private Property and the State.

In this book, Engels crafts an anthropological account of the development of humankind as we formed our first . Here, he refers to first stages of early civilization as the Savage stage, and Barbaric stage.51 In these stages, humankind was first learning to domesticate animals and grow crops; tools were primitive and human interaction was limited primarily to the family unit, with socio-economic activity like or friendly interaction between groups of people being unthought of. Engels referred to these eras as being primitive, though natural steps in the social development in humankind.52 What makes the state of nature so terrifying is not just the thought of a society without order, but the idea that it is a return to a primitive stage of human development— a regression to a point in history we believe we have overcome.

For Hobbes, the idea of society without government was the equivalent to sending human beings back into the state of nature: essentially bringing us back to the stages of society described by Engels. While there is the argument that this is certainly an exaggeration in that society in that absence of government does not mean an automatic return to barbarism, Hobbes expressed a very real fear, one that we still have today: the chaos of anarchy. Even in a contemporary setting, politicians seek compromise as a means of avoiding insurrection, or at the very least general disapproval, from their constituency.

51 Engels, Friedrich. The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State. pgs. 87-89. 52 Ibid., pg. 93. 30

Now, more than three hundred and fifty years after the first publication of Leviathan, we fear the thought of instability and civil unrest, perhaps even more than any outside force.53

It is important to remember, moreover, that this is a thought process developed over the course of several centuries of democratic reform. Hobbes and his contemporaries did not have the luxury of experiencing the better aspects of democracy. The notion that we are still frightened by the power of the people, then, ought to demonstrate that Hobbes thesis has been proven correct: we, in many aspects, have not overcome our natural tendencies towards self-destruction.

The English Civil War was the perfect example of the idea that there was no possible alternative than to isolate sovereign power within the individual, or small grouping of individuals, for the safety and prosperity of the commonwealth. Although one could argue that the defiance of Parliament against the crown would set in motion a course of events that would inspire future democratic movements like the American Revolution, the end result of several decades of violence was the return of monarchy to power, and the loss of thousands of lives. For Hobbes, this was unthinkable. Not only was he pained by the chaos of warfare, but the actions of Parliament leading up to these events proved to Hobbes what the dangers of democracy could be. Much in the way that and the

53 Internal unrest presents an entirely different set of fears than outside threats because we cannot easily pinpoint who our exact enemy is. If we compare immigration and gun control, it is far easier to point to immigrants as the enemy when they present an immediate tangible difference from the “average citizen”. Having this obvious difference makes them an easy scapegoat because it does not take long to point out how a person is unlike the rest of us, their language, skin tone, cultural customs, etc. make them an easy target. Conversely, it is much harder for us to point out the “responsible gun owner” from the unstable, unprovoked shooter. 31

other Founding Fathers would show concern with the concept of factions,54 believing that subgroups arising within larger political identities would breed dissent and inevitably lead to chaos. Force, then, either in the metaphorical commonwealth of Leviathan, or in the actual implementation of action, as seen in the Soviet Union, would be essential, in the mind of Hobbes, for the benefit of the state.

In writing Leviathan, Hobbes, being almost utilitarian in nature,55 weighed the relative pleasure and pain yielded from the last decade of carnage and had come to the conclusion that democracy, or at least the was in part to blame. While, democratically speaking, the Civil War brought success in that Parliament possessed power to leverage against the crown,56 the end result was the loss of numerous British lives, and a demonstration of how democracy can bring an otherwise stable country to its knees.

It becomes increasingly apparent that the move to a singular, sovereign state was a response to the instability of factions and class roles. The Hobbesian commonwealth is classless, not because Hobbes had explicitly intended for it to be that way, but because his motives of eliminating factions had the same effect. Richard Ashcraft wrote that “neither class interest nor ideological conviction will be allowed ever again to constitute the ground

54 While Federalist 10 is the first of the Federalist Papers that comes to mind, the authors collectively known as Publius expressed much concern with the chaos that stemmed from factions arising within their fledgling democracy. 55 Hardin, Russell. “Hobbesian Political Order”. pg. 156. In addition to being considered one of the founders of Liberalism, Hobbes has also been considered a proto-utilitarian in that his primary concerns were maintaining prosperity—interpreted as what would happiness, and minimizing the collective suffering that the state of nature, or anarchy would bring. Moreover, framing Hobbes as an advocate of further paints him in the corner of liberalism (Mill and Jeremy Bentham were both early liberals), and away from the Schmittian interpretation. 56 Following the end of the English Civil War, the Crown returned to power, but Parliament henceforth possessed the power to veto the actions of the monarchy. This was a significant gain for advocates of democracy, as this required the English to be more accountable in their actions, 32

for social conflict leading to a civil war if the precepts of Hobbes' political theory provide the framework for the social consciousness of the citizenry.”57 Factions and social class present an issue to the commonwealth because factions are the motivating forces behind political decisions that undermine sovereign authority. Ashcraft tells us that “Hobbes' attack on the [was] primarily directed against their political policies rather than against the socioeconomic conditions.”58 However, factions arise out of ideological commonalities often found in these similar socioeconomic conditions—if the merchant factions (a subsection of the bourgeois class) takes an issue with the sovereign, their interests present a threat to the preservation of the commonwealth. The sovereign, then, in tackling the problem of factions, simultaneously eliminates the issues that stem from classes themselves, as these issues are presented as these “motions of the mind”59—if the issues that factions present are addressed, then perhaps the greater issues of class as a whole will be corralled as well.

Moving forward, we must recognize that the material conditions present in England in the mid 1600’s led Hobbes to believe that there was no other possible solution to the chaos that was human nature, but to corral it with strict structure and isolated governmental power. The world in which Hobbes lived was one that possessed absolute truths, and human nature, being chaotic, required structure that could not be found without overwhelming governmental force. In a contemporary setting, this might not make sense to us; our notions of governmental stability and being accustomed to a stable democracy,

57 Ashcraft, Richard. “Ideology and Class in Hobbes’ Political Theory”. pg. 54. 58 Ibid., pg. 49. 59 Ibid., pg. 50. 33

the notion that one might favor such an absolute form of authority is undoubtedly foreign.

Especially in a contemporary setting, the apparent failures of communism in the Soviet

Union have successfully pushed the Neoliberal narrative that there is no alternative but to choose “free-” capitalism.60 It is important to remember, then, like Foucault’s prison analogy, that the context by which we understand everything is imperative to forming well- rounded and informed opinions. With this said, we can begin a further discussion of the contents of Leviathan, and its relationship to socialism.

2.4 A Hobbesian Account of the State and Citizen

Traversing Leviathan can be daunting task. If we do not have the appropriate socio- historical context of Hobbes’ work, then what we are presented with is an epic tome arguing that people ought to have more restricted freedoms. The text itself is separated into four parts, of which only two are particularly relevant to our interests: “Of Man”, and “Of

Commonwealth”. It ought to be noted, then, that for the sake of this thesis, when we examine Leviathan, we will be less focused on the third and fourth sections of Hobbes work called, “Of a Christian Commonwealth” and “The Kingdom of Darkness”. In these sections, Hobbes was—as we can only speculate—attempting to ward off accusations of atheism. As such, these parts largely focus on reconciling sovereignty with religion, ranging from how to appropriately interpret scripture to the means by which the sovereign

60 Read, Jason. “A Genealogy of Homo-Economicus: Neoliberalism and the Production of Subjectivity”. pg. 32. This false narrative sweeps the more sinister aspects of income inequality and institutional racism found in capitalism under the proverbial rug, insisting that there is room for “if one only works hard enough”. Despite the notion that true communism, or even the model of Hobbes’ sovereignty would be oppressive and stunt economic growth, it ignores the oppressive nature of capitalism which attempts to isolate the circulation of amongst the highest economic classes. 34

has the authority to enforce religion upon their subjects.61 These chapters should not be simply set aside as afterthoughts, but, the primary focus of this thesis is grounded in the dominantly received interpretation of Hobbes—which overwhelmingly focuses on a handful of chapters in De Cive and Leviathan. Moving forward, then, much of the analysis presented of Leviathan will be related to the first few chapters.

“Of Man”, the first section of Leviathan, is essentially a reworking of Hobbes’ prior treatise, De Cive. It is in this section where Hobbes delivers arguably his most famous quote, saying that in the state of nature:

there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.62 When the sovereign has absolute power, they are free to make decisions without the need to go through any kind of bureaucratic policies that might be found in a parliamentary style government. While this seems like a dangerous idea, giving an absolute monarch absolute authority to make rules, even if they might be unjust or cruel, the sovereign is kept in check trough two primary means: the sovereign is human, meaning they have the same natural interests as their subjects.63 This is a humanizing element of the sovereign that people all too often forget. Further, via the social contract, they are obliged to prioritize the safety

61 Hobbes, Leviathan, pg. 395. 62 Ibid., pg. 186. 63 Sorell, Tom. ““Hobbes, Public Safety and ” in International Political Theory After Hobbes. pg. 45. 35

and needs of their citizens, as this is what grants the sovereign their power.6465 In exchange for the citizens of the commonwealth sacrificing individual , the sovereign agrees to prevent the lives of their subjects’ from being filled with that ‘continual fear, and danger of violent death’ regardless of whether that comes from internal or external threats. As a result, the sovereign, who is not party to the contract, but rather its arbiter, will, without fail act in accordance to the social contract; after all, the contract is the binding agent that establishes the legitimacy of the sovereign.66

Here, we see the layering of the glue that binds the commonwealth together. Fear,

As Hobbes argued, could be a significant motivator in coercing people into establishing societies. If one is persuaded to believe that living outside of the commonwealth is detrimental to their state of being, then convincing them to join the newly formed state likely would not be difficult. The social contract extends a hand to those who would otherwise be left for dead, promising that they too have natural rights to safety and self- preservation. Although the sovereign limits the political actions of a citizen of the commonwealth, they are still guaranteed the right to a life free from the chaos of the outside world. While Hobbes certainly believed that individuals could not be trusted with power— the sovereign being the exception—he did believe that individuals working for the

64 Owen, Judd. “Tolerant Leviathan”. pg. 135. Owen argues that Hobbes’ political system toes the line between the absolute freedom of the state of nature and the presupposed rigid order of the authoritarian state. The notion, then, according to Owen, is that the sovereign is obligated to ensure and security for those responsible for the creation of the state. One could infer, given that states are formed out of a want for protection, that in assuming the responsibility of the state’s safety, the sovereign not only displays an interest in the well-being of their subjects, but also frees their subjects—who no longer worry about their own safety—to pursue other interests. 65 The flip side of this argument is present in Foucault’s Discipline and Punish, wherein the sovereign possesses power over the individual bodies of the citizens, rather than the citizens having power over their sovereign. 66 Hobbes, Leviathan. pg. 229. 36

betterment of their state could produce a thriving society. The end result of the first section of Leviathan was not to propose an immediate remedy on how to fix human nature, then, but instead to demonstrate why it needed such firm regulation.

“Of Commonwealth” then, is a discussion on the proper manner of governing these people upon establishing what Hobbes would argue was an objectively-based depiction of human nature. Hobbes wrote that,

The finall Cause, End, or Designe of men (who naturally love Liberty, and Dominion over others,) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, (in which we see them live in Common-wealths,) is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby; that is to say, of getting themselves out from that miserable condition of Warre, which is necessarily consequent, (as hath been shewn) to the naturall Passions of men when there is no visible Power to keep them in awe, and tye them by fear of punishment to the performance of their Covenants...67

As such, Hobbes argument relies on the premise that much in the way that we cannot escape our own chaotic nature, it is a seemingly reasonable response to form commonwealths for purposes of protection. Hobbes argues that there exist only three legitimate forms of government: democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy, an idea he had previously discussed in De Cive. Hobbes wrote that, “The difference between these three kindes of Common- wealth, consisteth not in the differences of Power; but in the difference of Convenience, or aptitude to produce Peace, and the Security of the people.”68 While each system of government may be capable of success, that does not mean that each is created equally.

67 Hobbes, Leviathan. pg. 223. 68 Ibd., pg. 241. 37

Democracy presents issues as it breeds discontent, and should factions arise within it, democracy gives way to tyranny or even worse, anarchy.69 Giving power to every individual in the form of , then, presented itself as guaranteeing the possibility of political insurrection, which was enough for Hobbes to firmly oppose it.

Likewise, Hobbes took an issue with Aristocracy as it ensured class division amongst the citizens of the commonwealth. This, Hobbes argued was a more dangerous system than a representative democracy because it firmly demonstrated who the haves and have nots were.70 If power is to be distributed to the people, then it ought to be done so in a more uniform manner, otherwise it will breed more dissent than democracy ever could.

With the other two options eliminated, the Hobbesian move for the commonwealth is to shift towards monarchy. Under Hobbes’ Sovereign, leadership is consistent,71 meaning that the interpretation of laws will be the same regardless of whomever may be under judicial review. Further, Hobbes presents a comprehensive checklist of the criteria that the sovereign must adhere to, to maintain power. Succinctly, these stipulations form the guidelines of what the sovereign can and cannot do; they have full control over military action, determine whether or not property is public or private, or to establish the guidelines for civil laws.72 The Sovereign, being the ultimate authority within the commonwealth may not be put to death by their subjects unless they have failed their obligations to be a fair, and balanced leader73, meaning that it is very much in the best interest of the acting

69 Ibid., pg. 240. 70 Ibid., pg. 239. 71 Ibid., pg. 242. 72 Ibid., pg. 311. 73 Hurtgen, James R. “Hobbes Theory of Sovereignty in Leviathan”. pg. 64. 38

sovereign to take into account the desires of their commonwealth. For the sake of this argument, it is important to recognize what these interests are: safety and personal freedom within the commonwealth. To describe it briefly, we can refer to the ideal conditions of the

Hobbesian commonwealth as being in a state of prosperity.74 The sovereign, is not, however, a capitalist, nor is their primary concern the economic well-being of the state.

While there would certainly exist economic prosperity within the commonwealth, this would have to come from the direct actions of the citizens, independent of the sovereign.

By its own nature, capitalism leads to , desire, and the fetishism of commodities,75 which largely undermines the notion of the sovereign attempting to enforce rational human behavior, and promote safety. A commonwealth may prosper under economic growth, but capitalism was not present in the English economy during his lifetime, and to argue that Hobbes would have supported its implementation is relying on an explicit assumption.76

While it may not seem like much, this kind of failsafe in Hobbes’ reasoning presents the sovereign as a ruler concerned with the well-being of their subjects. They possess final say in the goings on of the commonwealth, the sovereign is obligated to fulfill their two- part duty of maintaining rational human behavior—via limiting chaotic or violent actions— and promoting the overall well-being of their subjects. Should they fail in these regards,

74 When I refer to the sovereign as ensuring the prosperity of the commonwealth from this point forward, I will be using this definition. 75 Marx, Karl. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 1.pg. 98.

76 Much like Schmitt’s analysis of Hobbes, reading into the sovereign as guaranteeing economic growth and free-trade—both domestic and international—is merely one manner of interpreting Leviathan’s overarching message, and one this thesis will disagree with.

39

despite their ultimate power, their subjects have legitimate grounds to have the sovereign replaced.

What Hobbes presents here is a very materialist political philosophy: everything about human beings can be rationalized through our own physical . 77 Hobbes differed from many of his contemporaries as he had no interest in the notion of the soul or how to save it. The purpose of political philosophy was not to save us for the sake of a prosperous afterlife the way we find in prior philosophers, but rather, dealt with the well- being of citizens in the here-and-now. While discusses the most idealized form of society in The Republic, advocating for a society that is virtuous and fair; well-structured, with order. In this, every citizen knows their place, and the Philosopher King takes the helm, guiding the polis. Plato, believed that only someone that possessed the wisdom of a philosopher would be capable of determining the real values upon which a society would benefit most from. 78 Plato’s work here is referred to as soul-crafting,79 and was the belief that if one managed to reshape the moral fiber of the individual, one could create a more perfect society. Although Plato’s theory may sound similar to Hobbes’ Leviathan upon initial inspection, we can quickly observe that Plato’s concerns lie beyond just the corporeal world. Plato’s focus is still on making better people through better aligning their

“moral compass” whereas Hobbes suggests no such thing. Rather, his outlook on nature, and like as being “brutish” and “nasty” suggests that he did not think it was possible to

77 Wolin, Sheldon. Politics and Vision. pg. 217. 78 Plato, The Republic. It should also be noted that not everyone could become a philosopher, but, rather, people were born to be philosophers, artisans, etc. Only the most virtuous of the philosophers could then become the philosopher king. 79 Balot, Ryan K. “Subordinating Courage to Justice: Statecraft and Soulcraft in Fourth-Century Athenian Rhetoric and Platonic Political Philosophy” pg. 35. 40

reconcile our corrupt nature with anything but absolute authority imposing its rules upon us.

Martin Luther, a near-contemporary of Hobbes, also dabbled somewhat within the realm of political philosophy. Luther, however, was theologian and critic of the Catholic

Church above all else. As such, his political philosophy, while rather limited, was similar to that of Plato; primarily being fixated on the soul of the individual. While Luther was indeed a reformer interested in the establishment of a new state, his conception was more akin to soul-crafting, “The shape of his political thought was determined in large measure by the basic aim of reconstructing theological doctrine.”80 In other words, the physical, political realm, played second fiddle to the authority derived from spirituality. While

Luther was certainly more progressive than earlier political philosophers, unlike Hobbes, he was still interested in religious and political reform for the sake of religious salvation.

In rendering unto Caesar was is his own, Luther accepted the notion that ultimately, our duty is to be subservient to government so long as it does not interfere with our religious convictions. This, again, represents a kind of Platonic soul-craft. Luther, unlike Hobbes remained focused on reform for the sake of the betterment of the soul and eternal salvation.

While we ought to stand up against government that oppresses us unfairly, Luther believed that ultimately, our allegiance was not to government here on earth, but to God. As such,

Luther, like Plato, represented the antithesis of Hobbes, with a focus on reshaping the soul of the individual for salvation, while Hobbes was focused on a present, physical human being that he hoped would be kept safe under authoritative rule.

80 Wolin, Sheldon. Politics and Vision. pg., 129. 41

As noted before, for Hobbes, the success of humankind all begins with the Social

Contract. The Social Contract is the mutual agreement between citizens of the newfound commonwealth—the contract itself being what first establishes any semblance of society— to voluntarily exit the state of nature, and agree to work in a manner. In exchange for the guarantee of not harming one another, the contract binds us to one another, and ensures that there will be peace. Hobbes wrote that, “The mutual transferring of Right, is that which men call CONTRACT.”81 In this verbal agreement, individuals will cede some of their own individual liberties in exchange for mutual protection from dangers like foreign invasion or local insurrection, as guaranteed by the sovereign. Here, as almost a backhanded compliment, Hobbes suggests that with humankind being opportunistic, citizens will willingly surrender some individual liberties in order to ensure that order within a society is maintained. After all, it is better to live in a society with less individual freedoms, but be at peace, than to live in constant fear of what your neighbor might do to you while you are sleeping because there are no consequences for evil behavior.

The purpose of the social contract, then, is not only to promote relative happiness and prosperity of the commonwealth, but it is a form of justification for sovereign power.

Hobbes tells us, “Therefore notwithstanding the Lawes of Nature…if there be no Power erected, or not great enough for our security; every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art, for caution against all other men.”82 If we are to coexist on any kind of large scale, we must be willing to work together; not only in a person-to-person

81 Hobbes, Leviathan, pg. 192. 82Ibid., pg. 223-224. 42

relationship, but in a subject-ruler manner as well. Without the overwhelming force of the sovereign protecting their subjects from all manner of threats, the contract itself begins to lose any purpose. As such, the social contract in Leviathan serves not only as a means of understanding why it is that we form commonwealths in the first place, but also why it is in the best interest of the commonwealth to subject themselves to a singular ruler.

Without much analysis, what we know of the philosophy of Hobbes sounds deeply oppressive and restrictive. While the sovereign provides safety to their subjects, the lack of democratic communication between subject and authority means that citizens are left to rely on the good will of their ruler. The matter at hand appears worse, then, when we know how deeply Hobbes loathed the democratic process for the potential instability it could cause. With that said, secondary analysis of Hobbes suggests that this system of government is not necessarily as restrictive as one would imagine. Judd Owen, author of

“Tolerant Leviathan”, argues that “[t]he sovereign will best preserve his rule by preserving the greatest sphere of individual liberty that is compatible with civil peace.”83 This is to suggest that there is a relative amount of personal freedom within the Hobbesian commonwealth. While there would be strict laws enforcing what one can and cannot do within the commonwealth, that does not mean every aspect of our lives is strictly regulated.

Owens continues his thought in arguing that, “Hobbes is indeed the father of the liberal philosophy of limited government, understood as government existing for an extremely limited purpose.”84

83 Owen, Judd. “Tolerant Leviathan” pg. 139. 84 Ibid., pg. 139. 43

If something is not explicitly prevented by law, then we are free to engage in that action. It is important to remember that while the sovereign may reign absolutely where they possess legal jurisdiction, they do not control every aspect of our own life—Hobbes’ concern for the individual implies that personal is maintained regardless of the political system. Ultimately, we are compelled by what Hobbes insisted were absolute laws of nature. Hobbes wrote that, “From this fundementall Law of Nature, by which men are commanded to endeavor Peace, is derived this second Law; That a man be willing, when others are so too, as farre-forth, as for Peace, and defence of himselfe he shall think it necessary, to lay down his right to do all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himselfe.”85 Here, Hobbes, channeled by his science-driven ideology, argued that there are certain matters for which we need not include the presence of the Sovereign, but instead recognize the presumably natural order of the world. Though chaotic, we ultimately do crave peace, which is why we consent to being governed by a sovereign power in the first place.

As mentioned earlier, it is imperative to consider that the role of the sovereign within the commonwealth is to maintain the safety and well-being of their citizens. On an initial glance, whoever acts as the sovereign appears to have a difficult task ahead of them: how can they ensure that society functions so that it benefits its subjects? As actors with capable of making their own decisions—in regards to their day-to-day lives—citizens within a commonwealth are likely to have a variety of wants and desires. The role of the

85 Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. pg. 190. 44

sovereign, is to act as an ultimate intermediary,86 ensuring that the commonwealth is protected from internal and external threats—which may include making difficult or unpopular strategic decisions,87 while still providing enough internal freedom to keep citizens happy. However, as both Hobbes and Marx would argue, humans are social creatures, we tend to gravitate towards the same basic desires—meaning that my individual interests are largely the same as anyone else. The sovereign, then, ought to only limit what is inherently counterintuitive to individual interests.88 This is further enforced in the notion that the sovereign, being a person themselves, would have likeminded interests relative to the commonwealth they preside over—meaning they aim to make as few enemies as possible.89 The sovereign, then, while the utmost authoritative figure, also makes a practical appeal to human self-interest.

While they do have the ultimate authority, it is their obligation prevent insurrection at home and protect the commonwealth from both foreign and domestic threats. Whomever leads the commonwealth must abide by Hobbes’ Golden Rule, “Whatsoever you require that others should do to you, that do ye to them. And that Law of all men, Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris”90 This means that the Sovereign’s actions ought to be consistent and reflective of a fair, but firm ideology that best ensures the success of the state itself.

The aim, then, is that should the commonwealth remain a safe and prosperous place overall,

86 Ibid., pg. 229. 87 This could mean going to war as a means of stopping outside threats, raising taxes, banning or restricting things the sovereign might believe are harmful, etc. This is a theme that will be returned to in the chapter on Stalin’s leadership of the Soviet Union, specifically in reference to the Dekulakization programs. 88 Owen, Judd. “Tolerant Leviathan.” pg. 145. 89 Sorrell, Tom. Emergencies and Politics: A Sober Hobbesian Approach. pg. 149. 90 Hobbes. Leviathan, pg. 190. 45

that the relative unhappiness caused by certain actions, such as potential taxes can be easily outweighed by the success of the state itself.

What Hobbes proposes in Leviathan, then, is a society with an entirely reconfigured structure from what one would have seen in the 17th century. At least within an early modern context, this is the first instance of a society lacking in the traditional characteristics we accept as standard; the very foundation of statehood as one would understand it truly evaporates. With the appointment or nomination of a sovereign91 is no longer a matter of consideration within the commonwealth. With the elimination of the divine mandate, the aristocracy loses their legitimacy, and their claim to any semblance of power would disappear. Excluding the latter sections of Leviathan, which we have noted present some implicit contradictions, Hobbes, then, “does not employ the concept of class in his discussion of politics”.92 While there may exist a military force for means of protecting the commonwealth, the traditional notion of minor and a militant class does not appear in Leviathan. Further, when the aim of the civilians of the commonwealth is to act in a manner that produces the most good, society theoretically adapts to something utilitarian. We are intended to act, not in our own interests, but for the sake of what is best for our society. What you have, or who you are no longer matters; rather, all your actions transcend social obligation, and one’s life revolves around how they can best benefit their society.

91 Hobbes is somewhat ambiguous in that he does not directly state how the sovereign ought to be elected. 92 Ashcraft, Richard. “Ideology and Class in Hobbes Political Theory”. pg. 42. Ashcraft makes the argument here that Hobbes primary motives were the elimination of dangerous ideologies, factions, which could contribute to the degradation of the commonwealth. However, there appears to be a parallel, in that political and economic interests that arise within factions, also come about within the factions themselves, therefore attacking factions also attacks the social class attached to those particular factions. 46

Hobbes’ primary move in Leviathan is to redefine the notion of the state in a manner conducive to the protection of the individual, through laws which impose rational actions and collective cooperation. If democracy proves too risky, and oligarchy and anarchy are unsustainable options,93 then the remaining argument is to support a form of government so absolute, and yet balanced (via our natural ceding of rights) that it would not breed dissent. This state would have to be so absolute, so dominating over the realm of the political, that it ceases to maintain statehood at all. It is at this point, then, that we must pose the question: at what point is an absolute state no longer a real state at all? As we will see shortly in traditional Marxism, one of the final steps in the transition to a socialist utopia is the withering away of the state,94 and the argument will be made, then, that in the course of such an action, the lines between a what is supposed to be withered state, and the absolute state, are quite blurred. Moreover, we will show that Josef Stalin, in his pursuit of a truly , helped to craft a state more in accordance with a Hobbesian model.

***

To bring this chapter to a close, there are a few points that require reflection before progressing to the next section of this thesis. Navigating Leviathan can admittedly be somewhat of a chore. While we do not have to worry about matters of translation, Hobbes wrote this tome for his own time period, and as such, there is a certain amount of knowledge on British history that we are expected to know a priori. If one dives headfirst into reading this text without any understanding of the political conditions in mid-17th century England,

93 Hobbes, Thomas. De Cive. pgs. 197-199. 94 Lenin, Vladimir. “” pg. 334. 47

they likely would not understand the frustration of Hobbes with the democratic process. In the western world, we have historically been conditioned to turn a blind eye to potential pitfalls in democracy; when an individual is critical of the democratic process, it is seemingly natural to mock them or refer to their views as archaic. This initial brushing aside of views that conflict with our own is intellectually shallow, however. It ignores the notion that there may be a variety of circumstances that would cause one to be disillusioned with the democratic process, Hobbes was one such individual that had come to hold these beliefs. If nothing else, reading a work like Leviathan, ought to give us a wonderful insight into a pessimistic understanding of the social contract, human nature, and an historical account of the development of human civilization. While there is certainly more to be had than a few brief talking points, if nothing else, one could argue that a proverbial gut-check to the supposed superiority of the modern democratic system is not a bad thing.

Before moving any further, it must again be made clear that there are certain concepts that we cannot ascribe to Hobbes’ sovereign. The sovereign is largely unconcerned with the happiness of their subjects. Although the goal of the sovereign is to maintain the safety and prosperity of the commonwealth, that does not mean they are concerned with whether their subjects are happy; rather happiness would likely be a condition that stems from the safety from the state of nature that the sovereign provides for us. Should someone feel as though they are unhappy with the treatment from the sovereign, however, or that the rules of the commonwealth prove too restrictive, Hobbes says they may leave the commonwealth, “very willingly”.95 Certainly, this comes off as a not-so-

95 Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. pg., 263. 48

thinly veiled threat, but as we have come to understand, Hobbes believed that his societal model was most well-equipped to impose rational behavior upon irrational people and would likely not worry much about losing a few citizens over the structure of the commonwealth, as most would choose to stay rather than enter the state of nature.

At this point, we should also better address the notion of prosperity, as this is a somewhat ambiguous term. Traditionally, under capitalism, we interpret prosperity as an economic notion, one where an individual accumulates wealth and various commodities.

This is not the case in Hobbes’ writing, and as such, we should make note that the sovereign is not a promoter of capitalism. When Hobbes wrote Leviathan, capitalism would not have existed in any form that we would recognize today. As such when he wrote on the public prosperity96 he is referring to a more abstract notion. Prosperity under the sovereign, then, would not be that of active trading across borders, or actions motivated by economic incentive, but, rather, the establishing and protection of the commonwealth on behalf of the sovereign.

As we move into subsequent chapters on Karl Marx and later Josef Stalin’s leadership in the Soviet Union, then, it will become increasingly apparent how the role that the sovereign plays within Hobbes’ commonwealth resembles the ultimate application of

Marxist principles. This is not to suggest that what Hobbes presents us with checks all the boxes that conform to the principles of Marxist orthodoxy, but instead that the role of the sovereign in his commonwealth is closer to the application of practical Marxism97 as seen

96 Ibid., pg. 380. 97 Practical as in the kind of Marxism that ignored the portions of Marxist rhetoric that were not achievable at the time of political overhaul, but instead made do with their present material conditions. 49

in the Soviet Union under the leadership of Josef Stalin. Within the context of Social

Darwinism,98 we will be able to observe how theory, when practically applied, begins to transform itself—molded by external pressures, to fit the material conditions necessary within a given state. What we are presented with in Leviathan, then, is a societal model wherein power is isolated within the confines of an absolute, centralized government; through the Social Contract, civilians of the commonwealth work for the benefit of the collective whole—motivated by the knowledge that actions towards the overall wellbeing of the commonwealth elicit not only the prosperity of the commonwealth, but the happiness of the individuals. Lastly, the society crafted in Leviathan presents an interesting situation; one wherein the state under the sovereign becomes absolute, and unfamiliar to any kind of traditional conception of the state under democracy—or even prior notions of monarchy.

In this model, the state dissolves and constitutes something entirely new; the sovereign, being actively removed from the commonwealth, does not participate in traditional society.

Citizens, having been removed from the political realm99 in surrendering natural rights to their sovereign; and having removed themselves from a society bound by traditional constraints of class and , have transcended the boundaries of traditional statehood, instead progressing towards the Marxist ideal of the withered state.

98 Because this is the first instance of me mentioning , I thought it ought to be defined in a way that would not distract from the focus of the chapter. Briefly, Social Darwinism is the theory social theories are subject to the same laws of that living beings are. Essentially, theory, when practically implemented, will adapt in order to survive. 99 This is a point I would like to discuss in more detail during the defense, but I believe it is crucial to the parallel between the abstract, authoritarian Hobbesian state and Stalin’s Soviet Union. In each instance, the citizens of the commonwealth voluntarily cede the right to criticize government and the law making process, in exchange for protection from outside threats, as well as a relative amount of freedom to do as they please within the commonwealth, insofar as it does not interfere with the liberty of other individuals. 50

We must accept, then, that as we progress onward in this thesis, Hobbes’ model in

Leviathan, provides a kind of foundation, which, when synthesized with principles of , created a model for governance seen in the Soviet Union under the leadership of Josef Stalin.

The absolute state of Hobbes’ Leviathan is incredibly fascinating from a conceptual standpoint for a handful of reasons. When citizens voluntarily remove themselves from the political sphere, giving up their rights to criticize or correct what they find wrong in their government, their commonwealth transcends any modern, liberal notion of statehood.

Moreover, this absolute state, resembles Marx’s notion of the withered state seen in the ultimate transcendence of communism,100 albeit from a more practical perspective.101 This is a parallel we will observe later in the final chapter on Stalin, where, in place of the true withered state, he assumed the role as sole sovereign authority.

100 Lenin, Vladimir. “The State and Revolution”. pg. 335. 101 In saying that it is practical, I am asserting that Marx gave no specific plan as to how the state would truly disappear while still maintaining order. Instead, it would appear that a more “practical” option would be a sovereign authority largely removed from the civilian population, the model suggested in Leviathan, and remarkably similar to what Stalin would implement in the Soviet Union. 51

Chapter 3

Marxist Theory: Connecting the Dots

As we begin this section, it is worth mentioning as a preliminary measure that

Marxism has spawned a variety of literary criticisms resulting in a plethora of interpretations. This thesis relies upon just one of these, and as a result some might disagree on how Marx is being read here. However, we will be using the interpretation of Marx and

Engels that attempted to model the Soviet Union upon. This Marxist turned

Marxist-Leninist line of thought would form the ideological basis that Stalin would inadvertently synthesize with Hobbesian principles during his reign over the Soviet Union.

3.1 On Marx

While he may be best known for his statement, “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working Men of All Countries, Unite!”102 reducing Karl Marx to simply a class agitator is a general disservice. Marx is a complex figure, whose contributions to the fields of history, philosophy, and economics cannot be quickly summarized in a few pages. Across the humanities, Marx is seemingly well

102 Karl Marx. “”. pg. 500. 52

respected as an and mid-nineteenth century thinker, as evident by his writing still being taught across departments at the university level, yet, due in large part to his controversial opinions—and those who have attached their name to his works—his theory, much like that of Hobbes remains largely misunderstood, and as a result, disliked. Through all the controversy, however, Marx has remained a landmark figure across academic disciplines. Nearly every intellectual from the late nineteenth century onward has read

Marx and Engels, either to engage with or criticize their theory.

The purpose of this chapter is not to reinvent aspects of Marxism, nor is it to provide any kind of substantial breakthrough in socialist theory. To contribute anything of significant substance to the world of Marxist theory would require its own book rather than a few pages. Nonetheless, this chapter serves a necessary function as it will not only provide the basis for traditional Marxist ideology, but will also provide a kind of contrast to the brand of Marxism implemented by Stalin. The goal of this section, then, is to connect the proverbial dots between the political theory Hobbes provides in Leviathan and the practical implementation of Marxism as seen in Josef Stalin’s leadership of the Soviet

Union.

Like Hobbes, Karl Marx (and Friedrich Engels) lived in an incredibly interesting point in human history. Hobbes stood at the crossroads of the emergence of the modern and the first significant shakeups to the idea of monarchy. While Hobbes certainly did not experience democracy the way we would today, the defiance that parliament demonstrated leading into the English Civil War was a radical step forward for

53

liberalism.103 While modern liberalism had established its presence during Marx’s lifetime, the nineteenth century also produced the large-scale development of capitalism. During his stay in England, Marx witnessed the development and rapid industrialization under the emerging capitalist . The introduction of factories, mass production of various inexpensive commodities, and increase in pollution of already crowded English towns must have left a sizeable impression upon the German expatriot. As capitalism demands indefinite increased production, Marx perceived what he believed to be its destructive nature.

It is worth noting at this time that Marx’s later published work clearly shows signs of a Darwinian influence. While Charles Darwin was hesitant to use the term evolution, he had theorized that “struggle for existence bears on Natural Selection.”104 Nature, the acting force on all living things, exerts ‘pressure’ on all living beings: plants, household pets, or even humans, creating what he called a struggle for existence.105 How we, as living beings, respond to this struggle for existence, then, determines which beings are the fittest, and which are most likely to pass on the necessary genetics to permit adaptations to their species over time. The same can be applied to social theories developing over time.

Although Origin of Species was not published until 1859, the influence on later communist literature was evident; Darwin’s similar deterministic account of the inevitability of certain events paralleled that of the German philosopher. “Darwin’s work is most important and

103 As mentioned in the previous chapter, Hobbes writing embodied certain aspects of liberalism, but did not fully adhere to the totality of such an ideology. The sovereign, in this interpretation, at least, leans further towards a liberal ideology than the traditionally conservative interpretation normally ascribed to Leviathan. 104 Darwin, Origin of Species, pg. 59. 105 Ibid., pg. 60. 54

suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle.”106 While Marx had not coined the term Social Darwinism, with that honor belonging to ,107 Marx had certainly drawn upon the influence of Darwin and Spencer in crafting his own political works.

Theory, while not a breathing organism, undergoes adaptations as it becomes a practice, determined by external pressures similar to how living being would. Capitalism, then, was a transitory step; away from , and a step (or two) before the inevitability of communism; the only had to recognize the nature of their oppression, and the inevitable revolution could begin. The economic state of capitalism, when constrained by external pressures, would be forced to adapt. It was not so much a matter of if, but rather, a when for Marx. The deterministic nature of his writing, as we will discuss shortly, appears as an adaptation of this Darwinic theory.

The aspects of Marxism particularly relevant to this thesis, then, can be briefly summarized as an attempt to understand the relationship between the individual, their labor, and the flow of capital itself within capitalism. While the bourgeoisie composed substantially less of the population than the proletarian class, they maintained a stranglehold on economic mobility through domination of the . This creates a sense of subjectivity within the proletariat, as they are economically bound to unfair and labor conditions.108 The means of production themselves are the tools, machines, and factories that are used to produce commodities—material goods—which are

106 Marx, Karl. “Letter to in ”. 107 Encyclopedia Britannica, “Social Darwinism”. 108 Read, Jason. “A Genealogy of Homo-Economicus: Neoliberalism and the Production of Subjectivity”. pg. 32. 55

operated by the working force (the proletariat) but belong to the wealthiest members of society. Under capitalism, this creates significant income inequality, as the workforce are manipulated and exploited for little to no economic gain while their bosses (who are not involved in the production process of these commodities) reap the benefit.

The end result of the stratification of power under capitalism, then, is the demonstration of the proletariat as an oppressed class, observed via the flow of capital.

Marx tells us, “[t]he essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeoisie class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is -labor.”109 What this means, then, is that the bourgeoisie recognizes that their grip on economic power is dictated by whether they have control of the augmentation, or development of capital. Should the proletariat develop the leverage necessary to affect their wages, by unions, strikes, or any other means, it would be possible to break the illusion of bourgeois control. In other words, the bourgeoisie must regulate wages in a manner that binds the proletariat (the lower, revolutionary class) to them in order to ensure that the lower classes feel as though they cannot escape this system.

Under capitalism, labor is valorized,110 which is to say that a significant amount of is placed on the cost of labor, raw materials, as well as the cost of the finished product. As Marx tells the reader, a true capitalist wants to “produce a whose value shall be greater than the sum of the values of production and the labour-power, that he purchased with his good in the open market.”111 In order to maximize these profit

109 Marx, “The Communist Manifesto” pg. 483. 110 Marx, Capital, Volume One. pgs. 350-355. 111 Ibid., pg. 351. 56

margins, then, the bourgeoisie class simplifies jobs, like what we see in the case of an assembly line, where each worker would only have one smaller, simplified job in the creation process of whatever it is their factory might produce. Because of this division of labor, workers can be paid less, “the worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range,”112 as the position they now hold is more menial in comparison to that of a craftsperson that creates entire products on their own, rather than only one part of it.

This creates estrangement amongst the proletariat. Marx categorized four primary estrangements: the worker to their product, the worker to their act of production, the worker to themselves, and the worker to other workers.113 What Marx meant by this is that the relationship between the worker and the overarching structure of capitalism has put the proletariat in an awkward position. With the bourgeoisie controlling the means of production (owning the factories, buying the raw materials being produced, and controlling the wages that the workers earn), the proletariat is at the mercy of their employers. The worker begins to lose their sense of self, Marx argued, because they cannot afford to lose their job, but their role, thanks to the valorization of labor has been vastly limited. Marx argues that, “The devaluation of the world of men is in direct proportion to the increasing value of the world of things.”114 The more a worker produces, the less they are worth, but the more they are bound to their job and their production, for they have no other way of earning a living. This is what Marx refers to as an “object bondage”115 whereby they are

112 Marx, “Estranged Labour”, pg. 71. 113 Ibid., pg. 75. 114 Ibid., pg. 71. 115 Ibid., pg. 71. 57

bound to their menial labor, because they are incapable of changing their economic situation without revolting and altering the system itself.

Marx, above all else, was critical of the exploitation of the worker under capitalism.

As labor simplifies under industrialization, the role of the worker diminishes more and more. The worker, who had once manufactured a commodity from start to finish, now had their role reduced to a miniscule part in the grand scheme of production. Consider the example provided by John Galbraith in, The New Industrial State:

With increasing technology the commitment of time and money tends to be made ever more inflexibly to the performance of a particular task. That task must be precisely defined before it is divided and subdivided into its component parts. Knowledge and equipment are then brought to bear on these fractions, and they are useful only for the task as it was initially defined.116 In this particular example, Galbraith was referring to the assembly line at early Ford factories. While automotive production was not something Marx had ever experienced, the point remains. As modernization unfolds, efficiency becomes the utmost priority for those controlling the means of production. Labor, then, is simplified, and the artisan transitions from a master craftsman to a cog in a much larger machine. This is done as a means of ensuring higher profits, as simpler jobs yield lower wages for the workforce.117 If labor is intended to be an outward expression of the self, then the goal of labor cannot be achieved under capitalism, for industrialization requires the estrangement of the worker from the commodities they produce. Simply for the sake of profit, labor transforms, then, from an

116 Galbraith, John. The New Industrial State. pg. 13. 117 Ibid., pg. 14. 58

expression of an individual’s craft, into accomplishing the most mindless of tasks. Profit, then, in capitalist terms, is another way of saying “exploitation”.

3.2 Parallels in Historiography, Materialism, and Determinism

In addition to providing a critique of capitalism, Marx experimented in social sciences beyond just philosophy. His historiography is, interestingly, somewhat similar to that of Hobbes; namely in that he presents a materialist account of human interaction— more specifically, this is known as ,118 the belief that the events of history are rooted in social conflicts between various forces, and the result of conflicting powers drives the narrative of humankind. “What is to be done, and done immediately, at any given, particular moment in the future, depends, of course, wholly and entirely on the actual historical circumstances in which action is to be taken”119 For Marx, knowledge of the future relies on a comprehensive knowledge of the past. Before one posits a theory with the intent of critiquing the contemporary political system, one must first have a competent understanding of the various moving parts that resulted in the implementation of that system.

Like Hobbes, Marx’s philosophy is unconcerned with immaterial objects such as the soul; the aim of his philosophy is not to find some kind of peaceful salvation, but to steer the actions of humankind towards a socioeconomic system that is not founded upon crises and exploitation.120 The writings of Marx and Engels act similarly to Hobbes’

118 Engels, Friedrich. “ of Nature” (Found on Marxists.org). 119 Roberts, William Clare. Marx's Inferno: The Political Theory of Capital. pg. 239. This quote is taken from a letter written by Marx to Domela Nieuwenhuis. From February 22, 1881. 120 Marx, Karl. . pg. 291. 59

Leviathan, in that they aim to put forth a political system that curtails the more destructive aspects of human activity.121 That is not to say they are free of differences, however.

Whereas Hobbes viewed human nature as dangerous, and in need of structure only provided through centralized government, for Marx and Engels, human activity, namely the development of society as one understands it today, played a crucial role. What we see in Marx, then, is that pre-communist economic systems grounded in a subject-ruler relationship, one heavily reliant on exploitation of the working force was Marx’s own state of nature, something that humankind ought to be saved from. To make sense of this, the writing of Marx and Engels are grounded in a certain kind of historicized world-view wherein the subject-ruler relationship is always tilted in favor of the ruler, when subjects recognized the nature of their oppression, social pressures from the lower class forced those with power to make concession after concession, until formerly impenetrable ideas like monarchy had been forcibly altered to more democratic republics.122

Marx’s writing, then, theorizes an historical genealogy wherein prehistoric peoples formed primitive communities in an attempt to band together and thrive. This eventually morphed into the feudal era, where a single ruler would lead these societies. Feudalism is replaced by capitalism slowly, first with the creation of the Dutch East India Company in

121 For Hobbes, this is the chaos caused by lack of political structure. For Marx and Engels, one could argue that it is our self-centered attitude which, mixed with our desire to accumulate material goods, permits the existence of an oppressive economic system.

122 Whereas one might say Marx saw communism as an inevitability, this is somewhat of an oversimplification of his theory. Given the materialist perspective of history and human activity, capitalism would bring about the conditions necessary for the eventual catapult to communism. However, it would still require a kind a catalyst in the form of an awakened proletariat. Marx himself might have believed that this awakening would happen eventually, but here is not the proper place to make such a .

60

1602,123 wherein international trade and the use of stock allowed individuals of more modest means to grow their wealth as they invested in the company. This allowed for the creation of the bourgeois class, who emerged and began to exert political and economic influence, demanding democratic rights, such as with the ,124 and in doing so, brings about the foundation for capitalism. Following this, Marx argued that it was only a matter of time until humankind progressed beyond capitalism. Ultimately, then,

Marx came to the conclusion that the contradictions within capitalism, the oppression of the individual (via wage valorization and the estrangement of the worker), the misappropriation of wealth, and the continuous expansion that capitalism requires regardless of the ethics of it, left no other solution but for the working class of the world to lose their chains, and unite.125 When the industrialized proletariat finally recognized themselves as an oppressed class, they would rise up, dismantle the system before them, and bring about the withering of the state. “Both the proletariat itself and its conditioning opposite—private property—disappear.”126

3.3 Engels and the State, Bridging Theory and Practice

Whereas Marx focused on the economic aspects of capitalism, and how the valorization of labor and exploitation of the worker was so harmful to a modern society,

Engels’ work was instead based on the relation between the individual and the state.

Drawing upon themes present in Lewis Morgan’s work, Ancient Society, in this writing,

123 Petram, Lodewijk. The World’s First Stock Exchange. 124 Marx, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonarparte”, pg. 595. 125 Marx, “Manifesto of the ”, pg. 500. 126 Marx, “Alienation and Social Classes”, pg. 134. 61

The Origin of the Family, Engels was interested in tracing the genealogy of the relationship between the individual (the family structure), and the state, eventually arriving at the condition of the family unit living under capitalism. Engels also continues the line of thought that epochs of time act as driving forces in the adaptation and evolution of social theory. In The Origin of the Family, he identifies three categories of civilization: the savage stage, barbaric stage, and civilized stage.127

The savage and barbaric stages are akin to more primitive people, where the

“savages” used for Engel’s examples include some Native American tribes, as well as

Polynesian peoples and primitive other hunter-gatherers that do not have any formal conception of private property, permanent homes, or a “traditional” monogamous marriage,128 although these peoples still did have a concept of the family structure. This was eventually replaced by the barbaric stage which Engels argues is like that of the

Assyrians, some more advanced tribes of Native Americans (which he still puts at the lower stage of barbarism129), and ancient Romans. These individuals had permanent rather than being nomads, manufactured goods, and utilized marketplaces to exchange goods for capital. But, continuing with the thesis of Marx and Engels, as will all eras in time, barbarism was eventually replaced.

Once humankind has left the savage and barbaric stages, we enter the modern stage, which is accompanied by capitalism. Engels tells us:

127 Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, pgs. 16-17. This is actually part of the introduction to the book written by . 128 Ibid., pg. 88. 129 Ibid., pg. 90. 62

We have now reached the threshold of civilization. Civilization opens with a new advance in the division of labor. At the lowers stage of barbarism men produced only direction for their own needs…Civilization consolidates all these existing divisions of labor…it creates a class which no longer concerns itself with production, but only with the exchange of products of the products—the merchants.130 What this means is that over the course of our observable history, we move from epoch to epoch, eventually arriving in the modern, civilized state. Here, Engels draws upon a noticeably Hobbesian influence. Prior conceptions of human society were primitive because they could only afford to care about their immediate surroundings. These individuals acted within the state of nature, and as a result of more primitive social development were incapable of cultivating large-scale societies that engaged in trade and diplomacy. Civilization, however, brought about the social contract, and promotes cooperative behavior between individuals. While capitalism may be a transitory step before something greater, Engels, like Hobbes recognized the value that political organization presented human beings.

With the introduction of the civilized stage, we see people building upon the concept of permanent cities seen in the barbaric stage, and coupling this with, among other things, the introduction of mass production, rather than individual craftsmen making entire objects by hand. This natural progression of evolving to a new era also brings about a of people. “Now for the first time a class appears which, without in any way participating in production, captures the direction of production as a whole and economically subjugates the producers; which makes itself into an indispensable

130 Ibid., pg. 224-225. 63

middleman between any two producers and exploits them both”131. The class Engels is referring to here, is the bourgeoisie, which he argues is connected to the civilized state. The market that thrives under capitalism, only exists in the civilized stage, which sees the emergence of a class that does not directly produce anything themselves, but, rather, control the means of production, and are able to exploit the proletariat working class as a result. Because of the nature of the civilized state, then, the exploiting bourgeois class will continue to grow and flourish at the expense of the people they exploit, until the next epoch of time comes in, via revolution, and replaces capitalism.

Engels, then, serves as a kind of bridge between the theory that Marx gives forth and the practical application of the theory that future revolutionaries would use. Whereas

Marx looks primarily at what he believes are the catastrophic economic implications of life under capitalism, Engels is interested in examining the manner by which we can trace a distinct genealogy of the pressures of time impacting the social development of human kind that led us to the modern era with the creation of the nation state and its tie ins with capitalism. The manner by which Engels sought to examine the social implications of the family and the state under capitalism plays directly into the writing of our final chapter:

Josef Stalin.

3.4 How Does Marxism Parallel the Hobbesian State?

Marx, like Hobbes, faced an interesting dilemma in his political theory: how can one be coerced into reasonably accepting a drastic change in political and economic

131 Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, pg. 215. 64

systems? For Marx, history moves in a straight line, toward an inevitable conclusion— however, that conclusion was brought about through the belief that human beings were rational creatures capable of recognizing their oppression. “In the Marxist view history is governed by laws in much the same way as natural phenomena; or at least there is a close analogy between the two. Further, it is even maintained by Marxists that knowledge of these laws enables one to predict future events.”132 Despite this proposed inevitability, however, simply convincing workers to buy into the idea of socialism is not an easy task.

Marx’s took an interest in the individual, then, as if he had been speaking personally to each worker. Like Hobbes, Marx relied on the assumption that anyone reading his work would be unquestionably persuaded into believing his writing: to both, human beings are rational actors—workers reading communist literature would buy into the socialist utopia just as readily as readers of Hobbes would willingly cede their rights to a supreme sovereign. In each instance, the philosophers relied on appeals to emotion—derived from fear, of human nature or exploitation—to appeal to their respective causes.

Further similarities exist between the of Thomas Hobbes and Karl

Marx. Each thinker proposed a revolutionary reconfiguration of the state. In Hobbes, this state is an absolute one, whose nature is derived from the symbiotic relationship between the penultimate authority of the sovereign, and the faithful subjects. This form of this state, however, is so hypothetical in its proposed conditions in Leviathan, and so unlike anything that could be understood in a modern context, that by abstraction, Hobbes’ sovereign nation is no longer a true state by conventional means. Marx and Engels, more directly theorized

132 O’Rourke J.J., The Problem of Freedom in Marxist Thought. pg. 5. 65

the literal withering of the state during the transition from capitalism into full-scale communism. As the dictatorship of the proletariat began, and class lines faded away, the traditional conception of the state, again, ceases to apply. In a similar line, Hobbes and

Marx took an interest in the role of the individual within the state. While Hobbes was concerned by the danger that human activity could produce via political dissent, Marx took an issue with the exploitation of the proletariat worker under an indifferent, unstable political system. Both theorists sought to create political systems that would take more interest in protecting the individual within the respective systems.

While this may not have been a particularly revolutionary chapter in terms of adopting a radical stance on Marxist theory, it accomplished a more conservative goal in linking similarities in the theories of the aforementioned philosophers. As we progress further, discussing the implementation of Marxist theory by Josef Stalin—following the death of Vladimir Lenin—it will become increasingly clear how Stalin’s actions blended a synthesis of Hobbesian , with communist principles like the abolishment of private property and implementation of social programs. This was not because Stalin was a follower of Hobbesian thought, but because the Soviet Union lacked the actualized industrial means—they had not yet toiled under capitalism, to borrow a Marxist phrase— so alternative measures had to be undertaken to achieve the goal of .

As the subsequent chapter will show, classical Marxism, when observed within the context of Social Darwinism, was forced to undergo changes in response to circumstances that prevented communism from developing in the Soviet Union in accordance with the tenents of the initial theory. While Vladimir Lenin was arguably the closest communist revolutionary to traditional Marxism—evident by the fact that Lenin’s theory has been 66

conglomerated as Marxist-Leninism—Stalin represented a sharp break in this regard. As we will argue, Stalin leaned upon principles of traditional Marxism while acting independently—and inadvertently upon Hobbes—when the present conditions did not allow for adherence to original rhetoric. The subsequent pages, then, will demonstrate how, among other things, the implementation of his five-year economic plan and the accumulation and isolation of power by Stalin represents a synthesis between Marx and

Hobbes respectively.

67

Chapter 4

The Leviathan Incarnate? Josef Stalin and the USSR

As we segue into the final chapter of this thesis, we have reached the point where this information can be tied together. While the previous chapters have served to discuss the theoretical principles of Hobbes and Marx’s political philosophy, this section will discuss how these two are tied together through Josef Stalin’s management of the Soviet

Union. This will be, admittedly, an ahistorical reading of Stalin. As such, this chapter will evaluate the leadership of Stalin and its parallel relationship to the role of the sovereign proposed in Leviathan. In accomplishing this, it will become evident how Stalin’s leadership of the Soviet Union not only conforms to this text’s reading of Leviathan, but moreover, this analysis will demonstrate how the more recent interpretation of Hobbes as a far-right reactionary (in part from Carl Schmitt) has been an oversimplification. Upon finishing this chapter, it will become clear how reading Hobbes shows us something about

Stalin, and reading Stalin shows us something about reading Hobbes.

To accomplish such a task, we will examine the relationship between Stalin and the

Soviet state, programs like the first Five Year Plan, and Stalin’s role as the leader of the

Soviet Union. Much like Hobbes, Josef Stalin has been depicted in a negative light; a cold, ruthless monster, only interested in accumulating political power. On the one hand, this is 68

an accurate assessment. Stalin was unquestionably power-hungry, and his actions towards the end of his leadership of the Soviet Union were nothing short of barbaric. On the other hand, Stalin’s early actions were motivated by establishing a true socialist state; as such, his actions were motivated out of the interests of the party, and the . As such, we must refine the parameters we will use to discuss Stalin’s leadership. Much of our analysis of Stalin’s actions, then, will occur between the early pre-revolutionary period

(1913) and the beginning of II. Stalin’s early writings, as well as policy implementation show a different side than the one remembered today; he appeared interested in the well-being of the state, maintaining a unified people, and policies were implemented with the intention of benefitting the Soviet people. When Stalin isolated absolute power he certainly was Hobbes’ depiction of the leviathan, but his early behavior was focused upon the development of his country. Stalin’s later actions showed signs of being an oppressive dictator, but he did not start off as such a tyrant.133

Simply diving headfirst into an analysis of Stalin and his actions, however, is not so easy. As the previous chapters have shown, establishing a background of these historical actors crafts a humanizing element, wherein we might better understand their opinions or

133 In accordance with the move this thesis makes regarding its interpretation of Hobbes, the sovereign, objectively speaking, is intended to be ambivalent towards their subjects’ individual interests. As an individual, the sovereign recognizes their interests are the same as the citizens of their commonwealth— namely to avoid making enemies and live a safe life. Within the context of the first Five Year Plan, Stalin’s vested interests were in line with this; motives were directed towards the benefit of the Soviet nation in accordance to the interests of the individual. Better industrialization and an increase in agricultural production would not only assist in turning the Soviet Union into a world superpower, but would also improve the day-to-day lives of Soviet citizens. As such, the period of time analyzed in this chapter will demonstrate how Stalin’s actions were motivated in the same way that Hobbes’ sovereign was, making his early leadership not that of a ruthless tyrant, but a Hobbesian sovereign. 69

actions. To understand Josef Stalin, we must first understand the conditions of the Soviet

Union left to him after the passing of Vladimir Lenin.

The Soviet Union in the mid 1920’s was anything but stable. While Lenin himself was certainly charismatic, and set in motion the chain of events that saw a rise in Marxist ideology throughout the twentieth century, he had not done enough during his time in power to bring about the material conditions necessary for communism in . Marx himself was incredibly clear that while exploitative, capitalism was a necessary historical event for the development of communism.134 Although capitalism thrives upon the abuse and exploitation of the workforce, it was also the predominant economic system of first- world nations during the . As a result, Marx and his fellow communists understood that capitalism had been essential for the development of the means of production—even in the newfound utopia of communism, material goods would still require manufacturing, and a nation state that had not undergone this kind of development could not be prepared for communism.

With the passing of Lenin in 1924, Stalin began to make his moves towards the accumulation of power in the fledgling Soviet Union.135 The Russian state itself presents an interesting set of circumstances, as it had taken significant strides towards adopting communism without adhering to the traditional rhetoric of Marx and Engels. While the nation, through bitter conflict, had begun to embrace communism, it was still largely

134 Wallerstein, Immanuel. “The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis.” pg. 390. 135 Conquest, Robert. Stalin: Breaker of Nations. pg. 111. There are many examples to pick from, but the cited source here is referring to Stalin giving a series of lectures on the teachings of Vladimir Lenin. This was likely a move to gain favor amongst Lenin’s supporters, and give the impression of being a great revolutionary mind much in the way of his predecessor. 70

agrarian, lacking the massive industrialization capabilities of world powers like the United

Kingdom, or the recently emerging .136 Stalin would be tasked, then, not only with the turmoil of leading a newfound nation, but also implementing policies with the intention of making it a truly . This presents a set of problems, then, for traditionalists of Marxist rhetoric, as Russia had bypassed the entire notion of toiling under capitalism.137

For the economic theories now being developed no longer have a purely bourgeois base, as they did in the age of . Precisely in countries like Russia where the growth of capitalism came relatively late and where, in consequence, there was a direct need for theoretical backing it turned out that the theory that did emerge bore a strongly ‘Marxist’ Character.138 Here, Lukacs asserts that from the beginning of revolution in Russia, the threat of the bourgeoise was largely a social construction. Capitalism had not taken a substantial form in Russia until the implementation of the first Five Year Plan under the Stalin regime, which was implemented with the intention of rapidly industrializing the nation, rather than implementing real capitalism. Having rapidly shifted from a state of feudalism to a proletariat revolution, then, the Russian people had not actually experienced exploitation under the growing bourgeois class the way western Europe had. While the bourgeoise was a very real threat of Marx, having lived in Germany and England, for the average Russian citizen, the bourgeoise was a kind of ideological bogeyman, cultivated by the communist revolutionaries as a means of creating class agitation. From the beginning of the development of , then, it becomes apparent that it would have to

136 , Robert. Stalin: A Biography. pg. 3. 137 Slaughter, Cliff. Marxism and Class Struggle 138 Lukacs, The Changing Function of , pg. 227 71

draw upon outside influences, as the conditions for “true” communism had not, and would not, be met.

4.1 How Leninism’s Influence on Stalin’s Approach to Communism

Unlike Stalin, Vladimir Lenin presents a revolutionary ideology that is most in line with traditional Marxism, which is why the overarching communist ideology is often referred to as Marxist-Leninism. Like Marx, Lenin did not want to avoid capitalism in the ways that future revolutionaries like Mao Zedong139 and Che Guevara140 would later on.

Instead, Lenin understood that industrialization and capitalism were necessary to the development of communist growth141. In his writing, “What is to be done?”, Lenin presents to us a concrete adaptation of traditional Marxist theory. Marx tells his reader repeatedly, that for revolution to happen, the proletariat needs to recognize themselves as an oppressed class, and rise up in opposition to the bourgeoisie.142 However, Marx never discussed how this would actually come about. Lenin further evolved Marx’s theory, then, by laying a foundation of how it is that the proletariat would be radicalized into revolution. Instead of discussing rhetoric and waiting for the people to recognize their own struggle, one must

139 Zedong, Mao. “”, pg. 136. Mao, being an ideologue, believed that communism could be achieved in China without the introduction of capitalism, as Mao was critical of theory, and believed in action. In practice, China, like Russia, was not prepared for an industrialized revolution, reliance on the peasantry would be the only way of achieving revolutionary success. 140 Guevara, Che. “Ideology of the Cuban Revolution”, pg. 26. Like Mao, Che believed that revolutionary theory only matters to a certain point, ultimately, the catalyst of revolution is the people, who are motivated not based on the ideological concepts of theory, but by being convinced that the revolution presents a benefit to their way of life. 141 Lenin, “The Development of Capitalism in Russia”, pg. 12. 142 Marx. “The Manifesto of the Communist Party”. pg. 500. This is in reference to the famous line, “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working Men of All Countries, Unite! 72

convince the proletariat through demonstration and implementation of propaganda that a

Marxist revolution is right for them. “The conclusion you draw, however, is that the working-class movement must not be pushed from outside!”143 Lenin wrote.

To ensure the implementation of a revolutionary , a was necessary for the development of a Marxist revolution. Lenin was hyper-critical of the social-democrats for this exact , as they would be too complacent with compromise to rally any kind of revolution.144 Moreover, Marxist rhetoric by itself would not be enough to make the proletariat realize their position. Lenin further evolved Marx’s conception of class agitation, via a revolutionary party to ensure that the proletariat could rise up and better their condition.

This direction towards class agitation stems the notion that the state is not a vehicle for class-conciliation, rather, it relies on various classes in order to keep people separated.

“The state is the product of and the manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises when, where and to the extent that class antagonisms cannot be objectively reconciled”145. In other words, the state cannot reconcile because its creation stems from the very conflict itself. Lenin’s hatred of the social- democrats—for whom he blamed for many of these class antagonisms—fits neatly in like with Hobbes’ dislike of democracy in that the presence of class breeds dissention. The social-democrats, being too moderate for revolution only serve to dilute its message, causing conflict as they draw people away from a more aggressive revolutionary message.

143 Lenin, “What is to be Done?” pg. 146 144 Ibid. pg. 95. Lenin accused the social-democrats of interfering with revolution because they attempted to seek compromise in a position where Lenin believed there was no possibility for middle ground. 145 Lenin, “The State and Revolution”, pg. 272 73

Likewise, democracy manifests a number of problems for Hobbes as factions inevitably arise through individuals of the same social class conglomerating power in an attempt to protect their interests against others. In a system that allows open-ended economic movement, such as democracy, there will always be exploitation which establishes dissent and chaos. Lenin, like Hobbes, reached the decision that democracy as we know it must therefore be swept away as it did not adequately represent the will of the people, but the will of the most powerful and influential people.

What Marxist revolutionaries like Lenin, and Stalin, envisioned, then, was a state without class, something entirely different from previous conceptions—similarly to the thought process Hobbes proposed in Leviathan. So long as there exists a traditional conception of the state, one that is not a true “worker state” there will be class antagonism.

This is to say that individuals of lower classes will continue to be oppressed by the bourgeoisie as long as there exists a state with classes. As the primary class agitators, the bourgeoisie must be eliminated using violent means if necessary, as without their removal, they will continue to oppress individuals, based on ideological differences.146 The elimination of the bourgeois state was not the end goal, however. Using this as a starting point, Lenin aimed to see the reduction of all classes, eventually culminating in the withering of even the proletarian state.147 As we will see, however, the conditions that manifested themselves in Russia under Stalin’s leadership prevented him from following directly in Lenin’s footsteps. Instead, as will soon be evidently clear, Stalin inadvertently

146 Lenin, “The State and Revolution”, pg. 278 147 Ibid., pg. 280 74

borrowed from Hobbes’ model of sovereignty in his early years in power to promote the well-being of the Soviet state.

4.2 Stalin’s Adaptation of the Hobbesian Sovereign

Even though Stalin did not actually take control of the Soviet Union until after the death of Lenin, he played an active role in the party from the beginning stages in 1905.148

Marxism and the National Question was written quite early in Russian revolutionary history, and is most relatable to a work like Engel’s The Origin of the Family, Private

Property, and the State, in that Stalin had attempted to understand what it is that constitutes a nation, a national movement, and ultimately how these tie in with Marxism.

In a nation the size of Russia, there are many different ethnic groups with different cultural, and in their minds, national identities. The goal of this writing, then, was to find a way to tie in Marxist principles of a freed proletariat, and abandonment of capitalism with the national question. The traditional state, Stalin argued, had four characteristics that identify a people as a nation: common language, common territory, common economic life, and a common psychological make up149. For the sovereign, it would be imperative to ensure that a national identity maintained precedence over anything else. The Hobbesian sovereign had the benefit of a largely homogenous English society, meaning this would not have been a consideration of his. For Stalin, however, this was not the case, as the

Soviet Union had conglomerated various ethnic peoples. The unifying factor, then, had to

148 Lenin, The State and Revolution. pg. 335. 149 Stalin, Marxism and the National Question., pgs. 11-12 75

be something which transcends all other bonds; a fixation of Stalin’s personality cult, wherein Soviet citizens transcended previous notions of allegiance. Like Hobbes’ sovereign, Stalin would embody an identity which compelled individuals to follow him regardless of their ethnic or cultural identity.

For this reason, Stalin was critical of the Austro-Hungarian empire, as they made no attempt to unify their subjects. Stalin wrote, “What then is the national programme of the Austrian Social-Democrats? It is expressed in two words: cultural-national autonomy”150. The Austro-Hungarian government allowed for what Stalin believed was too much individual cultural freedom within different ethnic peoples under the Austro-

Hungarian empire. This is not to say that maintaining ethnic identity is a bad thing, in fact,

Stalin discussed the idea that smaller ethnic groups need to be allowed to have their own identity so as to not be made discontent151. But, rather, that Austro-Hungary was not answering any kind of national question—rather, their social—democrats were attempting to force the peoples of their nation to conform to one, national identity, which has the potential to be incredibly volatile, as they are not choosing to conform to this identity.

The final goal, then, is to usher in a new state—furthering the civilized stage in

Engels’ work152—in a manner that permits ethnic groups within Russia to feel as though they are maintaining their own identities to make them more accepting of the Marxist state.

This immediately draws comparisons to Judd Owens “Tolerant Leviathan”, wherein

Owens argued that Hobbes’ sovereign was not truly an oppressive figure, as anything not

150 Ibid., pg. 33. 151 Ibid., pg. 70. 152 Engels, Friedrich. The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. pg. 125. 76

expressly prohibited would be legal. In the same manner, Stalin supported ethnic groups maintaining their individual identities as it would ease their transition to communism.

Further, because the individual ethnic groups are treated with respect153, the state does not have to worry about the potential melt down in which ethnic groups attempt to breakaway and weaken the state, like Stalin argued Austro-Hungary was heading for. Stalin’s focus on maintaining a traditional Marxist national vision while taking into consideration the vast peoples within Russian territory that do not necessarily identify as being Russian allowed for a great synthesis of idealism with practicality. Moving forward, this will be important to note, as it demonstrates the manner in which Stalin appeared willing to adapt beyond the traditional confines of Marxist rhetoric.

4.3 The Five-Year Plan: An Ideological Synthesis

With the background information of Lenin’s critique of capitalism and pre- revolution Stalin’s writing established, we can now turn our attention towards the actions of Stalin after he had assumed the reins of power in Russia.154 The similarities between

Stalin and Hobbes’ Leviathan stem from the implementation of Stalin’s economic policies.

Stalin’s early policies were largely extensions of Lenin’s New (NEP).

The NEP was Lenin’s attempt at modernization, wherein the newfound Soviet state would attempt to experience state regulated capitalism.155 Lenin argued that,

153 Stalin, Marxism and the National Question. pg. 70. 154 Stalin was of course not the only individual with a governmental position in the Soviet Union, however, he had supreme authority. For all intents and purposes, then, he singly handedly held the reins of power in Russia. 155 Lenin, V.I., “Left-Wing Childishness” 77

would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months’ time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country.156 Being a proponent of Marxist orthodoxy, Lenin believed that capitalism was the natural progression away from feudalism, before the inevitability of communism. However, capitalism in its natural state would lead to unnecessary exploitation of the workforce. As such, the purposed of the NEP was to establish a kind of —government regulated capitalism—wherein “the coexistence of private and state sectors was sanctioned by the laws.”157 A primary concern for the NEP was agricultural production, which had been hampered since 1913.158 As such, Lenin intended to implement state-regulated capitalism in an effort to increase agricultural yields. The NEP further permitted farmers to sell excess produce, which provided an economic incentive for them to produce as much as possible.159 However, while the NEP was beneficial in its incentivizing of agricultural production, it was not without its flaws. Farming had become focused on small-scale family production, rather than larger communal farms; further the NEP placed manufacturing in control of the state, meaning they these very vital industries grew at radically different rates.160 The result was that factories had to raise to stay competitive, and peasants

156 Ibid. 157 Bandera, V.N., “The (NEP) as an Economic Policy.” pg. 268. 158 It is important to remember that not only was the involved in , but a subsequent revolution wherein the Bolshevik’s took control. For the better portion of a decade, the nation had experienced significant damages to agriculture and what little industry was present. 159 Richman, Sheldon. “ to NEP: the Road from ”. pg. 93. 160 Ibid., pg. 90. 78

had to grow a higher yield of crops to keep up with increasing expenses, thus triggering economic crisis.161

The NEP was an essential step forward in the development of communism in

Russia. But it was not without its economic shortcomings, as capitalism certainly incentivized the agricultural division of labor, but the poorly managed division of labor caused an economic crash. If nothing else, the NEP, even being an incident of state-run capitalism, demonstrates instability and proves Marx’s correct.162

In 1928, the NEP would come to an end when Stalin shifted the focus away from the accumulation of individual wealth and moved towards collectivized communism.

Although the NEP had been successful in bringing agricultural production back to pre-

1913 levels,163 Stalin believed that it was time to make the transition away from state- regulated capitalism. The first Five Year Plan, then, was designed with a twofold intent: further agrarian development with the intent of increasing the influence of communism in rural areas, and an increase in industrial production. To accomplish the latter, the notion of farming would need to evolve beyond the small-scale private family models that had occurred during the NEP. Instead, agriculture needed to be cultivated in a manner that made farming a public endeavor.

To solve this, then Stalin, as sovereign, would have to find a way to eliminate the notion of private property. When a “State proceeds to a partial of property,

161 Steton, Francis. “Scissor crises, value prices, and the movement of value-prices under technical change”. pgs. 13-14. This was referred to as a scissors crisis, wherein the prices of agricultural products and industrial manufacturing are directly inverted (one sharply rises while the other falls), so that when charted on a graph, it looks like the intersection of the two blades on a pair of scissors. 162 Marx, Karl. Grundrisse, pg. 291. 163 Service, Robert. A History of Twentieth-Century Russia. pg. 124. 79

it justifies itself by appeals to community and collectivist practices.”164 What this means is that, the Russian state, much like Hobbes’ commonwealth, would have to eliminate the notion of private property in a manner wherein individuals gave their land up willingly. In the case of Hobbes, dissolving the aristocracy and landed classes largely solved the problem of private property—namely because almost no one else had any.165 In the case of the Soviet Union, citizens would need to be reminded that their property was not being confiscated, but, rather, repurposed for the collective benefit, so that everyone would have equal access to the same material goods. Those who had bought into the ideology of the communist party would not be motivated by fear or threat of force, but out of the rational belief that it was not only in their best interest, but for the benefit of everyone. In this instance, the sovereign does not lead through fear, but instead, the people buy into an ideology that there behavior is rational, and for the benefit of everyone.

Moreover, the increase in agricultural production from collectivized farming would also allow more individuals to enter the industrial workforce, as cultivating an agricultural surplus would result in less of a need for citizens farming. Stalin believed that, “The anticipated surplus was to pay for industrialization. Collectivization was further expected to free many peasants for industrial work in the cities and to enable the party to extend its political dominance over the remaining peasantry.”166 Assuming this would be successful, the Stalin regime believed that collectivized farming would create a higher level of

164 Horkheimer, Traditional and , pg. 250. 165 With the implementation of the sovereign, the aristocracy loses all legitimacy as the divine mandate no longer grants merit to their power. Assuming Hobbes’ accusations of atheism were grounded in some amount of truth, the implementation of the sovereign meant an end not only to royalty, but to religious authority as well, eliminating the two largest landowning classes. 166 Library of Congress, “Collectivization and Industrialization” 80

productivity, growing more food and increasing stored supplies of grain to feed the newfound industrialized labor force.

Not everyone bought into the idea of freely giving up the land they claimed ownership of, however. Arguably the most aggressive policy enacted by Stalin in the first

Five Year plan was the Dekulakization. The were a class of land-owning peasants, whom under the latter days of the rule of the Czar had experienced greater levels of prosperity than other peoples,167 Kulaks also owned farm animals, and while not being truly wealthy, experienced a level of prosperity otherwise unknown to the typical

Russian citizen. As a result, Kulaks were treated as class enemies, representing the antithesis of what communism stood for. In refusing to surrender their property, the Kulaks thumbed their nose at the communist party, and especially at Stalin, who, as sovereign, could not allow this to kind of action to go unnoticed.

The Kulaks, then, were treated in one of three ways: they were sent to the , to labor camps in far-reaching areas like Siberia, or were detained in work-camps in their home provinces.168 In the Dekulakization, Stalin implemented what must be referred to as a necessary brutality. This is not to defend the decision to force migration of individuals, nor is it a justification of the murder of several million individuals.169 However, we must remember that the Kulaks presented a threat to the stability of the Russian government. If they were not forcibly removed, what would stop other disgruntled peoples from

167 Conquest, Robert. Reflections on a Ravaged Century. pgs. 94-95. 168 Conquest, Robert. The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine. pgs. 120-121. 169 Knickerbocker, H.R., Is Tomorrow Hitler’s? 200 Questions on the Battle of Mankind. pg. 133. Knickerbocker estimated that approximately 5 million Kulaks died “within a few years” of the start of the forced migration under Stalin’s rule. 81

attempting to resist the spread of communism under Stalin’s plan? When one is in a position of sovereignty the way Stalin was, difficult decisions have to be made to ensure the prosperity of the nation state; while the forced removal of the people was not an easy decision to make, it was carried out with the intention of preserving the political gains that had been made to promote the full spread of communism.

The results of the first of Stalin’s Five-Year plans was met with mixed results, but overall considered a success. To start on an exceptionally high note, the plan was fulfilled in four years and three months instead of five years.170 By 1933, the Soviet Union was well on its way to becoming an industrialized superpower—a significant shift from a nation that had largely been an agrarian feudal society les than 20 years before. The plan let to the emergence of heavy industries where none had previously existed—in a report delivered on the success of the Five-Year plan, a British newspaper was quoted as saying that,

“Russian industry, like a well-watered plant, keeps on gaining colour, size and strength…she has laid the foundations for future development . . . and has strengthened prodigiously her fighting capacity.”171

Of course, that does not mean the Five-Year plan was a resounding success. Aside from the Dekulakization being an unfortunate loss of life, the extreme goals of the plan made it destined for hardship from the beginning. The Stalin regime had set unrealistic quotas for industrial production that were not attainable, further, goals that had been met would be altered further; assuming a quota was met, Stalin’s administration would

170 Stalin, J.V., “Joint Plenum of the C.C. and C.C.C., C.P.S.U.(B.) January 7-12: The Results of the First Five-Year Plan.” 171 Ibid. 82

readdress it, making production goals impossible to meet.172 Moreover, the forced migration of the Kulaks led to large-scale famine,173 which was likely the result of Soviet policies deciding where specific agricultural staples would be grown, regardless of what had previously been the norm.174

4.4 The Sovereign-Subject Relationship in Stalinism

Stalin’s isolation of power created the same form of sovereign-subject relationship that appears in Leviathan. When assuming the mantle of power, the people’s revolution had yielded a government in which they (the Russian citizens) lacked political power; anything and everything was run through a bureaucracy which gave Stalin ultimate authority. With the implementation of the early Five-Year Plans, traditional class roles evaporated. However, unlike in traditional Marxism, we observe the rise of an absolute state rather than one that has withered away. The government, established through revolution, did not fade into obscurity under the “dictatorship of the proletariat”175 as was intended in traditional rhetoric—given the socio-economic state of Russia at the time, this would have been impossible. Instead, Stalin utilized power and personality to enforce an absolute form of state-regulated socialism. By specifying it as a state-regulated entity, parallels between Hobbes’ penultimate state and Stalin’s adaptation of Marxist-Leninism come to the forefront, as each revolves around the notion of citizens relinquishing their private property and role in the political realm in exchange for their protection.

172 Fitzpatrick, Sheila. The . pg. 132. 173 Ibid., pg. 140. 174 Edgar, Adrienne. Tribal Nation. Pg. 296 175 Karl Marx. “The Manifesto of the Communist Party”. 83

What we see, then, is Stalin toeing the line between adherence to principles of applied Marxism, and the Hobbesian sovereign as discussed in previous chapters. Stalin adhered to the traditional principles of communism in the elimination of private property and collectivization of labor as seen in the implementation of the first Five Year plan.

However, like the sovereign in Leviathan, Stalin did not relinquish power, nor allow the state to wither. “Stalin came to personify the Soviet Union, to identify with its power and prestige, and to vigorously defend its interests. If the public interest is identified with the national interest, Stalin’s private interest and the public interest of the Soviet Union seem to be the same, and Hobbes seems to be right.”176 Like Hobbes’ model of the commonwealth, Stalin, as the leader of the Soviet Union, assumed the role as an absolute authority. The identity of the Soviet Union was embodied in Stalin’s personality cult in the same way that Hobbes’ commonwealth is embodied by the Leviathan itself. The citizens in both instances were classless, with societal structure reduced to individuals working for the betterment of the state, removed from the political sphere (by their own choosing or by force). The state in this instance is both an absolute entity, an unlike anything that traditionally binds a state together.177

***

What has been presented in this chapter is neither a defense nor justification for the actions of Josef Stalin. Stalin was clearly a flawed individual, and one who, as time passed

176 Keyt, David. Aristotle’s Politics. pg. 152. The quoted excerpt is from Keyt’s commentary regarding Book V of Aristotle’s Politics. 177 Although Stalin certainly failed to be the proper, artificial person the sovereign was intended to be, the first portion of his leadership (through the first Five Year Plan) shows significant parallels between the Hobbesian benevolent figure of authority, and his implementation of policies aimed at benefitting the Soviet state. 84

on, demonstrated a questionable ability to lead effectively. While Stalin’s decision to imprison political enemies at the beginning of his reign had a certain amount of necessary brutality to it, there is no denying that the post-war period was one riddled with unnecessary executions, the incarceration of anyone that might have been deemed a threat (which turned into nothing but paranoia), and the beginning stages of the with the United States.

But our purpose is neither to condemn nor praise his actions, simply to present the facts supplemented with analysis.

Policy-wise Stalin presented such a radical departure from traditional Marxist rhetoric that his successor, launched a vicious attack against Stalinism when he first arose to power.178 While the likes of went so far as to refer to

Stalin as being, “the true friend of the cause of liberation of the Chinese people”179, adherents to Marxist orthodoxy were not so kind with their choice of words. In the secret speech delivered by Khrushchev, he unleashed a brutal attack on Stalinism, insulting not only his for Soviet development, but his personal characteristics as a leader as well.180 Khrushchev attacked Stalin’s ‘’ claiming that Stalin had drifted away from the traditional Marxist-Leninist line of thought.181 The Soviet Union, he argued, needed to return to its ideological roots, and evolve beyond the Stalinist regime, into a modern nation that focused on the traditional tenants of Marxism.182 While Stalin’s

178 “Speech to the 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U.” 179 Zedong, Mao. “Stalin, Friend of the Chinese People” pg. 336. 180 Luthi, Lorenz M. The Sino-Soviet Split, pg. 2. 181 “Speech to the 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U.” 182 Ibid. Khrushchev attacked Stalin for moving away from the true principles of communism, that being putting the state before one’s self. Stalin, he argued, appropriated his personality cult for individualistic means. In this manner, Stalin truly does break from the Marxist line of thought, and through his personality cult, like that of Hobbes’ sovereign, shows a bridge between the two theories. 85

early programs had been enacted with good intentions, Khrushchev believed they had proven inefficient, wasting lives and resources.183 He further argued that even Lenin had been wary of Stalin, who had shown signs of drifting away from Marxist orthodoxy, claiming that, “These negative characteristics of his developed steadily and during the last years acquired an absolutely insufferable character.”184

Ironically, while Khrushchev had wanted to move past the Stalin-era and usher in a new wave of joint communism, the actions of this speech would prove detrimental, as the saw criticism towards Stalin as being analogous to criticism towards the CCP itself.185 Khrushchev’s speech, which was made with the intention of turning over a new page in communism in the East, only served to further a divide between the communist . In this sense, Khrushchev’s desire to renounce Stalinism and start anew actually weakened the development of communism as the Sino-Soviet split in the mid twentieth century proved to have detrimental long-term effects on the Soviet

Union.

Khrushchev’s statements against Stalin were certainly grounded in real-world fact.

Stalin had become ruthless, interested in maintaining his power more so than caring about the well-being of his people; however, that oversimplifies—and largely ignores—the time and effort put into the actions that allowed the USSR to rapidly establish itself as a dominant world power. The young Josef Stalin (should we refer to him in such a way) was much unlike the man he would become. Before the events of World War II, Stalin was

183 Ibid. 184 Ibid. 185 Shapiro, Judith. Mao’s War Against Nature, pg. 143 86

interested in the development of the Russian nation state and the prosperity of its people.

The first Five Year plan was designed to further the principles of communism while rapidly industrializing the Soviet state, and implementing social reforms that adhered to traditional

Marxist principles. The mass farming programs, while unsuccessful, were enacted with the intent of supporting the agricultural needs of the nation. Stalin recognized that a large nation would need an increased food supply, and the forced regulation of what crops were grown (and where) was an attempt to ensure the needs of the people were supplied, despite its disastrous results.

The Dekulakization, while brutal, was a necessary move for the prosperity of the

Soviet state. When declaring the “liquidation of the Kulaks as a class”186, the decision was deemed necessary on the principle of maintaining a classless society. The Kulak class presented themselves as a thorn in the side of the Soviet Union, refusing to surrender their land or property, and resisting assimilation into the Soviet ideal.187. In this position, a sovereign is left with two choices: they could permit a dissenting people like the Kulaks to exist, and with that risk the instability that is brought about through a vocal minority.

Conversely, the sovereign can do what is best for their state, and remind the dissenting voice, through diplomacy or force, that the sovereign decides the law of the land.188 Stalin chose the latter. This is not a justification of Stalin’s policies, rather it is an acknowledgement that sovereignty brings about difficult decisions, some of which will be

186 Conquest, Robert. The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine. pg. 117. 187 Ibid., pg. 118. From a western perspective this appears inhumane, yet we forget that those loyal to the crown during the American Revolutionary War were often treated in a similar manner. 188 This will assuredly be a point of contention that I am prepared to speak more about during my defense. I know there have been questions about the question of national identity and whether the sovereign needs a nation for their legitimacy, and I would like to respond to those in question and answer form more. 87

met with opposition, but are necessary for the preservation of a state. A fledgling state created through a violent revolution cannot permit dissenting voices as that would only serve to undermine the end results should those in opposition gain too much clout. For one to give judgement in passing, then, without attempting to understand the circumstances that led to this policy implementation, much like Khrushchev’s criticism of Stalin, largely oversimplifies what transpired.

What this ought to demonstrate is that the sovereign is not an easy role to maintain.

Stalin, for all his flaws, was placed in the unfortunate position of furthering the development of communist ideology in Russia despite the lack of appropriate material conditions. When Khrushchev attacked Stalin for differing from the Marxist-Leninist line of thought, he was not wrong. Stalin was not truly able to establish communism according to its theoretical principles for reasons previously mentioned in this chapter. Rather, Stalin assumed the role of sovereign, isolating ultimate authority and making all political decisions within the Russian state. Stalin accepted the responsibility as the decider of the exception,189 tasked with converting a nation that had not experienced an historical epoch deemed necessary for the development of communism (capitalism) to said system of government. As such, he was tasked with navigating through a tumultuous environment: both in terms of rapidly increasing material production, and the form of social agitation domestically—Kulaks and other peoples that had refused to assimilate, as well as internationally in the form of the Cold War.

189 Schmitt, Carl. Political Theology. pg. 2. While I generally disagree with Schmitt’s reading of Hobbes, his definition of what constitutes sovereignty is spot on. 88

To combat dissention and maintain stability, Stalin conglomerated political power, relying on his personality cult to ensure compliance in a way that went beyond national allegiance. With political power isolated within a singular sovereign body, citizens were removed from political realm, and instead were meant to focus on ensuring the prosperity of communism.190 The agrarian and economic reforms helped to eliminate social class and the elimination of the Kulaks meant the end of a land-owning people and a step closer to the amorphous state proposed both my Marx and Hobbes alike. Much like Hobbes’ sovereign, Stalin’s autocratic legislation (in theory) ensured that individuals would be provided for. Like the structure of the social contract in Leviathan, citizens operated in a nationalized workforce; whether their jobs were in agriculture, manufacturing, or science, their labor was directed toward the benefit of the state. Likewise, as the sovereign, the younger Stalin’s interests were directed towards the preservation of the Soviet state through economic decisions which promoted equality through the elimination of social class, and sought to provide its citizens with material necessities, all the while industrializing the formerly agrarian Soviet Union and turning it into a preeminent political power.

Josef Stalin’s leadership of the Soviet Union neither textbook, nor conventional, and when he could not adhere to Marxist orthodoxy, his actions resembled that of the

Hobbesian sovereign. Stalin took complete control of political autonomy in exchange for providing for the needs of the people. The soviet state was absolute, it did not wither, but instead transformed to one without private property or class, like the Hobbesian model.

190 The Soviet state communicated to its people through various forms of media: print, radio, public demonstrations and television, with the goal of inspiring civilians to increase productivity. Themes included maximizing efficiency, national pride, and overcoming the tyranny of western . 89

The practical implementation of communism under Stalin, therefore, draws so many parallels to what Hobbes had initially proposed in Leviathan, and demonstrates such a radically different conception of how Hobbes has been read for the better portion of the past century, that one simply could not help but explore it in more detail.

90

Chapter 5

What We Have Learned

With the discussion of the previous few chapters we can begin to fully digest the contents of what this thesis postulates. What has been brought forth is an account of

Hobbes’ model of sovereignty in accordance with a left-leaning interpretation. Here, we have painted a picture of Hobbes as a proto-liberal whose philosophy borders on utilitarianism.191 Hobbes concern for the interest of the individual192 should immediately call into question the analysis of his philosophy being fascist—a model of sovereignty wherein the citizens interests are prioritized through the sovereign suggests a more symbiotic relationship than what Hobbes’ critics will grant him.

Moreover, Hobbes’ model of sovereignty is fascinating because it is such a foreign concept. Here, the citizens voluntarily cede political rights in exchange for protection; and while the sovereign is not a party to the social contract, they are still obligated to fulfill their obligation to ensure a safe and prosperous commonwealth. Hobbes’ failsafe of

191 This is a move I believe I can make because early utilitarian’s like Bentham and Mill also fall under the category of liberal. 192 It is important to remember that what is perceivably good for the individual is reflected by what is good for the commonwealth. The sovereign, being a natural person, understands that their obligation is to act in accordance to how they would want to be treated if they were a citizen. Their actions, in deciding the law of the land, reflect the will of the people who put the sovereign in power. 91

permitting the people to overrule and elect a new sovereign should the previous fail to meet expectations. Again, at least theoretically, this is a far more liberal depiction of absolute sovereignty than one would initially expect. Further, it is important to remember that the sovereign only dictates laws related to running the commonwealth efficiently,193 their power does not necessarily creep into every facet of the citizen’s day-to-day lives. Owen was quite clear in this, reminding us that there is plenty of personal autonomy within the commonwealth—if something is not explicitly prohibited, then a citizen can perform that action without fear of punishment. In this instance, the sovereign, then, is an authoritarian figure, but not one who is oppressive or evil from the start; Hobbes’ model actually demonstrates a leader with considerable care for their subjects.

Our analysis of Marx’s writings helped to provide a more traditional framework for the kind of system that Stalin would have intended to follow. Marx and Engels envisioned a world where communism was an inevitability; where all that was needed for revolution was a spark of consciousness amongst the proletariat class. Capitalism was a parasitic entity, which exploited the workforce for their labor in exchange for pitiful wages while bosses sat comfortably and accumulated capital. Should the proletariat recognize their oppression, by sheer numbers alone they could rise up in opposition to the bourgeoisie, and take control of the means of production. In this system, individuals would be equal, private property would be abolished, and previously corporate entities (like factories and farm equipment) would be free to use by all citizens of the state. Eventually, the state as a whole

193 This is a shorthand way of saying that the sovereign is obligated only to create and enforce laws to prevent citizens from harming one another. 92

would disintegrate, and form a dictatorship of the proletariat, a nation (should we use that term loosely) without formal government, where the people presided over themselves. Tied in with this notion it the erosion of social class; with the elimination of formal government, combined with the repurposing of private goods for the benefit of the public, there is no longer a formal, systemic construct which places some individuals above others.

Unfortunately, traditional Marxist theory took for granted that citizens would notice the nature of their oppression without outside action. Marx grounded his argument in communism being the rational evolution from capitalism, yet his belief hinged on the assumption that historically-noted creatures of habit would not only recognize their predicament, but immediately, and voluntarily seek to change it. In a modern context, this is only made worse by the narrative pushed by neoliberalism: there is no alternative.194 In this instance, the most marginalized individuals, who would benefit the most from the application of socialism, have been convinced that capitalism is in their best interest. Even now, as we enter a period of hyper industrialization, where the wealthiest class of individuals continue to build upon their wealth, where the material conditions for communism are more present now than any other time in human history, the narrative of communism being an evil entity is pressed on.

Josef Stalin, then, bridges the gap present in Hobbes’ philosophy and the practical application of Marxism. During his early leadership in the first Five Year Plan, Stalin acted out of the interest of the Soviet people. Having been ravaged by the first World War, and subsequent revolution, the Russian state had been battered and needed strong leadership.

194 Read, Jason. “A Genealogy of Homo-Economicus.” pg. 36. 93

After the passing of Lenin, Stalin assumed the mantle of sovereign, and during the first portion of his leadership, he assumed the role of the strong sovereign. Although he had attempted to follow the Marxist-Leninist line of thought, the conditions necessary for

Marxism—industrialization brought about from a nation toiling under capitalism—were simply not present. Russia, was too agrarian to develop into a communist nation without spending years toiling under capitalism.

Stalin was required, then, to adopt a different model of sovereignty. If traditional

Marxist principles could not be strictly applied, then a viable alternative would need to be produced in the meantime. Like Hobbes’ sovereign, Stalin made use of his personality cult, drawing a following in a way that transcends allegiance on the principle of nationality.

Within the first Five Year Plan, his actions were directed towards upholding the social contract—a contract grounded in some very Hobbesian elements. Stalin assumed sole in exchange for providing for the Soviet citizens. The early years of

Stalinism, then, represent a model of absolute sovereignty that is not inherently evil. The

Five-Year Plan was aimed at benefitting the Soviet state, and had largely achieved this as their industrial and agricultural production skyrocketed. Moreover, the state was able to adapt quickly and transform into a real superpower without subjecting themselves to capitalism.

Regardless of his flaws, the early tenure of Stalin was one molded by his interest in the preservation of the Russian state. Like the Hobbesian sovereign, the Russian people put in motion the chain of events that would lead to such a sovereign state, and like the citizens of Hobbes commonwealth, the Soviets removed themselves from the political sphere. Their social contract, like that of Leviathan, became centered around the relationship between 94

the individuals while the sovereign rules from a distance. Stalin’s legitimacy in his leadership was contingent upon doing what was necessary to keep the state running smoothly. The Dekulakization was a necessary action as sovereign because the kulaks presented themselves as a threat to the stability of the state. To permit them to exist without adhering to Stalin’s rule would risk undermining the entire effort of the communist party.

This was not an action done for the pleasure of human suffering, but exactly the opposite.

The sovereign has a set duty to their people, and as a leftist leviathan, Stalin’s duty was to uphold the stability of the Soviet nation through the elimination of class and private property, and by ensuring stability and safety at home—which, during his early reign, he was able to do.

95

References

Books

Conquest, Robert. The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivisation and the Terror-famine. London: Pimlico, 2002.

Conquest, Robert. Stalin: Breaker of Nations. Norwalk, CT: Easton Press, 2002.

Darwin, Charles, and George Lewis. Levine. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. New York: Barnes & Noble Classics, 2004.

Engels, Friedrich, and Eleanor Burke Leacock. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. New York: , 1972.

Foucault, Michel, and Michel Senellart. The Birth of Biopolitics Lectures at the College De France, 1978-1979. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.

Foucault, Michel, 1926-1984. Discipline And Punish: the Birth of the Prison. New York :Pantheon Books, 1977.

Galbraith, John Kenneth., and James K. Galbraith. The new industrial state. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.

Guevara, Che. “Ideology of the Cuban Revolution.” In Speaks, edited by Joseph Hansen, 26-33. New York: Pathfinder, 2016

Hobbes, Thomas. Man and Citizen. Garden , NY, 1972.

Kahn, Paul. Political Theology Four New Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. New York: Columbia University Press. 2012.

Knickerbocker, H.R., Is Tomorrow Hitler’s?: 200 Questions on the Battle of Mankind.

New York: Reynal & Hitchcock. 1941. Lenin, Vladimir. “The Development of Capitalism in Russia.” In Essential Works of 96

Lenin, edited by Henry Christman, 11-52. New York: Dover Publications, 1966.

Lenin, Vladimir. “The State and Revolution.” In Essential Works of Lenin, edited by Henry Christman, 271-364. New York: Dover Publications, 1966.

Lenin, Vladimir. “What is to be Done?” In Essential Works of Lenin, edited by Henry Christman, 53-176. New York: Dover Publications, 1966.

Locke, John. Two treatises of government. Edited by Mark Goldie. London: Dent, 1988.

Marx, Karl. “Alienation and Social Classes” In The Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert C. Tucker, 133-136. Norton: New York, 1972.

Marx, Karl. “Capital, Volume One” In The Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert C. Tucker, 294-438. Norton: New York, 1972.

Marx, Karl. “Estranged Labor.” In The Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert C. Tucker, 70-81. Norton: New York, 1972.

Marx, Karl. “The Grundrisse.” In The Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert C. Tucker, 221-293. Norton: New York, 1972.

Marx, Karl. “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” In The Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert C. Tucker, 469-500. Norton: New York, 1972.

Marx, Karl. “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonarparte.” In The Marx-Engels Reader, Edited by Robert C. Tucker, 594-617. Norton: New York.

Macpherson, C.B. Hobbes’ Leviathan. Middlesex: Penguin Books. 1968.

Petram, Lodewijk. The World’s First Stock Exchange. New York: Columbia University Press, 2014.

Shapiro, Judith. Maos War against Nature: Politics and the Environment in Revolutionary China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Sorell, Tom. Emergencies and Politics - a Sober Hobbesian Approach. Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Sorell T. (2010) Hobbes, Public Safety and Political Economy. In: Prokhovnik R., Slomp G. (eds) International Political Theory after Hobbes. International Political Theory Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Plato, et al. Plato, Republic. Harvard University Press, 2013.

97

Ryan, A. On Hobbes: Escaping the War of All Against All. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation. 2016.

Service, Robert. Stalin: A Biography. London: Pan, 2010.

Service, Robert. A History of Twentieth-century Russia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001.

Stalin, Joseph. Marxism and the National Question. New York: Prism Key Press, 2013.

Wolin, Sheldon S. Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought. Princeton University Press. 2016.

Zedong, Mao. “On Contradiction.” In Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Edited by the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute, 133-177. Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute: .

Zedong, Mao. “Stalin, Friend of the Chinese People.” In Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Edited by the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute, Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute: Moscow.

Articles

Ashcraft, Richard. "Ideology and Class in Hobbes' Political Theory." Political Theory 6, no. 1 (1978): 27-62. http://www.jstor.org/stable/190884.

Balot, Ryan K. "Subordinating Courage to Justice: Statecraft and Soulcraft in Fourth- Century Athenian Rhetoric and Platonic Political Philosophy." Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric 25, no. 1 (2007): 35-52. doi:10.1525/rh.2007.25.1.35.

Bandera, V. N. "The New Economic Policy (NEP) as an Economic System." Journal of Political Economy 71, no. 3 (1963): 265-79. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1828984.

George E. G. Catlin. "Thomas Hobbes and Contemporary Political Theory." Political Science Quarterly 82, no. 1 (1967): 1-13. doi:10.2307/2147297.

Hardin, Russell. "Hobbesian Political Order." Political Theory 19, no. 2 (1991): 156-80. http://www.jstor.org/stable/191660.

Hurtgen, James R., “Hobbes’s Theory of Sovereignty in Leviathan.” Reason Papers No. 5 (1979): 55-67.

98

Owen, J. Judd. “The Tolerant Leviathan: Hobbes and the Paradox of Liberalism.” Polity 37.1 (2005): 130-48. Web

Patterson-Tutschka, Monicka (2015). Hobbes Smashes Cromwell and the Rump: An Interpretation of Leviathan. Political Theory 43 (5):631-656.

Richman, Sheldon L., “War Communism to NEP: The Road from Serfdom” The Journal of Libertarian Studies Vol. V, No. 1 (1981). 89-97.

Read, Jason. “A Genealogy of Homo-Economicus: Neoliberalism and the Production of Subjectivity” Foucault Studies, No 6, (2009): 25-36. Web.

Seton, Francis. “Scissor Crises, Value-Prices, and the Movement of Value-Prices Under Technical Change.” Structural Change and Economic Dynamics (2000): 13-24.

Thomsen, Jacob Als. "Carl Schmitt - The Hobbesian Of The 20th Century?" Social Thought & Research 20, no. 1/2 (1997): 5-28.

Websites

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Social Darwinism." Encyclopædia Britannica. February 23, 2018. Accessed April 05, 2018. https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-Darwinism.

Collectivization and Industrialization. Accessed April 07, 2018. https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/coll.html.

Engels. "Dialectics of Nature." 1883-Dialectics of Nature-Index. Accessed April 06, 2018. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/index.htm.

Khrushchev, Nikita. Speech to 20th Congress of the C.P.S.U. Accessed April 07, 2018. https://www.marxists.org/archive/khrushchev/1956/02/24.htm. Lenin, Vladimir. "Left-Wing" Childishness. Accessed April 06, 2018. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm.

Rick, Jonathan. "Hobbes." Columbia College. Accessed April 07, 2018. https://www.college.columbia.edu/core/content/hobbes.

Slaughter, Cliff. Marxism & the Class Struggle. Accessed April 07, 2018. https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/slaughte.htm. 99

Stalin, Josef. The Work of the April Joint Plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission. Accessed April 07, 2018. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1928/04/13.htm.

100

Top View