A Thesis entitled 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 ________________________________________ 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 law, 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 sovereignty, and the implementation of Marxism in the Soviet Union. The political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes has been most often interpreted through a particular reading of the German Carl Schmitt, which. as a result, has rendered Hobbesian philosophy synonymous with a strict, authoritarian nationalism 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 Soviet Union. This model, wherein the Soviet citizens have been removed from the political realm forms an analogous relationship to what is present under the Hobbesian social contract. This is not to say that Marxism can be read back to Hobbes, but, rather, that Stalin’s leadership 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 family 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 socialism, 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 will 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 Liberalism 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 State and Citizen ...................................34 3 Marxist Theory: Connecting the Dots....................................................................52 3.1 On Marx ...............................................................................................52 3.2 Parallels in Historiography, Materialism, 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 Leninism’s Influence on Stalin’s Approach to Communism ...............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 Stalinism ...............................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 ideology. 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 nature 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 regicide was condemned ‘to make the amende honorable before the main door of the Church of Paris’, 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 Michel Foucault’s book, Discipline and Punish. Here, the French philosopher 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 justice 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