CHAPTER 4.pptxcvcxvbvcbvvbvbccxcxcxcxcxc

CHAPTER 4
MODERN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI’S POLITICAL
PHILOSOPHY

• Niccolo Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy in
1469.
• Machiavelli lived in Renaissance Italy and was
greatly influenced by the new spirit of
Renaissance.
• The intellectual awakening injected rational
scientific approach in every sphere of human life.
• Renaissance replaced faith by reason.

• Florence was one the prominent centers of
renaissance.
• Italy was the leader of renaissance, the most
modern and urbanized country in Europe, rich
in wealth and could boast of the intellectual
and artistic achievements.
• However, the wealth, intellect and artistic
achievements were accompanied by moral
degradation and political chaos.

• So, in renaissance Italy, as in ancient Greece, a
very high level of civilization was combined
with a very low level of morals;
• both ages exhibit the greatest heights of
genius and the greatest depths of moral
degradation and in both the scoundrels and
men genius are by no means antagonistic to
each other

• In both ages, after art and literature, murder had
flourished side by side.
• In both cases, the loss of political independence
involved not only cultural decay, but loss of
commercial supremacy and catastrophic
impoverishment.
• The worst aspect of the period during which
Machiavelli lived was rampant corruption and
selfishness among the Italian rulers and the church
officials.

• Machiavelli represents the culture which was
undergoing a period of deep political crisis.
• Italian peninsula consisted of a very large
number of small independent states
somewhat similar to the city-states of ancient
Greek.
• Some of these states are like, Florence,
Naples, Venice, Rome, Milan and Genoa.

• Internally, these states were the home of fierce
political rivalries and personal ambitions, and
externally they were involved in a constant
struggle with one another.
• This political division of Italy and the struggle
between these five states made the country
weak and a prey for the ambitions of the
powerful neighboring states of France, Prussia
and Spain.

• This made Machiavelli to conclude that unless
Italy was united under a strong central
government, the country would always remain
under the threat of conquest and annexation
by either France or Spain or else destroyed in
the course of conflict between these two
powers

• Generally, it can be argued that, the central
theme of Niccolo Machiavelli’s political
philosophy revolves around the question of
how to build a strong, united, and self-
sufficient state.
• He argues that, the sole aim of the prince or
ruler of any state must be, to make the country
strong and united, establish peace and order
and to avoid external or foreign threats.

• According to Machiavelli, for this noble end any
means would be satisfactory, the question of
means is one of indifference so long as the end
is noble.
• This is the doctrine of the end justifies the
means; it implies the separation of politics from
ethics and religion which is the ultimate end of
Machiavellianism and which makes him belong
more to the modern than the middle ages.

• The most influential book of Machiavelli which
he wrote on politics is entitled as The Prince.
• Also he wrote other books like The Art of War
and The History of Florence.
Machiavelli’s View on Human Nature
• For Machiavelli, human being is naturally
ungrateful, voluble, dissemblers, anxious to
avoid danger and covetous of gain;

• as long as you benefit them, they are entirely
yours; they offer you their blood, their goods,
their life, and their children.
• But when the necessity is remote, they revolt.
• Naturally all men are corrupt, factious and
selfish and men have less scruple (doubt) in
offending one who makes himself loved than
one who make himself feared;

• for love is held by chain of obligations which,
me being selfish, is broken whenever it serves
their purpose; but fear is maintained by
dread of punishment which never fails.

Machiavelli on the Establishment and Nature of
State
• In the history of Western political philosophy,
Machiavelli is the first person to coin and use the
term “state” from the Latin term “stato” to
describe an independent and self- sufficient state.
• In discussing his theory of state, Machiavelli
introduced his concept of “reason of the state or
Raison d’etat”

• Reason of the state or raison d’etat implies actions and
policies promoting the safety and security of the state.
• According to this concept, state is the highest form of
human social organization and the most necessary of
all institutions for the protection and promotion of
human welfare.
• Therefore, the state must preserve itself first before it
promotes the welfare of its people.
• In preserving and safeguarding itself, any means
adopted by the state are justified.

• This makes the state a strange amalgam of
human and bestial (cruel) qualities.
• On the one hand, it must promote the welfare
of its people, and on the other, it must exercise
force and coercion, without which it will not
possible to protect and provide safety and
security to the people living within its boundary.
• Reason of the state is, therefore, an inseparable
element in the life of any state.

• Machiavelli despised religion and morality.
• He argued that religion and morality have no any
place in politics.
• While prescribing the means by which a state can be
effectively unified strengthened, the only thing in
which Machiavelli interested is whether they are
effective for the end in view;
• the question whether they are moral in the
traditional sense of the word is meaningless for him.

• He says, “let the prince, then, look to the
maintenance (peace and security) of the state: the
means will always be deemed honorable and will
receive general approbation (praise).”
• He states the doctrine of the end justifies the means
in the following words.
• “A wise mind will never censure (condemn) anyone
for having employed any extraordinary means for
the purpose of establishing a kingdom or
constituting a republic.

• It is well that, when the act accuses him, the
result should excuse him.”
• Therefore, for Machiavelli, the goodness or
badness of actions in politics must be drawn
based upon reason of the state or the
contribution of the action for the peace and
stability of the state.

• If policies and actions of the prince brought
peace and stability for his kingdom then,
irrespective of the means employed by the
prince, the policies and actions of the king are
justifiable or good.
• But, the actions of the prince resulted for the
prevalence instability and chaos with the state,
then irrespective the means employed; the
actions of the prince are unjustifiable or bad.

• Machiavelli further suggests that the prince
should appear to have the qualities in respect
of which men are counted as good.
• For this purpose he should be skillful in feigning
(pretending) and dissemble (put off).
• He should so behave that anybody who sees
and hears him would regard him as the
embodiment of mercy, good faith, integrity,
kindliness and religion.

• In this context, it would be clear that Machiavelli
does not despise or ignore religion and morality.
• He realizes the important role they play in the
political life of a community.
• he says – “princes and republics who wish to
maintain themselves free from corruption must
above all things preserve the purity of all
religious observances and treat them with
proper reverence

• for there is no greater indication of the ruin of
a country than to see religion condemned.
• It is necessary to understand how the purity of
all religious observances helps preserve the
state and how the decline of religion means its
ruin.
• There is no better instrument for this purpose
than religion.

• Thus, he wants to use the church as an
instrument for creating national customs and
habits of thought which will help the state in
preserving peace and order and maintaining
the stability of the society.
• He urges familiar view that a community
which loses the religious sentiment greatly
imperils itself.

• The observance of the ordinances of religion is the
cause for the greatness of commonwealths (states);
so also is their neglect is the cause for the ruin
(destruction).
• Thus, Machiavelli attaches only an instrumental
value to religion.
• It has no intrinsic or objective value; it has value only
as an instrument which the politician employs to
influence the people to pursue ends which he is
seeking to achieve.

Machiavelli’s Advices for Princes/ Rulers
• A prince/ruler must be cruel to maintain the
power of the state;
• according to Machiavelli, a prince/ruler must not
mind incurring the charge of cruelty for the for
the purpose of keeping his subjects united and
faithful, for, with a very few examples, he will be
more merciful than those who, from excess of
tenderness (kindness), all disorders to arise,

• from whence spring bloodshed and rapine; for
these as a rule injure the whole community,
while the executions carried out by the prince
injure only individuals.
• And of all princes, it is impossible for a new
prince to escape the reputation of cruelty,
new states being always full of dangers.

• A prince/ruler should be loved as well as
feared; from this arises the question whether
it is better to be loved more than feared, or
feared more than loved.
• The reply is that, one ought to be both feared
and loved, but as it is difficult to go together,
it is much safer to be feared than loved, if
one of the two has to be wanting.

Social Contract Theory
• The common features of the social contract
theory of the three philosophers include:
• all comprise, the state of nature, social
contract and the establishment of the
political/civil society, i.e., the state.
• But their explanations on each element differ.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
• He was born in England in 1588 in the year the
Spanish Armada attacked England.
• He studied at Oxford University and graduated
at the age of 19.
• The time of his birth was characterized by
turbulent developments in Europe and in
particular, in England.

• Hobbes, for example, observed the English
Civil War (1642-49) between the Parliament
and the then absolute King, Charles I over the
proposed raising of taxes for imposition of his
religious reform on Scotland.

• He witnessed the execution of Charles I in
1649.
• He experienced miserable childhood and
political crisis (civil war) during his life time.
• These circumstances determined his future
political philosophy which was reflected in his
writings.

• Hobbes completed his first work, The Elements
of Law, where he advocated the necessity of an
absolute and undivided sovereignty of the
monarch for securing peace.
• He advocated absolute monarchy believing
that if there were absolute king who could
punish the parliament, there would be no
execution of the King which would have in
return avoided Civil War.

• In 1651, he published his most influential and
controversial work of the time known as The
Leviathan.
• The Leviathan which was to mean the
commonwealth, was an artificial man “of
greater stature and strength” than the original
work of nature, man.

• The Leviathan further justifies the absolute
power of the king.
• It subordinates the ecclesiastical (church’s) to
civil authority and this attempt of Hobbes
offended the Royalists who believed in the
Divine Right of kings and the church.

Hobbes’ Views on Human Nature
• Man is essentially body and nothing besides:
According to Hobbes, man is a machine
composed of moving particles and is alike
plants and animals.
• Men are driven by impulses (instinctive drive)
like animals.
• The only difference between men and animals
is that men has the faculties of speech and
reason which animals lack.

• Man is a creature of activity: man is always
working creature.
• He cannot have final end where he can rest.
• The achievement of one objective becomes a
starting point for a new activity.
• This situation forms a series of activities man
desires to achieve until death.

• Good and Evil: Hobbes calls what man desires
and wants to secure as good and what he
dislikes and wants to avoid as evil.
• Good and evil are determined based on the
ends of human activities.
• Desire and Aversion: The motive for any
voluntary action of man is desire and aversion,
according to Hobbes

• Hobbes reduces all human passion/deep
emotions into two: desire and aversion.
• He described these passions as the two
original and primitive feelings.
• Desire is an endeavor to secure an object
perceived to be good whereas aversion is an
endeavor to get rid of evil object.

• The derivation of this conception of desire and
aversion is that according to Hobbes, man is
self-centered/ egoistic and selfish.
• Desire and aversion are
stimulus-responses/instinctive reaction.
• Hobbes calls objects which excite neither
desire nor aversion as contempt.

• In other words, the term ‘contempt’ signifies the
attitude of indifference felt towards objects which
arouse neither desire nor aversion.
• Self-Preservation: Self-preservation means the
desire to ensure the continuation of individual
biological existence.
• It is the primary goal of man.
• Anything that contributes towards self-preservation
is good whereas anything against it is evil.

• To ensure self-preservation, man must
continuously engaged in struggle for existence
and this struggle never stops until death.
• Hence, man restlessly seeks for power as the
best instrument for self-preservation.
• Near Equality: Hobbes believes that there is no
great difference among human being.
• mental and physical capacity when combined
together makes men nearly equal.

• “Nature has made men so equal in the faculties of
the body and mind as that though there be found
one man manifestly stronger in body or quicker in
mind than another, yet when all reckoned with
together, the difference between man and man is
not considerable.”
• This implies that when all the mental and physical
qualities of men are taken into consideration, it
would seem that they have much the same ability to
attain their ends.

• In other words, lack of physical strength is
compensated by intellectual ability and vice versa.
• Reason: Hobbes believes that man is endowed
with a faculty of reason by which he acquires the
“knowledge of consequences and dependence by
experience of one fact over another.”
• That means knowledge of consequence of one
fact over another is acquired by experience.

• Fear as motives behind human action:
According to Hobbes, fear is inseparable from
human nature.
• Fear provides motivation for most of the
human conduct.
• Human mind is preoccupied by fear and thus,
each man tries to achieve security relentlessly
and continuously.

• This continuous desire of security makes man
necessarily selfish.
• However, man’s selfishness does not make
him bad, immoral or sinful.
• The desire for peace makes man rational
being.
• Accordingly, man is rational that makes him
distinct from the animal world.

Hobbes’ Social Contract Theory
• Thomas Hobbes is regarded as Social Contract
Theorist or ‘Contractualist’ for he explained
the origin of the state.
• Social Contract Theory is theory which holds
that state originated as the result of contract
made by men among themselves and/or with
the sovereign.

• Human Nature: According to him, man is
completely self-centered, egoistic, solitary and
alienated individual.
• He believed that man is always obsessed with
his own desire which is desires of self-
preservation and power.
• Therefore, man becomes self-seeking, fearful,
quarrelsome, and competitive thus does not
belong to any order, moral or political.

• reason is passive in man while passions are
active and potent.
• Men also always wish to acquire unlimited
power and to excel all others in a society.
• This desire leads man to continuously engage
in conflict and competition.
• Hobbes identified three causes of conflict,
namely, competition, difference and glory.

• According to Hobbes, difference makes men
invade for gain; competition is desired for
safety and glory is for reputation.
• Men first use violence to make themselves
masters of other men’s person, wives, children
and cattle; the second to defend them and the
third for trifles (trivial things such as pride).

• Hobbes believes that all men are equal in the
faculties of body and mind and this equality
becomes cause for enmity and destruction
among them.
• If any two men desire to achieve the same
thing that both cannot enjoy at the same time,
they become enemies and in the way of
achieving their end, they destroy each other.

• The State of Nature: Hobbes assumes the existence
of a hypothetical state of nature and characterized
it the pre-social phase of human nature.
• He characterizes state of nature as the situation
where ‘The life of man in the state of nature was
solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.’
• State of nature according to Hobbes, was a state of
constant warfare and savagery among men.
• It was ‘a war of every man against every man.

• ’Men were like famished/starved wolves,
seeking to devour one another.
• They were brutal, selfish, egoistic, covetous
and rapacious, and utterly devoid of sense of
right and wrong.
• In the state of nature, the weak suffered and
the strong triumphed.

• Fear and self- interest are the two factors that
dominated men in the state of nature.
• Force and fraud were their virtue. In the state of
nature, there was no law, no justice no property,
and no security.
• There was constant fear and danger of violent
death.
• Might was the only right and known by the
slogan ‘kill whom you can, take what you can.’

• Hobbes believes, man wanted peace but his fear
of another, his anxiety to retain what he already
and his never-ending desire acquiring more led
him to continuous conflict with his neighbors.
• According to Hobbes, later on, man’s reason
discovered that peace was of more utility than
war.
• Only private interest could move him even
though believed in cooperation.

• To bring about peace, it was suggested that
instituting strong government capable of
inspiring fear in/punishing those who disobeyed
its laws and giving attractive rewards for those
who conform to its laws.
• The Social Contract: The condition in the state
of nature is the worst situation for man to
continually live in.
• But man naturally wants peace and security.

• Thus, to escape from the horror insecurity and
anarchy in the state of nature, man consented or
contracted among themselves to form a civil society
or commonwealth which could ensure for everyone
security, and certainty of life and property.
• To form a civil society, by a mutual contract, men
consented to surrender/ give up their natural rights
to a common superior/ sovereign and obey his
command.

• The common superior/sovereign was an absolute
monarch, or democracy or aristocracy.
• He was not a party to the contract, and thus, was not
obliged to obey men.
• This agreement among men is known as “Social
Contract”.
• ‘The contract was of each with all and of all with each.’
• Therefore, it was a social contract.
• This marked the origin of the state.

• Once the people gave up their natural rights, they
cannot reclaim.
• The power conferred upon the sovereign by the social
contract could not be withdrawn at any time.
• As the people retained no right, they would never rise
against the rule of the sovereign; however, its rule
might be arbitrary.
• They cannot protest against.
• Thus, the authority of the sovereign is unlimited, final
and irrevocable.

• Hobbes believed that without the sovereign
power, law, order, peace and security could not
be maintained in the society.
• Though Hobbes did not believe that sovereign
power should necessarily be vested in one man,
he believed that monarchy is the most desirable
form of government.
• Unfortunately, Hobbes did not make distinction
between state and government.

• Criticisms to Hobbes Theory:
• There is no historical evidence: The hypothetical state
of nature of Hobbes has never existed in history.
• No evidence in history to show that state has
emerged by mutual and deliberate agreement.
• Wrong presentation of human nature: man is not as
selfish, self-seeking and aggressive generally as
Hobbes described.
• Man is social animal.

• Wrong conception of natural rights: Hobbes
believed that state of nature was pre-social
and pre-political.
• As the same time, he said, man enjoyed
natural rights in the state of nature.
• But rights always arise in a society.
• Hobbes puts no distinction between state and
government.

• Problematic conception of the sovereign/
sovereignty: his conception of the sovereign
as absolute power leads to despotism and
gives the subjects no defense against
oppressive and tyrannical rule.

John Locke (1632-1704)
• John Locke is an English political philosopher
lived in the turbulent time which had
immensely influenced his political philosophy.
• He wrote his book entitled the Two Treatises
of Government, which contains his political
philosophy.

• In his political philosophy, Locke provided the
theoretical foundations of parliamentary
government and the principles on which it
must be based.
• Similar to Hobbes, Locke rejected the Divine
Right of the King as the basis for ascending to
political power.

• However, unlike Hobbes, Locke believed that
all government authority must be derived
from the people and based on their consent.
• He believed that men are not sufficiently
selfish but their interests co-exist and lies in
peaceful cooperation.
• That means men have mutual interests.

• John Locke’s Perception of Human Nature:
According to Locke, “All men are naturally in the
state of equality.”
• In other words, it means, all men are born free.
• Men are morally equal, that is, they are
endowed with reason equally by nature which
enables them recognize natural laws that define
their rights and duties.

• Therefore, men are rational beings.
• He believed also that men’s action is
motivated by desire and this desire is the
acquisition of pleasure and avoidance of pain.
• Locke does not accept the Hobbesian view
that perceives men as egoistic, competitive,
quarrelsome and aggressive.

• He also dismisses the view of Hobbes which
treats the state of nature as the state of
perpetual war of everyone against all.
• Locke believes in goodness of human being.
• According to Locke, men are naturally decent,
peaceful, orderly, society-loving and capable
of ruling themselves.

• Unlike Hobbes’ view, for John Locke, the state
of nature, a pre-state stage in which men lived
was not a state of war but a state of peace,
goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation.

• Social Contract Theory of John Locke:
• The State of Nature: The state of nature for
Locke is the state of goodwill, mutual
assistance and preservation of peace.
• The state of nature for Locke was not pre-
social rather pre-political/pre-state stage.
• The state of nature was not the state of
warfare because peace and reason prevailed.

• The state of nature was governed by law of
nature which was based on reason.
• The law of nature was the law of freedom and
equality.
• In the state of nature, there was equality in
terms of personal liberty or independence,
not in terms of intellect, physical capacity or
possession.

• Simply, everyone is equal.
• In the state of nature, human beings equally
possessed inherent and inalienable right to life,
liberty and property from birth.
• In the state of nature, man was led by the law of
nature which represented the moral consciousness
of one’s duty to himself and his fellow beings.
• The state of nature of Locke looks like a civil society
without government.

• However, in the state of nature, according to
Locke, there were some inconveniences which
include:
• In the absence of established, settled and
known law, every man was an interpreter of
law as per his convenience.
• There was no known and independent judge.

• This led to variety of interpretation which in turn
caused confusion.
• There was no executive power to enforce law
and hence, every man had the right to execute
the law of nature and punish the transgressor.
• Even though there was no constant war, there
was no permanent peace, and security.
• This would endangered the right to life, liberty
and property.

• Therefore, to remove the above
inconveniences in the state of nature, men
established a civil government by all and
applied by impartial and authoritative judge
whose decision would be enforced by the
executive authority.

• Social Contract of John Locke: To remove
inconvenience in the state of nature, each
individual contracted (agreed) with others to
unite and establish an association.
• The purpose of this agreement was to preserve
the right to life, liberty and property.
• Therefore, the contract among each individual
established a civil society/association to protect
these inalienable rights.

• The features of the social contract of John
Locke are the following:
• No surrender of all rights – people should not
give up their natural rights to the civil society
but they must maintain.
• The rights they give up to the association/civil
society is that of interpreting and executing
the laws, not that of life, liberty and property.

• No absolute sovereignty: The political society/
association created by social contract was not
absolute sovereign rather of limited power.
• The sovereign cannot violate those natural
rights (the right to life, liberty and property)
but protect.
• If the sovereign violated these rights, people
could remove the sovereign from power.

• Contract not with the ruler but with the
community: The contract was created not with
single ruler but with the community as a whole
(the state) which was to become the common
political superior.
• Distinction between the state and society: Locke
distinguished the state from society.
• By the first contract, society would be established
and by the second contract, the state.

• Sovereignty of the community (people): it
was not a single individual who was sovereign
but the community (people) as a whole.
• Consent of the people: government was
established only by consent of every man and
consent of the mass.

• Majority rule: Locke’s contract implied the rule of
majority.
• The law of nature could not be enforced unless
the minority submitted to the will of the majority.
• Legislature as a Supreme Organ of Government:
• According to Locke, the legislature is the supreme
organ of government but itself must be subjected
to certain restrictions.

• It cannot, for example, arbitrarily violate
natural rights of individuals.
Criticisms to Locke’s Theory
• Confused theory of sovereignty: Locke failed
to distinguish between various kinds of
sovereignty: he gives recognition to political
sovereignty but not legal sovereignty.

• He believed that the supreme power, that is,
sovereignty resides in the people and at the
same time said, the legislative is the supreme
authority/sovereign.
• Two contracts incredible: Locke believed that
the institution of government was created by
two contracts.
• But it is difficult to believe that primitive society
could create two contracts.

Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1772)
• Rousseau, a Swiss political philosopher who
influenced the French Revolution of 1789 was born
in Geneva (Swiss) in 1712.
• Criticizing the alienating pattern of modern life
which he believed divided, corrupted and enslaved
human being, Rousseau wrote: “Man was born
free, but everywhere he is in chains.’’
• By this, he reflected both the reality of human
domination and the possibility of human liberation.

Rousseau’s View of Human Nature
• According to Rousseau, men were born
naturally good and free.
• Following the emergence of sociality and
private property, human beings have become
corrupt and enslaved.

• Rousseau’s narrative of human history may be divided
into three major stages, which he borrowed from biblical
narrative.
• 1. Original innocence and solitude in state of nature:
Man’s original condition was marked by natural
goodness, self-sufficiency, radical freedom, and the
sentiment of his own existence.
• 2. The emergence of sociality and private property:
Following the emergence of private property, the
qualities of reason declined and vanity or pride emerged.

• 3. Redemption and liberation stage—the general
will: This stage is marked by state of improvement
of past moral decline.
• Man’s condition in the good society is marked by
political equality, civic virtue, and the reconciliation
of one’s particular will with the general will.
• This prescription for the good society will break
down the evils of mass dependence on organized
economic, social, and political elites.

• Rousseau’s State of Nature:
• Originally, in the early state of nature, the savage man
was characterized by self-love trait.
• Gradually, the savage man was transformed to civil man.
• Self-love of the savage man was completely inner-
regarding.
• But the subsequent type of self-love substituted by pride.
• Pride of the civil man is outer regarding.

• Rousseau’s ‘General Will’
• The general will is an expression of the
collective or common good among free and
equal people.
• It is the rational expression of the general
community which transforms private individuals
into public citizens who are capable of
recognizing that their individual good and the
public good now coincide.

• the General Will is an organized Will of the
community as opposed to the unorganized private
will.
• According to Rousseau, once human beings left the
state of nature and entered into civil society, they
tacitly agreed to the self-imposed rule of law and to
the obligation of social duties.
• The General Will is a substitute of public or civil
liberty for private liberty which was enjoyed in the
state of nature.

• Rousseau distinguishes the will of all from the
general will.
• The will of all is the summation of selfish,
private interests or wills without regard for the
common good.
• Because each individual has consented to the
general will and has participated in it directly,
no one has a right to oppose its outcome.

• Features of the General Will
• Indivisible: The General Will is the Will of the whole
community, thus, indivisible. If divided, it is simply,
destruction.
• Permanence: the General Will is permanent, not
impulsive/spontaneous.
• Inalienable: sovereignty is located in the General Will.
Sovereignty and General Will are inalienable.
• Non representative: Rousseau does not believe in the
representative government.
• He believed in direct democracy.

• Criticisms to Rousseau’s Theory of the
General Will
• Difficult to distinguish General Will from
the Will of All: When the people are
unanimous on certain issue, that unanimity is
called General Will, but unanimity is rare.
• Hence, General Will can be far from societal
reality, sometimes.

• Individual’s freedom is subordinated to
General Will
• According to Rousseau, force can be used
against a person who refused General Will
since it is for his own benefit.
• Unattainable in representative democracy:
Rousseau’s General Will attainable only on
those states which practice direct democracy.

The Political Philosophies of Baron De
Montesquieu
• unlike physical laws, which are instituted and
sustained by God, positive laws and social
institutions are created by fallible or imperfect
human beings who are "subject ... to
ignorance and error, [and] hurried away by a
thousand impetuous passions".

• laws should be adapted "to the people for
whom they are framed..., to the nature and
principle of each government, ... to the
climate of each country, to the quality of its
soil, to its situation and extent, to the principal
occupation of the natives, whether
husbandmen, huntsmen or shepherds:

• they should have relation to the degree of
liberty which the constitution will bear; to the
religion of the inhabitants, to their
inclinations, riches, numbers, commerce,
manners, and customs.

• Montesquieu on Classifications/ Forms of
Government
• Montesquieu holds that there are three types
of governments: Republican governments,
which can take either democratic or
aristocratic forms; Monarchies; and
Despotisms.

• The distinction between monarchy and
despotism depends not on the virtue of the
monarch, but on whether or not he governs
"by fixed and established laws".
• Each form of government has a principle, a set
of "human passions which set it in motion”
and each can be corrupted if its principle is
undermined or destroyed.

• On Montesquieu's view, the virtue required by
a functioning democracy is not natural.
• It requires "a constant preference of public to
private interest" it "limits ambition to the sole
desire, to the sole happiness, of doing greater
services to our country than the rest of our
fellow citizens" and it "is a self-renunciation,
which is ever difficult and painful".

• Democracies can be corrupted in two ways: by
what Montesquieu calls "the spirit of inequality"
and "the spirit of extreme equality".
• The spirit of inequality arises when citizens no
longer identify their interests with the interests
of their country, and therefore seek both to
advance their own private interests at the
expense of their fellow citizens, and to acquire
political power over them.

• The spirit of extreme equality arises when the
people are no longer content to be equal as
citizens, but want to be equal in every respect.
•

• In an aristocracy, the laws should be designed to instill and
protect this spirit of moderation.
• To do so, they must do three things.
• First, the laws must prevent the nobility from abusing the
people.
• The power of the nobility makes such abuse a standing
temptation in an aristocracy; to avoid it, the laws should
deny the nobility some powers, like the power to tax,
which would make this temptation all but irresistible, and
should try to foster responsible and moderate
administration.

• Second, the laws should disguise as much as possible
the difference between the nobility and the people,
so that the people feel their lack of power as little as
possible.
• Thus the nobility should have modest and simple
manners
• Finally, the laws should try to ensure equality among
the nobles themselves, and among noble families.
• When they fail to do so, the nobility will lose its spirit
of moderation, and the government will be corrupted.

• In a monarchy, one person governs "by fixed
and established laws".
• According to Montesquieu, these laws
"necessarily suppose the intermediate
channels through which (the monarch's) power
flows: for if there be only the temporary and
changeable will of a single person to govern
the state, nothing can be fixed, and, of course,
there is no fundamental law".

• A monarchy is corrupted when the monarch
either destroys the subordinate institutions
that constrain his will, or decides to rule
arbitrarily, without regard to the basic laws of
his country, or debases the honors at which
his citizens might aim, so that "men are
capable of being loaded at the very same time
with shame and with dignities".

Montesquieu on Liberty and Separation of Power
• According to Montesquieu, political liberty is "a
tranquility (calmness) of mind arising from the
opinion each person has of his safety".
• Liberty involves living under laws that protect us
from harm while leaving us free to do as much as
possible, and that enable us to feel the greatest
possible confidence that if we obey those laws, the
power of the state will not be directed against us.

• If it is to provide its citizens with the greatest
possible liberty, a government must have
certain features.
• First, since "constant experience shows us that
every man invested with power is apt to abuse
it ... it is necessary from the very nature of
things that power should be a check to
power".

• This is achieved through the separation of
the executive, legislative, and judicial powers
of government.

Nineteen Century Utilitarianism: Bentham and Mill
Jeremy Bentham (1748-)
• Bentham’s Utilitarian Philosophy
• For example, He was a reformer of English law
along more rational lines.
• To bring about this reform, he believed that
political institutions must first get rid of sinister
interests which were hostile to general welfare.
• The law and the institutions must represent the
needs of the day and be judged based on their
present utility.

Bentham’s Utilitarian Principle:
• we ought to choose that which will produce
the greatest happiness (pleasure) to the
greatest number”.
• Happiness is the presence of pleasure and
absence of pain.
• For Bentham, the laws of the state must be
judged by their usefulness or utility rendered
to the masses or the greatest number.

• Bentham defines utility as: utility is a property
in any object whereby it tends to produce
benefit, advantage, pleasure, or happiness
which prevent happiness of mischief, evil or
pain.
• The happiness must be the pleasure of the
community or individual if the party
concerned is an individual.

• Theory of Pleasure and Pain
• According to Bentham, pleasure or the
avoidance of pain is the sole end of man and
the sole content of human good.
• man is governed only by these two sovereign
masters, viz. pain and pleasure under all
circumstance and in all aspects of life.

• Factors to measure/evaluate pleasure and pain
• there are seven criteria or standards that should be
taken into account to assess the value of pleasure
or pain.
• These are:1) intensity (strength), 2) duration, 3)
certainty or uncertainty, 4) propinquity (proximity)
or remoteness,5) fecundity(fruitfulness) 6) purity
and 7) extent (the number of individuals taking part
in pain or pleasure).

• Hedonistic calculus of Bentham: According to
Bentham, an action is right or wrong, good or
bad, sound or unsound, based on its results
brought about at the end, that is, pleasure or
pain.
• An action which results into pleasure is good
whereas the action whose end is pain is
wrong or bad.

• According to Bentham, pleasure or pain could
be calculated arithmetically by taking into
account the above seven factors to measure
pleasure or pain.
• This method of calculating is called hedonistic
or felicific calculus.
• The very reason for people to obey law is
because it aims at security, substance,
abundance and equality.

• Bentham does not believe in natural law and
natural rights.
• He asserts, rights are created by law.
• Bentham proposed limited representative
government.
• According to Bentham, the very existence of
government is to produce the highest happiness
for the greatest number; no more no less.

• Generally, Bentham was a utilitarian philosopher
who advocated and radical democrat suggesting
reform in government such as:
• expanding franchise,
• vote by secret ballot,
• Annual parliaments,
• Equalizing of electoral districts,
• Disliked hereditary nature of House of Lords

• Criticism against Bentham’s Theory:
• Purely materialistic theory: In the utilitarian theory of
Bentham, there is no such a thing as moral or immoral
action though there are actions which are generally
useful or the reverse. It takes out human conscience from
men. His theory is result oriented.
• Over simplification of human motives: Bentham reduced
human motives for action only to pain and pleasure.
• However, many factors motivate individuals for action
besides pleasure and pain.

• Felicific Calculus inapplicable: Hedonistic
calculus of Bentham does not give any scale
for weighing his various factors against each
other.
• Ignores minority: Bentham’s principle of the
greatest happiness for the greatest number
leaves out the minority not part of the
greatest number.

• John Stuart Mill’s Modification to
Utilitarianism (1806-1873)
• Mill, another English Philosopher, considerably
modified Bentham’s theory of pleasure and
pain and his father’s utilitarianism (James
Mill’s) by admitting and emphasizing the
qualitative aspect of pleasure and became the
ardent defender of liberty.

• Mill agrees with Bentham on that the happiness,
the greatest pleasure for the greatest number, is
the highest good and criterion of morality.
• But Mill is different from Bentham in calculating
pain and pleasure.
• According to Mill, pleasures differ in quality.
• Pleasures that go with the exercise of intellectual
capacities are higher and better than sensuous or
aesthetic pleasure.

• Hence, persons who experienced both prefer
the higher pleasures.
• He holds, “No intelligent person would
consent to be a fool; no instructed person
would be an ignoramus.”
• Mill says, “It is better to be a human being,
dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to
Socrates dissatisfied than the fool satisfied.”

• Bentham and Mill agree on the principle of
the greatest happiness for the greatest
number.
• However, Bentham justifies it on the ground of
self-interest, whereas Mill bases it on the
social feelings of mankind, that is, the desire
for unity with our fellow creatures.

• Mill holds that Utilitarianism requires a man to
be strictly impartial between his own
happiness and that of others as if he were a
disinterested and benevolent spectator.
• For Mill, social wellbeing is inevitably bound
up with individual wellbeing.

• Mill said, some kinds of utilities, i.e., certain
social utilities are more important and
imperative.
• Liberty is one of these kinds, according to Mill.
• Mill supports individual liberty and he defines
liberty as the supreme possession of man in
which government interference should be
kept at minimum.

• The state should not interfere with those acts
which affect an individual alone but the state
may act for the interest of the general welfare.
• Mill, however, puts two limitations to
individual liberty, viz.
• An individual is not free to do harm to others,

• An individual must share labour and sacrifices
to keep society and individual against harm.
• Mill holds that the best form of government is
representative government, particularly
proportional representation including
women’s suffrage.
• John Stuart Mill’s Liberalism

• The only justification for state interference that
mill puts is when self-protection demands or
when individuals’ action jeopardizes other’s
liberty.
• With regard to the relationship between state
power and liberty, Mill argues, an increase in
the power of a state is prejudicial to liberty.
• If a state interferes with individual liberty,
liberty is infringed.

• The nature of liberty that Mill call liberty is:
“pursuing our own good in our own way, so
long as we do not attempt to deprive others of
theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.”
• Mill objects to state interference on three
grounds:
• When the thing to be done is likely to be better
done by an individual than the
state/government,

• Need for the development/enrichment of
individual’s liberty:
• Even if individuals may not do particular thing
as a government does, the thing must be done
by individuals as it would strengthen their
active faculties, and enable them acquire
knowledge necessary for them.
• If unhindered by a state, an individual can
reach perfection of his personality.

• Need for variety of services: The service of an
individual for a society would have greater
variety if he is left alone.
• Leaving things to government means adding to
its job unnecessarily which is the greatest evil.
• Mill’s Sphere of State Action:
• According to Mill, state has authoritative (private
sphere) and non-authoritative (public affair)
state actions.

• Authoritative activity, also called self-regarding
is the sphere where the state should not
interfere.
• On the other hand, non-authoritative activity,
also called others regarding is the activity which
links an individual with his fellow individual and
needs intervention of the state.
• It is an action of individuals which affects the
society.

• Mill’s Classification of Liberty: Mill identifies
certain important categories of individual
liberty.
• These are: freedom of conscience, liberty of
thought and expression of opinion, liberty of
pursuit and tastes, liberty of association,
liberty to pursue one’s own vocation in life,
and liberty of religion and moral.

• According to Mill, without these categories of
liberties, man cannot develop his personality
properly.
• Mill argues that there are some categories of
people who are immune from liberty (who
cannot enjoy liberty).
• These are: children, mentally disabled or
retarded people and backward [sic.] people or
race.

Mill’s View on Representative Government
• Mill argues that representative democracy
(representative government) is the best form
of government because he believe, “any work
is done best by those whose interests are
immediately involved and that active political
life develops the moral and intellectual
faculties of those taking part.”

• Democracy, he argued, is a rule of the majority and
the system where the tyranny of the majority over the
minority is also not ruled out.
• He believes that democracy makes men happier and
better.
• However, Mill is skeptical about the success of
democracy.
• He is afraid of the average man’s capacity to
comprehend the public issue which is essential for the
success of democracy

19TH
Century Idealism: Political Philosophy of Hegel (1770-1831)
• George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel a German
political Philosopher.
• Hegel believes, history is the manifestation of
reason.
• He also believes that the function of law is for
the realization of right.
• Hegel argues that ‘reason or ‘spirit’ is the
supreme governing principle of the universe.

Dialectical Theory of Hegel
• The starting point for Hegel’s political
philosophy is his assumption of the universe
as ‘coherent whole’.
• This means, the entire world is one and
indivisible organism which includes the living
non-living coexisting in harmony with one
another.

• This whole entire world with all its parts is under
the control what Hegel called ‘Spirit’ or ‘Reason’
or Divine Mind.
• He said, reason is the sovereign of the world.
• It is this Reason that is responsible for the
development of human civilization for historical
process.
• Reason acts as the ‘Force’ behind the historical
process.

• Dialectics, according to Hegel, refers to the
process of debate.
• In the process of debate, one argument was
made; another opposite argument is made to
answer the first argument.
• From these two opposite arguments, the truth
emerges which is the combination of the two
arguments.

• Here, the first argument is called Thesis, the
second opposite argument is known as Anti-
thesis and the argument that emerges from
the combination of the two opposite
arguments is known as Synthesis (the truth).
• This is the process (movement) of reason and
it is the progress of Reason.
• This movement of reason is natural.

• The first argument or proposition or idea
expressed (i.e., the thesis) contains only half-
truth (partially true).
• The counter-idea (opposite) argument (i.e., the
anti-thesis) exposes the partial nature of the
Thesis.
• Hence, tension emerges between the Thesis
and the Anti-thesis as the result of conflict
between the two.

• The tension between the Thesis and the Anti-thesis is
resolved by itself through the harmony between the
two and gives rise to a new and better idea, i.e., the
Synthesis.
• Again, the process continues and the Synthesis
becomes new Thesis.
• It develops its own Anti-thesis.
• From the conflict between the new Thesis (first
synthesis) and the new Anti-thesis, another new
Synthesis, which is still a better idea, emerges.

• This process continues from higher position to
the higher and moves towards its fulfillment.
• This process will end when Reason or Spirit
resolves all contradictions “through the
process of contradictions and reconciliations”.
• This process of reason is known as Idea
Dialectics or dialectical idealism.

• Hegel uses this dialectics to explain the origin of
state (institution).
• First, Reason or Spirit existed in man (individual
as a reason) and reflected through the
establishment of the institution of family though
imperfect.
• Family is the Thesis.
• The imperfection of family created a civil society
(The Anti-thesis ) .

• A tension is created between the thesis of a
family and the Anti-thesis of the civil society.
• As the result of conflict between family and
civil society emerged and resolved through
the appearance of the State which Hegel
defines as ‘Universal order.’
• Hence, the State is the Synthesis.

• In other words, family and civil society are the
imperfect expression of Reason.
• State, however, is the perfectly rational or the
final and perfect expression of Reason or
Spirit.
Hegel’s Idealistic State
• Hegel declares that “the state is the march of
God on Earth”.

• He believes, the state is omnipotent, infallible
and divine in essence.
• He further holds, all authority of the state
comes from God and thus obedience to the
state is a sacred duty.
• Hegel glorified the state and made individuals
sub-servient to the state.

• Hegel’s major views on the state:
• State as natural organism: Hegel viewed state as
natural organism similar to a real person.
• All organic processes are dialectical.
• The will of the state is manifested as perfect rationality
or Synthesis of universal and individual freedom.
• The state was not collection of individuals endowed
with natural rights.
• The individual has no reality apart from the state.

• The individual, his physical, moral and intellectual is drawn
from the state.
• He defines the state as “Actual God”.
• State is a real personality, a self-knowing and self-
actualizing individual.
• The State as the realized ethical idea: Hegel believes the
state as the highest embodiment of reason.
• It is the state that enables man to enjoy his freedom.
• This freedom is gift of the state and exists only in the state.
• The State is an end in itself, not means to an end.

• The state as the embodiment of reason: the state is
the embodiment of reason and reflects the general will.
• The true freedom of the individual lies in obeying the
law of the state.
• The State as Synthesis of the family and civil society.
• State is as omnipotent, infallible absolute.
– Criticisms to Hegel’s Political Philosophy on the state:
• State is not an end in itself: Hegel exempted the State
from moral criticism by saying state in itself is the
perfect reason.

• The state exists for the welfare of the individual and
society.
• The reason for the existence of the state in reality is for
welfare of individuals.
• Thus, the state is not an end in itself but a means to an
end, un end being freedom and welfare of individuals.
• Totalitarian state: Hegelian theory of the state leads to
totalitarian state.
• He advocated absolutism and aggressive nationalism
which are anti-modern democracy.

• His philosophy led to Adolf Hitler’s aggressive
nationalism by glorifying the state of Germany.
• The state is not infallible: state is fallible as it is
run by individuals and when these individuals
turned to oppressive.
• Undue Deification of state: Hegel describes
the state as “March of God on earth”.
• This is equating the state with God.

19TH
Century Scientific Socialism
• Political Philosophy of Karl Marx (1818-1883)
• Karl Marx was born in Prussia, Germany in 1818
and died in London in 1883.
• At the University of Berlin, first he began to study
law but latter he lost interest in law and changed
to Philosophy.
• At University of Berlin, he read Hegel’s
philosophy exhaustively from where his own
philosophy evolved

• Following his expulsion from Prussia for his critical
essays on Prussian authority, he moved to Paris,
France, where he continued writing series of essays.
• As he was expelled from Paris for similar case, he
settled in Brussels, Belgium where he wrote the
Communist Manifesto (his most popular work) of
1948 after he met the Communist League exiled
Germans who were attempting to organize
clandestine working class movement.

• In 1967, he published the first volume of Das Capital
which is regarded as the ‘Gospel’ of scientific socialism.
• Marx’s Manifesto ends with these famous words: ‘‘Let
the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution.
• The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains.
They have a world to win.
• Working men of all countries unite!’’As an explicit call
for working-class revolution, the Manifesto also
represents Marx’s insistence on the unity of theory and
what he calls praxis or practice.

• Unlike traditional Western political philosophers
who celebrate the life of the mind (to love
knowledge for the sake of knowledge), Marx’s goal
is to stimulate action by communicating his ideas
to the widest audience possible of intellectuals
and workers alike.
• In line with this, he wrote in his1845 that ‘‘The
philosophers have only interpreted the world, in
various ways; the point, however, is to change it.’’

• Marx was not only a man of words but also of action.
• He took part in the Revolution of 1848 in France and
Prussia.
• Marx called his ideology as ‘scientific socialism’ to
distinguish it from earlier socialist thought, Utopian
socialism.
• Utopian socialism is considered to be early
humanitarian socialism/unpractical idealism (that
failed human experiment).

• Marx argued, the progress of history finally leads to
proletarian revolution and the establishment of
classless society.
• The dialectical forces of history are working towards
this end.
• In the classless, society, the state would have no role
since there were no need to maintain the need of the
bourgeois class.
• His ideology latter came to be known as communism.

Major Political Philosophies of Marx
• Dialectical Materialism
• Dialectics is the method of arriving at the truth by
discussion after presenting contradictory propositions.
• At the heart of Marx’s political philosophy lies his
theory of historical materialism.
• From Hegel, Marx learned that history follows a
meaningful pattern of progress and is not simply a
process of only tangentially (loosely) related events.

• In Hegelian dialectics, the conflict was of idea.
• Marx accepts Hegelian concept of the
dialectics, thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis.
• But Marx argues that it is economic factors
that are responsible for the progress of
history through dialectics, and hence, his
principle is known as ‘dialectical materialism’
as opposed to dialectical idealism of Hegel.

• According to Marx, the driving force for social
change is the struggle between opposites
(between economic classes).
• Implications of Marx’s Dialectical materialism:
• Materialism is not imaginary like idea, but
realistic and scientific,
• Materialism implied a radical rejection of any
sort of religion and equated materialism with
scientific as well as secular.

• Marx condemned religion as opium of the poor.
• The whole history of mankind is a history of class
struggle.
• Accordingly he divided history of man into five stages:
• Primitive communism: characterized by unorganized
society, no division of labor, at its early stage, no private
property.
• People used to share their products.
• But latter, private property (the nemesis of humankind)
and division of labor emerged (anti-thesis to the system).

• As difference created, the dominant tribe
forced the dominated tribe and reduced to
servitude.
• Slavery: At this stage, slavery emerged as the
basis of economic system (empire is the
dominant political system, the thesis, and
challenges from barbarian hordes, is the anti-
thesis).
• Conflict exists between slaves and the master.

• Feudalism: When barbarians prevailed over empire,
feudalism emerged.
• Feudalism is when landed aristocracy provided police
and military protection for peasants who soon become
serfs (land slaves).
• The serfs farmed the land of the feudal lord/nobles.
• New class, the bourgeoisie emerges because of trade.
• Here, the bourgeois class is anti-thesis to feudalism.

• Finally, the bourgeoisie won the feudal
government through revolutions and establish
bourgeois democracy.
• Eg. American Revolution of 1776, French
Revolution of 1789, and English Revolution of
1640s.
• Capitalism: the bourgeoisie controls means of
production.

• The proletarian as the anti-thesis to the
bourgeois class would emerge and finally
topple down the capitalist government by
proletarian revolutions.
• Communism: Finally, the classless society.
Here, no contraction, no class conflict

• The Theory of Work
• Marx believes, work is a process through which individuals
develop their full humanity.
• Through work, individuals develop and change their
character.
• Hence, the essence of human beings is closely related to
their work.
• For Marx, work is “self-creation,” that means, work creates
man. In other words, the product of our work is part us.
• Theory of Self-alienation

• Marx believed that workers become self-
alienated in three ways because of the
exploitative features of capitalism.
• First, since work is self-creation, it should have
been enjoyable.
• However, because the capitalist need to
increase their profit, they make the conditions
of work intolerable.

• Consequently, the proletarians (the workers)
begin to hate the work which is self-creation.
• Hence, the workers are alienated from part of
their own selves.
• In other words, hating the work is equivalent
with hating themselves.
• Secondly, the capitalist expands his production
by the profits he collects from workers’ labor

• And workers see the profit collected as alien to
them because it furthers their exploitation. This
condition is described under Marx’s theory of
surplus value.
• Surplus value theory of Marx explains that
workers produce more than the amount they
are paid by the capitalist.
• The unpaid amount of the produce is called as
surplus value.

• Thirdly, mechanization of work reduced
workers only to feeders of machine other than
developing the full personality by work.
• This is another form of self-alienation.
• Theory of Class Struggle
• For Marx, capitalism creates its own
contradiction.

• Marx, in Communist Manifesto observes that
“the history of all hitherto existing society is
the history of class struggle”
• However, under the capitalist system, the
proletarian (the exploited) have become
conscious of their exploitation which was not
the case in the past eras.
• He also calls for unity of proletariat saying,
‘Working men of all countries.

• ’Hence, he believed that under the capitalist system, the
struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat class
would be more intense than any previous stage.
• As the capitalists need more and more profit, they
continue their search for advanced technology.
• This in turn simplifies means of communication and
transportation.
• The poor also becomes poorer and poorer. Consequently,
this increases class-consciousness and enables proletariat
class to organize at regional, national and international
level.

• The proletariat would finally overthrow the
capitalist government.
• They, then seize political power, take control of all
means of production, distribution and exchange.
• After the overthrow of the bourgeoisie by bloody
revolution, socialist society would be established
for the welfare of all.
• Hence, Marx believed, destruction of capitalism is
inevitable and it is self-destructive.

• Capitalism is self-destructive because, First,
monopoly of means of production and concentration
of wealth in the hands of few increases which in turn
increases the number of workers and their
communication.
• Second, this condition increases class-consciousness.
• Overthrow of the capitalist would be followed by
establishment of proletariat’s dictatorship.
• The socialist society is classless society completely
free from evils of class society.

• All means of production, distribution and exchange
would be owned in common.
• Naked, brutal and shameless exploitation would end.
• The ruthless tyranny of the owner of wealth would
cease to exist.
• All members of the socialist society would be happy,
free and prosperous.
• Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Withering away
of the State

• Marxist revolution overthrows the capitalist
government and destroys the bourgeois state.
• For Marx, state is an instrument of exploitation.
State is there to protect the interest of the
propertied class.
• Hence, the proletariat must capture the state to
defeat capitalism.
• The attack on the state is expressed through
rejection of the legal order maintained by a state

• Since the fall of the bourgeoisie is certain, it must
be effected by capture of power.
• The instrument for capturing of power is by
establishing proletariat dictatorship.
• According to Marx, there is transitional period
between revolution and communism following
the overthrow of bourgeois government.
• At this transitional the state is nothing but
dictatorship of proletariat.

• In other words, dictatorship of proletariat is
the government of the proletariat that runs
affairs of the state between the period of
revolution and communism.
• This period is the period at which the minds of
men shall be purged off (get rid of) capitalist
mentality which were long infested.
• It is the period during which all possibilities of
counter-revolution are eliminated.

• According to Marx, dictatorship of proletarian
is more democratic than bourgeois democracy
because the former implies that it is the vast
majority that control the state.
• It would be class government but it did not
oppress since it was truly popular and belongs
to the oppressed class.

• However, the dictatorship of the proletariat
will use greater force for the benefit of the
majority because it must complete the
revolution.
• This dictatorship of proletariat should
confiscate private property, organize labor
union, compel all to work, centralize credit and
finance, establish state factories, concentrate
means of transport, etc.

• When revolution is complete, as there would
be no class society (only one class), state
would not be necessary.
• State should wither away.
• This is because of the fact that state is the
institution of class society (protects the
interest of the rich).

• State was used by the bourgeoisie for the
exploitation of the proletariat.
• Hence, withering away of the state is the
highest stage where there is no contraction
(end of dialectical materialism).
• State is not abolished but withers away
gradually.

• This means, the government of person is
replaced by an administration of things.
• The withering away of state is the cessation of
its use of coercive force since there is no class
to be suppressed for the interest of another.
• This marks the last stage of socialism,
communism.

CHAPTER 4.pptxcvcxvbvcbvvbvbccxcxcxcxcxc

More Related Content

Similar to CHAPTER 4.pptxcvcxvbvcbvvbvbccxcxcxcxcxc

Recently uploaded

CHAPTER 4.pptxcvcxvbvcbvvbvbccxcxcxcxcxc