The Leviathan in the room
by Jamie Bartlett
21/07/09 Jamie Bartlett thinks that Jon Cruddas and others have misunderstood Hobbes...
Go to any debate about the future of the left and you'll hear at least one person argue that the right believes in Hobbsian atomised individuals, and that the left doesn't. John Cruddas was textbook last night at the Open Left launch, where he said that what's gone wrong with the left is that it's encouraged the emergence of these Hobbesian beasts, who float around with no sense of commonality, cooperation, incapable and unwilling to act together.
The use of Hobbes in current political discourse is lazy. The term Hobbesian gets confused between two distinct meanings (either people are selfish & must be controlled OR selfishness isn't a problem - greed is good). Hobbes said the former, which puts speakers like Cruddas in a bit of a tight spot.
Hobbes said (I am simpliying of course) that, without government, humans would live in a state of nature - where they would have a right, or license, to everything in the world. No-one could define what is a good or just jugement, and life becomes a war of all against all. Hobbes didn't just think that humans were all selfish - but that some are selfish cowardly and vainglorious. And when that is the case, "the wickedness of bad men also compels good men to have recourse, for their own protection". To avoid that nightmare, or course, he proposes some kind of social contract between individuals and an unelected unaccountable monarch.
At the core of Hobbes' belief - which is what differentiates him from Rousseau - is the fear that individuals, given freedom, will have trouble acting collectively. And this is what Cruddas thinks too - his view is that all these free individuals automatically become atoms with no regard for each other. And so it is Cruddas himself that is Hobbsian. Presumably Cruddas' answer is for the state to make sure people act more collectively? Some kind of Leviathan figure perhaps?
Mike
I think Cruddas wants to create more opportunities for people to act collectively, but not force them to.
The state should be more participative and co-operative where possible, to redistribute power and to build a culture of commonality and mutual respect.
Jamie
Maybe I was a little unfair on Cruddas. I just objected to his lazy use of Hobbesian atoms - especially when he suggested that Labour since 2001 has intentionally tried to create all these little monsters, by, for example, using the 2nd person pronoun in the 2005 election manifesto. But there is a point here I think. If there was any divide within the panel it was about the relative importance of "collective" v "individual". That will be a pivotal divide.
As I see it, Demos' Liberal Republic is on the side of the individual. That if you can help to create a powerful, independent people they will act together, collectively. Cruddas' concern is a common one: that promoting people to be independent can lead to individualism and atomisation; weakening social and communal ties. I don't agree.
If being independent means having power and control over decisions that affect one’s life; being free from the coercion of others, and not being at the mercy of arbitrary decisions made by others, then I think it is probably related to a range of positive social and collective goals; including wellbeing, civic engagement, and social mobility. Independent, self-reliant people are better able to live inter-dependently and thrive in today’s world. Any collectivism that isn't build on the decisions of free & powerful people isn't worthy of the name.
Mike
The 'Liberal Republic' is an intriguing, well written and stimulating essay. There are certainly some policy suggestions to think about, and implement as well. I agree strongly with taxing unearned wealth more.
However, I disagree with many aspects of it. When empowering citizens, what kind of power best empowers them? Individual purchasing power, voting power, power to choose a provide in a public service, systems of redress
You see, individual purchasing power creates risks for the individual, because it is finite. It has the potential to bankrupt and thus disempower an individual, putting them at the mercy of capitalism again. It also removes democratic accountability and makes the lives of citizens shaped even more by capitalism, and possibly cartels and monopolies.
I support the policies of child trust fund, inheritance tax and polices that try to build on this concept and build a middle class financial upbringing for everyone.
But I don't support the idea of education budgets.
Mike
"Any collectivism that isn't build on the decisions of free & powerful people isn't worthy of the name."
Yes, and any individualism that isn't built on the decisions of free and powerful people isn't worthy of the name.
In a capitalist economy, it requires a mixture of collective and individual means to build a society of free and powerful individuals.
Since we cannot build a libertarian socialist society, without private property and the state, we have to build a society to that effect within capitalism.
Will Davies
I would have thought that it's virtually impossible to avoid being a Hobbesian in some way or other, if that means committing to some form of legal artifice.
But if those on the neo-liberal right are Hobbesians, it's not because they view society as an atomised war of all against all. It's that they generally view the market as the best civic artifice available to us, to save us from a war of all against all. I guess real market purists could avoid this by offering their own natural law defence of property and exchange (Locke, Nozick) but this is pretty difficult to hang on to in an age of very complex capitalism, when the state is constantly being called on to design and redesign economic rules.
So yes, it would seem very difficult to avoid being a Hobbesian - especially on the left - without ending up making wild claims about human goodness, ineffibility of community, God and who knows what else.