Thomas Hobbes And Karl Marx's Suspension Of A Totalitarian Government

The revolution generated radical changes in the principles, opinions, and sentiments of the global people. New ideas and issues affected political ideas. In addition a new government was also changed. A few of the many enlightenment thinkers were Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, baron Do Montesquieu, and Jean Jacques Rousseau.

During World War I, Hitler had joined the army and his experience especially his injury was believed to be one of the main reasons for him being so eager to improve his country quickly. His emotions such as pain and hatred towards the army stimulated his hidden ambition. In Germany, Hitler used the power of enabling law to get rid of most things he didn?t want, for example he used his secret polices to arrest the opposition. On the other hand, under the influence of Marxism Stalin emphasized the idea of communism, where all citizens worked for the country is different from the concept of democracy where individuals have priority. In communism, a dictator leader is often needed in order to put the policies into practice, because other political parties cause the communism regime to fall apart, especially in undeveloped countries. The public needed to believe that communism was absolute and the only way to good life in order to make the system work smoothly. The similarities here were that they rejected all opposition political parties, but they used different concepts-Mussolini and Hitler did not introduce the communism idea.

Hobbes and Locke both abandoned the thought of the divine right of monarchy. Both did not agree with the fact that the ruler or assembly would have all power over its citizens. So basically they were against Absolutism and their views were that of rebels in their time period. Theses two philosophers both held similar ideas but also have conflicting ideas pertaining to the citizens "social contract" with their rulers, "Natural Condition of Mankind," and sovereignty.

Stalin and Hitler emerged at the time when political and economic instability had crippled the USSR and Germany. They began making improvements which encouraged their people to believe that prosperous times await them. This notion would unfortunately turn out as an illusion. Both figures would eventually rule by decree. Despite treading on different paths of dictatorship, both figures still find some commonalities.

Thomas Hobbes was a proponent of the monarchal system and in this paper I will prove that Hobbes was right in supporting the monarchal system of government, I will also show the opposing school of thought, and finally, I will give you my opinion on the monarchal system. Thomas Hobbes lived from 1588-1679 and throughout most of his life there was violence going on all around him. The biggest case was the English Civil War. This war lasted about seven years and it overthrew the monarchy, which England had established many years before. After this revolution, shaky governments ruled the land for several years. But then, the English went back to the monarchal system. These times shaped Hobbes’ views

The source giving suggests that During times of crisis the government must make decisive action to protect its people. This is an imposition of liberalism that most minorities or sovereign nations can’t avoid. Decisive actions are ones that require offensive and defensive action, which are crucial yet they often happen with little to no research, or hesitation. The source also suggests that the people should be free from unnecessary government control during times of stability. Nevertheless, this might be the case in most sovereign states, many, even in times of peace, face constant government intervention in aspects of private life. The source gives an important insight into an issue that, throughout history, has been constant and will

Thomas Hobbes describes his views on human nature and his ideal government in Leviathan. He believes human nature is antagonistic, and condemns man to a life of violence and misery without strong government. In contrast to animals, who are able to live together in a society without a coercive power, Hobbes believes that men are unable to coexist peacefully without a greater authority because they are confrontational by nature. “In the nature of man”, Hobbes says “there are three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition; secondly, diffidence, thirdly, glory” and then he goes on to list man’s primary aims for each being gain, safety and reputation (Hobbes, Leviathan, 13, 6).

Dictatorship throughout the ages has mainly led to oppression and conflict between people and government. Some of the notoriously bad dictators took office around the 1920’s and 1930’s. There were three main dictators in that time period and they all ran different countries in very different ways. Josef Stalin was known as the dictator of the Soviet Union, he was all about communism and did not care if there was opposition to his ideas. On the other hand, Benito Mussolini was in charge of Italy and all about fascism. Possibly the worst known dictator of all times was Hitler, in charge of, Germany, he was all about Nazism. Each had a different outlook on ruling, but they all did things similarly to lead to nations hatred against them. Basically, their ultimate goal was to do what was best for their countries, however, there want for power tended to get in the way. They all wanted to accomplish many things, they used many different ideas and ways to run their nations. They were all blamed for their nations demise in one way or another. This essay will discuss the similarities and differences between Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are comparable in their basic political ideologies about man and their rights in the state of nature before they enter a civil society. Their political ideas are very much similar in that regard. The resemblance between Hobbes and Locke’s philosophies are based on a few characteristics of the state of nature and the state of man. Firstly, in the state of nature both Hobbes and Locke agree that all men are created equal, but their definitions of equality in the state of nature slightly differ. According to Locke, “…in the state of nature… no one has power over another…” Locke’s version or idea of equality in the state of

Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau have very different views on the social contract largely based on their fundamental views of the state of nature in humanity. These basic views of natural human nature cause Hobbes and Rousseau to have views on opposite sides of the spectrum, based on two controversial speculations, that human is inherently good or that human is inherently inclined towards egotism and perpetual insecurity. Due to his belief that they are of this nature, Hobbes viewed an all-powerful sovereign of a rather totalarianistic nature to be necessary. Rousseau on the other hand, viewed that the sovereign should represent the common will of the people, the sovereign being agreed upon by all constituents. It is my assertion

In defining political legitimacy, many theorists put forth a distinct set of values that frame their view on the authorities’ right to rule and citizen’s obligation to follow. Theorists such as Hobbes and Locke, both of their account on political legitimacy might look quite similar at first glance, because each theorized about the nature of mankind and the right political systems that would meet the needs of individuals. However, in Hobbes’ perspective, political authority does not pre-exist in individual’s state of nature, rather, it is created by the social contract and serves to ensure self-preservation which is threatened in a state of nature. In contrast, Locke thought that the social contract does not create authority, but that political authority is embodied in individuals and pre-exists in the state of nature, all individuals thus have the moral obligation to respect those rights made by authorities. In my point of view, Locke’s idea sounds more compelling than that of Hobbes’, because it allows individuals to have their own liberties free from an oppressive sovereign and prevents danger posed by absolute freedom.

For all of history there has existed the struggle between the strong and the weak. The establishment of government gives the power to a particular group to decide the amount of freedom the majority is allowed, however, though not ideal it provides necessary order. The benefits of security that limitations on freedom provides must be balanced with the individual's pursuit of happiness for citizens to be content. To prevent the governed majority from destabilizing the rulers and seeking power, the government will oppress political and personal freedom of thought. In result, the majority will live under the illusion of contentment and not wish to revolt; those enlightened to the idea that the government should be ruled by the governed, would associate happiness only with ignorance and consequently seek freedom.

John Locke (1689) and Thomas Hobbes (2010) share a common underlying concern: establishing a social contract between the government and the governed. To be legitimate, government must rest in the final analysis on the “consent” of the governed, they maintain. They also share a common view of humanity as prone to selfishness (Morgan, 2011 p. 575-800). Given the modern era, Hobbes views of the state of nature and government seem antiquated; no longer do the masses wish to be subservient to anyone man without question. Lockean principals are now the base for today’s modern, just, prosperous and free states.

Thomas Hobbes' View on Government         Thomas Hobbes in his controversial work, the Leviathan, declares that such       a government based on the rule of the common people, would result in       anarchy and total pandemonium.         But before one can understand Hobbes' view on government, it is important       to understand how Hobbes feels about people. Hobbes has a very       materialistic view on the world because of his belief that the movements       of physical objects will turn out to be adequate to explain everything in       the universe (Kemerling).

In both theories of human nature by Karl Marx and Thomas Hobbes respectfully, each provide their own perspective on the fundamental point of human nature. Marx makes the argument that that humans are inherently cooperative and the capitalist system creates a state of nature where humans are competitive. In opposition to Marx’ argument, Hobbes may say that humans are inherently competitive and the social contract is what makes humans cooperate within the capitalist system. In response, Marx might say that the social contract is redundant because the social contract has no effect on the competition that resembles the state of nature within the capitalist system.