Hobbes a Marxist?

[Tobit]

I think Hobbes in many respects is almost entirely Marxist but only coming to a slightly different conclusions.

Hobbes saw Parlimentarian or Republican rule a constant minor war where nothing gets done.

Marx saw Capitalism and every prior system a constant struggle between classes.

Hobbes was entirely Materialist and excepted no other explanation for phenonema unless it was based on natural phenomena. He was wrong about alot of science due to him liveing before the scientific revolution.

Marx was entirely Materialist and excepted no other explanation for phenonema unless it was based on natural phenomena. He saw economics as an extension of natural phenomena and he thought of his ideas as scientific. He was wrong about alot of economics because he lacked the data and theories that modern economists have at their disposal.

Both proposed solutions that were absolute. No room for any wiggle room, absolute rule of King or absolute dissolution of the state and an international working class.

Both had their ideas outlawed by the powers that be, and to this day many interpertations exist. I am just a beginner when it comes to interpetation so please support or destroy this theory.

[BobKKKindle$]

Have you even read Leviathan? Hobbes presents a conception of science which is fundamentally opposed to the materialist outlook, as he argued that we cannot develop valid scientific theories through empirical observation because we all experience the world in different ways and so it is impossible to establish an objective understanding of what the world is really like, such that, according to Hobbes, science should be based on a set of first principles which can be used to derive all other truth by means of logical deduction. This is not an approach that Marxists should support, as materialists. As for the issue of democracy, Hobbes believed that monarchy (whereby sovereignty is concentrated in the hands of one individual) is the most effective form of government (for various reasons, such as the fact that a monarch would be able to draw on the expertise of advisers in confidence and so make informed decisions without the instability associated with democratic systems) and also argued that the sovereign can never be rejected by the people, except when the sovereign orders the people to kill themselves, which would signify a violation of natural law. This stems from the fact that Hobbes was writing in the context of the English Civil War and so was aware of the dangers of overthrowing the established government. Finally, Hobbes contended that, in the absence of a state (which derives from a social contract made between individuals, whereby they agree to give up some of their rights in exchange for collective benefits) there would be a "state of nature" (which, according to Hobbes, could still be observed in South America when he was writing) which would lead to a "war of all against all" due to the lack of laws to regulate conflict between individuals and the conditions of material scarcity which pressure people to fight among themselves so as to gain access to resoruces, and life would be "nasty, brutish, and short" as a result. This is deeply opposed to the Marxist understanding of tribal society (Which Marx described as "primitive communism" due to the egalitarian distribution of resources and the absence of oppressive social dynamics. Subsequent anthropological research has shown that these societies were/are often somewhat free of conflict as mechanisms for the resolution of disputes do exist.) and also the future prospect of communism, as a stateless society.

Therefore, for these three reasons - approach to science, views on democracy and government in general, and the consequences of not having a state - Hobbes is very different from Marxist thought. If you want to read a political philosopher who I think is closer to the Marxist tradition, consider Rousseau's Social Contract. Rousseau argued that direct democracy is the only legitimate way to pass laws, and also emphasized the importance of economic independence by arguing that each individual should at least own a small area of land to generate income, because he believed that inequality in the distribution of resources could corrupt the democratic process.

[Decolonize The Left]

I would quote Bobkindles' post above, but it's long. So I'll just say I agree.

- August

[Organic Revolution]

What!! Hobbes spoke of humans as being in a constant state of brutishness, therefore humans needed a strong central government to keep them in line.

AKA Bullshit.

[trivas7]

If you want to read a political philosopher who I think is closer to the Marxist tradition, consider Rousseau's Social Contract. Rousseau argued that direct democracy is the only legitimate way to pass laws, and also emphasized the importance of economic independence by arguing that each individual should at least own a small area of land to generate income, because he believed that inequality in the distribution of resources could corrupt the democratic process.
Some people see an authoritarian strain in Marx. Do you think he got it from Rousseau who IMO is confused re this?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

What 'authoritarian' strain?

Sure Hobbes was a materilist, but he was also one of the founding ideolgues of the bourgeois view of human beings, that we are all (or rather, those with 'property', the only ones who count anyway for Hobbes) possessive individuals.

The classic Marxist text on this is C B MacPherson's The Political Theory Of Possessive Individualism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._B._Macpherson

In this respect, he was an important precursor to Locke and the Scottish Historical Materialists (Freguson, Millar ,Stewart, Smith and Hume), who did influence Marx (via Kant).

[black magick hustla]

He was a materialist, but there wasn't marxism at that time.

Not that he was a terrible thinker. he lived in the 17th century, and for his times, at least his attempt to be consistent at his materialism, was progressive.

[Guerrilla22]

I don't think unwavering support for the "sovereign" and the fuedal system is too compatible with Marxism, which came about much later of course. Some of his observations about religion were right on, however he suggest that rulers should continue to exploit people's religious tendenancies in order to further tighten one's rule, which obviously is terrible.

[Tobit]

@bobkindles

I do not think that an idea about the cubjective nature of things is incompatible with Marxism and Materialism in general. Hobbes was putting forword the ideas that there are no essences are pure truths in objects there are only seemings. I totally agree with this and I think that it is part of Marxism in a great way. Think of the fetishization of certain goods tha capitalism creates. That and the alienation of the worker from the produce of his labor means that there is a different seeming to the object itself. Onthe question of empiricism in general Hobbes stands on the side of the empiricist in most things. Especially when he takes a stand against witch hunts and the ideas of the supernatural ingeneral. What his problem might be was the fact that he was so early compared to other modern thinkers. He was living in a time before the word science was even used. He was coming from a time of Natural Philosophers, and even though the Natural Philosophers were mainly wrong about waves and light and that kind of thing at least they were in the right direction

That being said Hobbes is very wrong about the best way to govern and the morality of behind governing. Hobbes believes that Covenants are some kind of holy binding that links people together, this is quite far fetched as he seems to ignore the persuit of profit ingeneral. But to a Marxist I think hobbes is quite useful in understanding the time period Hobbes was writing from and also in critiking our enemies. Since his primitave views are basically held by ever modern CEO and Government Buerocrat.