modul_5.indd

1. Introduction

Political philosophy is a wide ﬁeld covering considerations typical of ethics, econom-
ics, sociology, anthropology, political science and the history of ideas. It predomi-
nantly results from the analysis of the existing political state of affairs and attempts
to critically describe the foundations of a good life and good society.

The fundamental questions of political philosophy concern different forms of gov-
ernment and the limitations of governmental control over society. We will aim to
answer such questions as: What is freedom? What is the state? Is the state more
important than the citizen? What is democracy? Is it possible to strictly control all
the economic actions of people without depriving them of political freedom? Can
the breaking of law be justiﬁed? What is equality? Should democratically elected
representatives vote according to their own moral principles or should they always
express the opinions of their electorate?

The subsequent section is devoted to the best known political theories, beginning
with the Ancient Sophists, the theories of Plato and Aristotle to Thomas Hobbes,
John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Karl Marks and John
Rawls.

2. Sophistry

The terms

Sophistry

and

Sophist

have a decidedly negative connotation in everyday

language. Nowadays a sophist is understood to mean a person who uses underhand
techniques whilst reasoning and who is able to make falsehoods seem true. Such a
pejorative meaning is largely thanks to Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Sophistry was
then seen to be a superﬁcial wisdom and its opponents claimed it was undertaken
only for material gain and not for the disinterested love of truth. Public opinion saw
the Sophists as a danger to religion and moral tradition.

We can only come to an objective understanding of sophistry and sophistic thought
if we consider the social, cultural and, above all, political climate in which it came
into being. This phenomenon emerged in the 5

century BC in Athens in a period

when Greece consisted of many city-states each with their own government.

It was a time of crisis for the aristocracy which saw a growth in the power of the peo-
ple (Greek

demos

) and the expansion of trade crossing city boundaries and going out

into the world bringing back with it an inﬂux of new ideas about far-off countries,
different cultures, traditions and laws. This led to a form of relativism where what
was previously thought to be eternally important was not necessarily so important
to other societies.

In this context, Sophistry can be seen as an answer to a particular need. Counter to
the claims of those of noble birth who maintained that virtue is an exclusive birth
right, the Sophists suggested that virtue is not dependent on one’s (blue) blood but
on knowledge. What is more, they felt it possible to teach this knowledge. This idea
soon became a well-paid occupation and they became the teachers of a new elite that
was eager to take control and rule the state.

One of the ﬁrst sophists was the well-known

Protagoras

of Abdera (480 - 410 BC)

whose famous principle was “Man is the measure of all things”. He believed, no ab-
solute criterion exists that can deﬁne all values or distinguish what is true from what
is false. There is only one criterion, relative in nature and this is the individual,

homo

mensura

. Man is the measure of truth and falsehood, however, he is not the measure

of what is useful or harmful, this is determined by the state. In this sense, by prepar-
ing young people for public life, the sophists performed a duty beneﬁcial to society.

The relativity and relativism of Protagoras and new, young generation of Sophists
led to the establishment of the art of

Eristic

from the Greek eristikos, ‘fond of wran-

gling’. It is the art of argumentative discussion, juggling with words, and verbal spar-
ring. If there is no absolute truth and every statement can be contradicted (negated;
nulliﬁed?) with a contradiction then the better argument will be the most effective
one. Therefore, the Ancient Eristics specialised in the preparation of techniques
thanks to which any posited thesis could be rejected. Their carefully formulated
wordplays are nowadays known as “sophisms”.

It is worth mentioning here that for the Ancient Greeks a politician was nothing
more than an

orator

, a speaker who could efﬁciently manipulate language, skilfully

construct sentences and employ words and arguments with near perfection. A good
politician, in the sophistic sense, was an effective politician therefore valuable to
society.

A similar political vision was concurrently posited by

Thrasymachus

the Chalcedonian

who came to the simple conclusion that “…justice is nothing else than the interest
of the stronger.” (Plato: The Republic). In other words, justice is something good for
the stronger but something evil for those who ﬁnd themselves under the rule of the
stronger. The just man is always in an unfavourable position whereas the unjust man
is in a favourable one.

Callicles

, one of the Sophists presented in Plato’s Gorgias goes further and says,

“…whereas nature herself intimates that it is just for the better to have more than
the worse, the more powerful than the weaker…” (Plato: Gorgias)

According to Callicles, the law is against nature and was created by those who are
weak in attempt to defend themselves against the strong and in this sense, the law
has an entirely negative value. Thus, Callicles raises the strong individual above the
crowd. The stronger individual needs to break the law in order to subjugate the
weak. He says, “But if there were a man who had sufﬁcient force, he would shake
off and break through, and escape from all this; he would trample under foot all our
formulas and spells and charms, and all our laws which are against nature: the slave
would rise in rebellion and be lord over us, and the light of natural justice would
shine forth…

for how can a man be happy who is the servant of anything? On the contrary, I
plainly assert, that he who would truly live ought to allow his desires to wax to the
uttermost, and not to chastise them; but when they have grown to their greatest he
should have courage and intelligence to minister to them and to satisfy all his long-
ings. And this I afﬁrm to be natural justice and nobility. To this however the many
cannot attain; and they blame the strong man because they are ashamed of their own
weakness, which they desire to conceal, and hence they say that intemperance is
base. As I have remarked already, they enslave the nobler natures, and being unable
to satisfy their pleasures, they praise temperance and justice out of their own cow-
ardice. For if a man had been originally the son of a king, or had a nature capable of
acquiring an empire or a tyranny or sovereignty, what could be more truly base or
evil than temperance- -- to a man like him, I say, who might freely be enjoying every
good, and has no one to stand in his way, and yet has admitted custom and reason
and the opinion of other men to be lords over him? -- must not he be in a miserable
plight whom the reputation of justice and temperance hinders from giving more to
his friends than to his enemies, even though he be a ruler in his city?…and the truth
is this: -- that luxury and intemperance and licence, if they be provided with means,
are virtue and happiness -- all the rest is a mere bauble, agreements contrary to na-
ture, foolish talk of men, nothing worth. (Plato: Gorgias)

As can be seen, the principle of homo mensura can lead to a complete lack of stand-
ards for the sophist/politician and can lead to the justiﬁcation of one criterion above
all others: the realisation of one’s own aims. What is more, it can justify inequality
and unbridled immorality. Such a dark political vision was illustrated in The Prince
by Niccolň Machiavelli (1469 - 1527) which advocates the rational use of force,
deceit and hypocrisy by the principle of “the end justiﬁes the means”.

Undoubtedly, politicians and journalists are modern-day sophists/eristics. More of-
ten than not they forget the criterion of social utility and thus tend to represent the
most extreme and morally ambiguous form of sophistic thought.

For those interested in eristic tricks it is worthwhile taking a look at Arthur
Schopenhauer’s (1788 - 1860) famous Art of discussion. In it Schopenhauer presents
and illustrates speciﬁc examples of the main eristic stratagems that can be used in a
variety of situations. Knowledge of these unsporting strategies is vital for us to rec-
ognise their presence and counter them in real-life disputes.

3. The Ideal State

According to the Sophists, the state should be governed by expertly groomed orators
whose abilities and efﬁcacies are valuable for the society as a whole. However, is this
condition enough to govern a state? Can a state be governed by specialists “for hire”?
For

Plato

, this is admittedly a necessary condition but is, however, insufﬁcient.

Plato acknowledges that intellectualists are most suitable for holding public ofﬁce,
however, they should be aristocrats of a particular order. The word aristocrat comes
from the Greek aristos meaning ‘best’ and kratos meaning ‘power’ i.e. ‘the power
of the best’.

As mentioned previously, according to Plato, a person’s soul was once a part of the
ideal world thanks to which we have direct knowledge of this world. Not all people
have equally well-formed souls. Only the philosopher, who is able to relate his exist-
ence to this perfect world, is able to move closer to what is eternal.

Therefore philosophers should govern the state as the aim of the state is neither
the attainment of what is material nor a sense of belonging to the superﬁcial world.
The aim of a state is not to become rich or great because these are unimportant and
unreal ends. A state should aim at the realisation of moral values, above all the ideal
of goodness.

Plato writes, “I said: Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this
world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom
meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the
other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils, -- nor
the human race, as I believe, -- and then only will this our State have a possibility
of life and behold the light of day. Such was the thought… which I would fain have
uttered if it had not seemed too extravagant; for to be convinced that in no other
State can there be happiness private or public is indeed a hard thing.” (Plato: The
Republic)

In describing an ideal society, Plato held that there exist analogies between the in-
dividual and the society in which he lives. The three functions of the soul: intellect,
emotion and desire should be reﬂected in the state: rulers, soldiers and farmers.
According to Plato, there is no private ownership (i.e. a communist system) for the
highest two classes where not only ownership is a communal but the concepts of ab-
stinence and sacriﬁce are also important. The lowest class, in the spirit of aristocratic
elitism, is not as disciplined with no aspirations of perfection. According to Plato,
the farmer or craftsman only has a developed lustful part of the soul and is too at-
tached to what is worldly, the superﬁcial world.

The ideal state should therefore consist of three classes: leaders who govern, war-
riors who defend the state and the remaining citizens who provide everything that
is essential to the proper functioning of the state, for example, food and shelter. In
other words, the state is seen as a living organism, a collective, communal being.
It is not the state that must conform to the individual but the individual that must
conform to the state and strive for its well-being.

In the Platonic vision of an ideal state, the lives of people should come under meticu-
lous examination: legislators should make certain that citizens marry and produce
children as well as watch over their upbringing; a woman has a duty to produce

children for the state from when she is twenty to when she is forty, a man should “do
his citizen’s duty” up to the age of ﬁfty.

In order to correctly choose future leaders and warriors and be certain that they will
not act in their own interests they must undergo a number of appropriate physical and
intellectual tests through the course of their upbringing. In an ideal state, the greatest
good is the whole. Anything that leads to social divisions is seen as harmful.

Therefore all political desires, drives towards excessive riches should be combated as
well as all extravagant dress or even fanciful hairstyles. Even excessive originality in
music can lead to political upheaval according to Plato. Therefore, this remarkably
consistent theory claims that the state is a coherent whole where any one element, if
disturbed in any way, can become a potential source of political chaos.

Plato contrasted his vision of an ideal state with the four (degenerate, he claimed)
political systems that then prevailed.

The ﬁrst,

oligarchy

founded on the belief that riches are seen as the greatest good

and the poor are held in absolute contempt. This system reﬂects the lustful part of
the soul.

Within the second political system,

timocracy

the pivotal force of public life was lust

for distinction and honour i.e. ambition. The passionate “impulsive” part of the soul
dominates here. Plato identiﬁed timocracy with Sparta for whom, incidentally, he
wished victory over his native democratic Athens.

Plato most vehemently despised

democracy

which he identiﬁed with populism and

the demagoguery of the Sophists. He claimed that a democratic politician need not
have any appropriate predispositions to govern but it is enough for him to maintain
that he is a “friend of the people”. Furthermore, Plato notes that the excessive free-
dom which characterises democracy ultimately leads to its transformation into its
opposite i.e.

tyranny

, the rule of an individual through force and terror.

Plato’s political philosophy without doubt praises authoritarian and anti-democratic
forms of statehood in favour of governing in the name of the people rather than
government by the people and thus can easily be associated with the worst forms of
totalitarianism. What is interesting is the fact that Plato attempted to put his utopia
into practice at the court of Dionysius the Younger of Syracuse. His attempt, howev-
er, was unsuccessful and was killed as a result of becoming embroiled in a civil war.

Aristotle presented a critique of the Platonic vision of statehood. He did not specu-
late over the concept of an ideal political system although he did manage to system-
atically describe the whole of Greek political history analysing the origin of political
society, different political systems and their subsequent transformations.

Aristotle claimed that for the good of society individuality and private ownership
should be preserved and not eliminated. According to Aristotle, it is thanks to these,
the fact that people are different and can hold various positions in the state, that its
development is possible. Diversity should not be eliminated, however, we should
ensure that the particular interests of the individual do not come into conﬂict with
the good of the whole.

Therefore, it is necessary to oppose calls for the making all ownership public and
common due to the fact that private ownership is a condition for human action and
activity. It is also important that in this sphere we can ﬁnd a “golden mean” between
the extremes of excess and deﬁciency. Those who have a surplus of goods often
stand above the law and are a danger to the state. Similarly, those who own nothing,
as people living on the edge, are ready to do anything in an attempt to break free
from the poverty in which they live. These people can cause disorder which may

4. The Social Contract

In what way can we reconcile the individual drive for happiness with social neces-
sities? How can we reconcile individual freedom with the need to conform to the
general interests of society? How is it appropriate to govern and how should one
acquiesce to those who govern? What should be the starting point for such reﬂec-
tion? According to

Thomas Hobbes

(1588 - 1679) we must begin by considering what

human nature is and which human traits allow us to join with others within a state.

Hobbes claimed that man is but a small part of nature and like nature is subject to
speciﬁc laws and principles. Everything we do is dependent therefore on certain
forces acting as stimuli which become the basis of emotions such as desire, revulsion,
pleasure, distress, love, hate, hope and fear. Furthermore, these simple emotions
form the basis for more complex emotions related to the ethical categories of good
and evil.

In this sense, the concept of absolute good or absolute evil do not exist. Of all the
simple emotions, the most important motive for all action is hope, as an expecta-
tion of good, as well as fear which is nothing more than the expectation of evil.
Therefore, egoism (which requires us to continuously realise our own interests in
life) is something natural. However, it leads to perpetual conﬂict with other people
who may have contradictory desires. The state of nature is “a war of every man
against every man”,

bellum omnium contra omnes

As Hobbes writes, “Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a
common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called
war; and such a war as is of every man against every man. For war consisteth not in
battle only, or the act of ﬁghting…so the nature of war consisteth not in actual ﬁght-
ing, but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to
the contrary. All other time is peace.

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy
to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other
security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them
withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is
uncertain…

and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life
of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short…To this war of every man against
every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right
and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common
power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice. Force and fraud are in war the
two cardinal virtues.

Justice and injustice are none of the faculties neither of the body nor mind. If they
were, they might be in a man that were alone in the world, as well as his senses and
passions.

They are qualities that relate to men in society, not in solitude. It is consequent also
to the same condition that there be no propriety, no dominion, no mine and thine
distinct; but only that to be every man’s that he can get, and for so long as he can
keep it. And thus much for the ill condition which man by mere nature is actually
placed in; though with a possibility to come out of it, consisting partly in the pas-
sions, partly in his reason.” (Hobbes, T.: Leviathan)

So according to Hobbes within the state of nature we have no obligations or commit-
ments to each another, everything is permitted and as a result no one is guaranteed
safety. As Hobbes says, “man to man is an arrant wolf”,

homo homini lupus est

. This

is a state of anarchy where there is no question of laws, morality or even any form of
ownership. Such a world is worse even than the animal world. Animals attack when
hungry, however man is guided by the absolute desire to possess, the necessity to
dominate, the lust for power and the need to subjugate those around him.

Both society and the state do not belong to the state of nature. In order to free one-
self of this state one must trust reason and make a “

contract

” thanks to which one

can have a guarantee of safety.

He writes, “The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend
them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby
to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the
earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, is to confer all their power
and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their
wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will: which is as much as to say, to appoint one
man, or assembly of men, to bear their person; and every one to own and acknowl-
edge himself to be author of whatsoever he that so beareth their person shall act,
or cause to be acted, in those things which concern the common peace and safety;
and therein to submit their wills, every one to his will, and their judgements to his
judgement.

This is more than consent, or concord; it is a real unity of them all in one and the
same person, made by covenant of every man with every man, in such manner as if
every man should say to every man: I authorise and give up my right of governing
myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition; that thou give up,
thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner.

This done, the multitude so united in one person is called a Commonwealth; in
Latin, Civitas. This is the generation of that great

Leviathan

, or rather, to speak

more reverently, of that mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, our
peace and defence. For by this authority, given him by every particular man in the
Commonwealth, he hath the use of so much power and strength conferred on him
that, by terror thereof, he is enabled to form the wills of them all, to peace at home,
and mutual aid against their enemies abroad.” (Hobbes, T.: Leviathan)

The state and its powers constitute an artiﬁcial and unstable construct. Only strength
and force can guarantee the existence of the “Leviathan” By juxtaposing the “natu-
ral Kingdom of God” and sovereign power which is dependent on the contract,
Hobbes illustrates how a state can exist which goes beyond the framework of a com-
monwealth, a civil society. Religion itself, according to Hobbes, is a product of the
human mind which is born out of a need to explain the world and man’s reason for
being. In this sense, a sovereign acting on behalf of the authorities should maintain
the prestige of the Christian religion giving it a public nature and instrumental inter-
pretation so that it can act as an effective tool in strengthening his powers.

The essence of the social contract was interpreted differently by

John Locke

(1632

- 1704). In contrast to Hobbes, Locke claimed that within the state of nature people
lived in peace and private ownership existed. The only principle was the fundamen-
tal law: “Let no man’s life, or body, or house, or estate, suffer any manner of preju-
dice by any other man.” The reason why man is induced to leave the state of nature
is because of difﬁculties associated with meting out punishment to those people who
break this law. Therefore, within the framework of the social contract people create
the institutions of the judiciary which is able to adjudicate impartially in questions of
law; the legislature which can restore the legal order and ﬁnally, the executive which
lays down coherent and general laws.

5. Dialectics

In Ancient Greek philosophy the term

dialectics

was used to deﬁne the art of discus-

sion, in particular, the search for the truth through revealing and overcoming contra-
dictions in the reasoning of one’s opponent. Dialectics is also a method of revealing
reality in which eternal motion, changeability is highlighted as well as the develop-
ment that is associated with the constant struggle of opposing forces. The dialectical
approach to being was already proposed by Heracleitus of Ephesus. However, a
dialectical understanding of individual human reality as well as the whole of human
history was put forward by one of the most important nineteenth century German
philosophers,

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

(1770 - 1831).

Dialectics is a logical process that moves from

thesis

through

antithesis

synthesis

to include the previous two. According to Hegel, this is something more than just a
simple logical process, it is a process which actually manifests itself in the develop-
ment of the world. All change, in particular historical change takes place according
to the laws of dialectics. Therefore, respective nations should be considered in terms
of the place in which they are within the dialectic. This can be seen as analogous
to the place in which a statement or hypothesis can be found within the process of
argumentation in order to establish the argument’s validity.

In other words, when a nation develops it simultaneously creates its own opposite,
a nation which is its own antithesis. This leads to conﬂict resulting in the emergence
of a new, higher culture which comprises the best of the previous two cultures.
However, this does not signal the end of the process as this new nation becomes a
subsequent thesis which later creates its own antithesis.

According to Hegel, individual people are merely pawns within the process of his-
torical necessity which is a hidden process for them. Its sense remains hidden even
from history’s greatest heroes. Their greatness is based on the fact that their passions
and aims are in tune with the rhythm of the age. History simply manifests itself
through unique individuals, for example, Napoleon. Only when the personal aims
of an individual are in line with the direction of historical development can he or she
accomplish his/her work. Even the most outstanding individual is merely a child of
his times, a member of a nation and a citizen of a country.

Hegel writes, “Such are all

great historical men

— whose own particular aims involve

those large issues which are the will of the World-Spirit. They may be called Heroes,
inasmuch as they have derived their purposes and their vocation, not from the calm,
regular course of things, sanctioned by the existing order; but from a concealed
fount — one which has not attained to phenomenal, present existence — from that
inner Spirit, still hidden beneath the surface, which, impinging on the outer world as
on a shell, bursts it in pieces, because it is another kernel than that which belonged
to the shell in question.

They are men, therefore, who appear to draw the impulse of their life from them-
selves; and whose deeds have produced a condition of things and a complex of
historical relations which appear to be only their interest, and their work. Such in-
dividuals had no consciousness of the general Idea they were unfolding, while pros-
ecuting those aims of theirs; on the contrary, they were practical, political men. But
at the same time they were thinking men, who had an insight into the requirements
of the time — what was ripe for development. This was the very Truth for their age,

for their world; the species next in order, so to speak, and which was already formed
in the womb of time. It was theirs to know this nascent principle; the necessary,
directly sequent step in progress, which their world was to take; to make this their
aim, and to expend their energy in promoting it.

World-historical men — the Heroes of an epoch — must, therefore, be recognized as
its clear-sighted ones; their deeds, their words are the best of that time. Great men
have formed purposes to satisfy themselves, not others. Whatever prudent designs
and counsels they might have learned from others, would be the more limited and
inconsistent features in their career; for it was they who best understood affairs;
from whom others learned, and approved, or at least acquiesced in — their policy.”
(Hegel: The Philosophy of History)

However, Hegel notes that the great heroes of an epoch are tragic heroes. They must
toil and trouble in order to realise their desired aim and when this aim is achieved
they expect satisfaction and reward but typically they lose the their reason for be-
ing and the “sceptre of history” passes to their adversaries. In other words, “heroes
die early” and “when their object is attained they fall off like empty hulls from the
kernel.”

According to Hegel, “

The History of the world is none other than the progress of the con-

sciousness of Freedom

” which as a realisation of rational principles is implemented in

the objective sphere of historical institutions such as the state. Only by living in the
state can respective individuals juxtapose their existence against the universal values
found in the state. Consequently, only within a state can a human achieve complete
humanity, become a citizen as well as become a moral, rational, that is, free being.

Freedom develops through the ages within a nation which is organised around a
state. In subsequent stages of development, the idea of freedom may play a vital role
for another nation. This society is then guided by vested interests but its actions have
historical value. Just as a unique historical ﬁgure loses his reason for being so too a
nation’s historical mission comes to an end.

For example, the Greek nation achieved its mission as far back as in Ancient times and
therefore, was discarded by history to have its place taken by another nation. This
is why today, writes Hegel, the sons and daughters of the creators of the Athenian
democracy graze sheep on the ruins of the Acropolis.

The dialectic is a dramatic process, full of conﬂict and tragedy. It is of this nature be-
cause the consciousness of freedom that is achieved by individuals is realised within
institutions which later become independent of their founders and begin to control
them. This is associated with the natural process of an idea moving into the world of
phenomena and transforming into its own opposition.

So, for example, the idea of Christianity which is related to the consciousness of uni-
versal freedom has, within the institution of the Church, transformed into its own
contradiction. Hegel notes that Christian freedom has transformed into the enslave-
ment of the conscience and absolute surrender to the power of the Church as well as
the adoration of dead objects. Even Jesus Christ has become a monstrance being re-
duced to a mere object. According to Hegel, in the name of reason we should always
stand on the side of the world of ideas not the world of superﬁcial phenomena.

Karl Marx

(1818 - 1883) put the Hegelian dialectic approach to use in his political

philosophy. His analysis of the dialectic process had a decidedly materialist nature.
He claimed that the history of the world should not be seen as the history of com-
petition and struggle between states but rather, more fundamentally, as the history
of class struggle. Particular nations change because the social classes within these
nations begin to oppose each other.

He writes, “The ﬁrst work which I undertook to dispel the doubts assailing me was a
critical re-examination of the Hegelian philosophy of law…My inquiry led me to the
conclusion that neither legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended
whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the hu-
man mind, but that on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life,
the totality of which Hegel, following the example of English and French thinkers
of the eighteenth century, embraces within the term “

civil society

”; that the anatomy

of this civil society, however, has to be sought in political economy…

The general conclusion at which I arrived and which, once reached, became the guid-
ing principle of my studies can be summarised as follows. In the social production
of their existence, men inevitably enter into deﬁnite relations, which are independ-
ent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the
development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations
of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on
which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond deﬁnite
forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions
the general process of social, political and intellectual life.

It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence
that determines their consciousness.

At a certain stage of development, the material

productive forces of society come into conﬂict with the existing relations of produc-
tion or -- this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms -- with the property
relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto.

From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their
fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foun-
dation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstruc-
ture.” (Marx, K.: Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy)

According to Marx, social classes are deﬁned by their means of production. Private
ownership has created an inhuman world in which there is no room for personal
dignity and humanity and the worker is forced to “sell himself”. In this sense, the
greater the value of the goods produced by the worker, the greater his dependence
on the capitalist who is likewise not his own master and remains within the grasp of
his accumulated wealth. In other words, the world of objects constrains and enslaves
all people.

Marx claimed that only

communism

, which calls for the abolition of private owner-

ship, can bring an end to this captivity. The capitalist claim that we should work in
order to gain proﬁt leads to a state in which an elite possesses the means of produc-
tion and the remaining population ﬁnds itself under their control. The climax of
capitalism (thesis) leads to economic crisis and the appearance of antagonisms be-
tween the large and poor working classes and the small capitalist class which in turn
leads to socialism (antithesis). Ultimately, the situation gets out of control leading to
open conﬂict resulting in the destruction of the capitalist class and the appearance of
communism and a new classless society (synthesis).

Marx hoped that his theory might be practically exploited. His hopes were realised,
however, as we know full well, the liberation of mankind was to take a slightly dif-
ferent turn…

6. Democracy

The concept of

democracy

comes from the Greek demos ‘the people’ and kratia

‘power, rule’. It therefore means the ‘power of the people’. In very general terms,
we can say that it is a political system in which everyone has the right to take part
in a general election without any moral compulsion or physical force. Democracy is
valued because it guarantees all citizens some participation in the political process.

In Ancient Greece, the democracies were the city-states ruled by the people and not
a small group of people (oligarchy) or by one person (monarchy). The model de-
mocracy was seen to be Ancient Athens even though not every one had the right to
vote (women, “non-citizens” as well as slaves). The Athenian democracy was direct
in nature in that it did not elect representatives but the citizens themselves had the
right to discuss and vote on all matters.

This

direct democracy

was possible largely thanks to only a small number of people

who were educated in politics and well-versed in the issues of the day which were
then discussed and voted on. For this reason nowadays we have

representative de-

mocracies

in which we elect our representatives who take part in the daily process of

political decision-making. It goes without saying that these representatives should be
well-prepared to fulﬁl the duties of the position to which they have been appointed
as well as respect the wishes of their electorate. However, as we know, the reality is
somewhat different.

The concept of democracy is held in such high esteem nowadays that all regimes
from the most totalitarian to forms of organised anarchy purport to be ‘democratic’.
Democracy, however, has inherent weaknesses which were pointed out as early as
in Ancient times.

Plato noted that considerable knowledge and an appropriate predisposition were
required in order take correct political decisions. These were not possessed by the
majority of voters. What is more, Plato claimed that democracy was nothing more
than a form of demagoguery and populism.

John Stuart Mill

(1806 - 1873) highlighted a similar problem. He believed that de-

mocracy can lead to a system dominated by the masses or even become a tyranny of
the masses. This leads to a reduction of the individual’s energies and the individual
gets lost in the crowd and all talent vanishes into mediocrity. It follows then that in
a true democracy we have to listen to opinions that are contrary to our own even if
they are not entirely authentic but contain elements of truth. This is necessary be-
cause individuals are the creators of new ideas, new knowledge and culture. In other
words, the true salt of the earth is the intellectual elite.

A contemporary political philosopher who defends the idea of democracy and the
associated idea of social welfare is

John Rawls

(1921 - ). According to Rawls, the

most important aim of a state should be to divide its resources in order to minimise
poverty. This does not mean, however, that inequalities should always be associ-
ated with injustice. They are permitted under two conditions. The ﬁrst condition:
“Fairness is the equal access of opportunities” means that situations that can bring
beneﬁt should be available to all people. The second condition is that society must
allow for those poorest in society to have as much money as is it possible i.e. a cer-
tain optimum must be reached in the division of income.

The inspiration for Rawls’ theory was the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant who
believed that a just society is one in which every individual, independent of his/her
social position, should be treated equally by the law, should have the right to a fair
trial and be equally treated by society.

He writes, “My aim is to present a conception of justice which generalises and car-
ries to a higher level of abstraction the familiar theory of the social contract as
found, say, in Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. In order to do so this we are not to think
of the original contract as one to enter a particular society or to set up a particular
form of government. Rather, the guiding idea is that the principles of justice for the
basic structure of society are the object of the original agreement.

They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own
interests would accept in an initial position of equality as deﬁning the fundamental
terms of their association. These principles are to regulate all further agreements;
they specify the kinds of social cooperation that can be entered into and the forms
of government that can be established. This way of regarding the principles of justice
I shall call justice as fairness…

In justice as fairness the original position of equality corresponds to the state of
nature in the traditional theory of the social contract. This original position is not,
of course, thought of as an actual historical state of affairs, much less as a primitive
condition of culture. It is understood as a purely hypothetical situation characterized
so as to lead to a certain conception of justice.

Among the essential features of this situation is that no one knows his place in so-
ciety, his class position or social status, nor does any one knows his fortune in the
distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence, strength, and the like.
I shall even assume that the parties do not know their conceptions of the good or
their special psychological propensities. The principles of justice are chosen behind
a veil of ignorance. This ensures that one is advantaged or disadvantaged in the
choice of principles by the outcome of natural chance at the contingency of social
circumstances.

Since all are similarly situated and no one is able to design principles to favor his
particular condition, the principles of justice are the result of a fair agreement or
bargain. For given the circumstances of the original position, the symmetry of every-
one’s relations to each other, this initial situation is fair between individuals as moral
persons, that is, as rational beings with their own ends and capable, I shall assume,
of a sense of justice…

One feature of justice as fairness is to think of the parties in the initial situation as
rational and mutually disinterested. This does not mean that the parties are egoists,
that is, individual with only certain kinds of interests, say in wealth, prestige, and
domination. But they are conceived as not taking an interest in one another’s inter-
ests. They are to presume that even their spiritual aims may be opposed in the way
that the aims of those of different religions may be opposed. Moreover, the concept
of rationality must be interpreted as far as possible in the narrow sense, standard in
economic theory, of taking the most effective means to given aims.” (Rawls, J. 1972:
11-14 A Theory of Justice. OUP: Oxford)

Consequently, Rawls does not negate the fact that there is a diversity in the wealth
of citizens but he claims that the division of the primary interests (such as freedom,
opportunities in life, income, property and most importantly, self-respect) should be
undertaken to the beneﬁt of the weakest in society.

Can Rawls’ form of justice be implemented? Can a “just” society disregard that
which divides people? Should individuals who make a greater contribution to so-

Glossary

Democracy

- The concept of democracy comes from the Greek demos ‘the peo-

ple’ and kratia ‘power, rule’. It therefore means the ‘power of the people’. In very
general terms, we can say that this is a political system in which everyone has the
right to take part in a general election without moral compulsion or physical force.
Democracy is valued because it guarantees all citizens some participation in the po-
litical process.

Dialectics

- In Ancient Greek philosophy the term dialectics was used to deﬁne the art

of discussion, in particular, the search for the truth through revealing and overcom-
ing contradictions in the reasoning of one’s opponent. Dialectics is also a method of
revealing reality in which eternal motion, changeability is highlighted as well as the
development that is associated with the constant struggle of opposing forces.

Communism

- a doctrine declaring the abolition of private ownership and the shared,

collective ownership of all goods. The idea of such communal life can be found in
the political philosophy of Plato.

Oligarchy

- a form of government based on the rule of one small group of people,

most often an aristocratic or wealthy elite.

Sophistry

- an intellectual movement established in the 5

century in Ancient Greece

characterised by individualism and relativism. It is a method of argumentation which
proceeds by using ambiguous words or phrases, indiscernible inaccuracies in order
to prove a false thesis.

Timocracy

- a form of government based on the rule of those most wealthy. According to

Plato, the pivotal force of social life was lust for distinction and honour i.e. ambition.

Tyranny

- the rule of an absolute dictator through violence and terror.