Self-interest is the fatal flaw in all Political Systems

“The executive of a modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” (MARX, 1848). The above statement informs us that Marx viewed the modern state as proposed by Hobbs (1651), Locke (1689) and Rousseau (1762) respectively as existing in order to safeguard the interests of the upper class. While Marx’s statement was contrary to the norm of the time period, it does deserve credit for identifying a possible flaw of the social contract (HOBBS, 1651) between society and state. Marx is; however, wrong in claiming that all states are only acting in the interest of the upper class and not the working class as the very theory that state is build on says otherwise.

Thomas Hobbes’ describes the lives of people before the formation of the state as being “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. (HOBBS, 1651). He believed that individuals would inevitably establish a state in order to protect themselves from themselves. Hobbs claimed that an independent state would serve as an intermediary and protect the social interest over the self-interest of individuals. According to Hobbs, everyone whom was part of the society would be protected by the rule of law imposed by the state regardless of whether that person was in the dominant class or the working class.

John Locke also argued a similar view with respect to the “modern state” critiqued by Marx (1848). There were some differences between what Hobbs’s and Locke’s ideas were of what exactly the benefit of a state would be for society. Locke believed that the state would be able to protect the private property, freedom and lives of those whom chose to live within it. The “bourgeoisie” as proposed by Marx is defined by accumulated wealth and private property. At a first glance it may appear as though Marx has a valid point. Upon further glance into Lock’s Second Treatise of Government (1689), it becomes evident that Lock believed anyone could own property as long as they worked the land. This includes the working class.

In the case of a failed state, it is more than likely possible that the state is in fact acting in the interests of the upper class. This should not be allowed to happen, as it is contradictory to the theory a social contract. Maximilien Robespierre theory of how a state should deal with corruption solves this issue. Robespierre says, “the characteristic of a popular government is confidence in the people and severity towards itself”. (Robespierre, 1794). What he means is that a state should internally regulate itself and deal with corruption.

The theory is solid. A state should act in the social interest autonomously. In reality this rarely happens. Regardless of what political system one lives in, whether it is Communism or Capitalism, people are corruptible and it is usually the working class who suffer the consequences of this corruption. Therefore Marx is wrong in his claim.

List of References:

· HOBBS, T, 1651. The Leviathan.

· LOCKE, J, 1689. Second Treatise on Government.

· MARX, K, 1848. Communist Manifesto.

· ROBESPIERRE, M, 1794. Justification of the Use of Terror.

· ROUSSEUA, JJ, 1762. On the Moral and Political Principles of Domestic Policy.