Montesquieu

“Of all French political philosophers in the eighteenth century (other than
Rousseau) the most important was Montesquieu. Of them all he had perhaps the
clearest conception of the complexities of a social philosophy, and yet he too was
guilty of extreme over simplification.” (Sabine)

Montesquieu was born in 1689 at Chateau de la Bordeaux in a noble aristocratic family. His
father was an eminent French lawyer. At the age of twenty seven he became president of
Parliament of Bordeaux, the most important of parliaments in France except that of Paris.
For a long period of twelve years he continued as chief magistrate at Bordeaux, but he was
not satisfied with the job because he was an extensive reader of literature and history and
had deep sympathetic ties with the intellectual movements of his days. At last he left
presidency and moved to Paris. In 1728 he visited Austria, Hungary, Venice, Rome,
Switzerland, Holland and lastly England where he remained for above two years. During his
tour, he came across the leading politicians and political thinkers in England and he was
deeply impressed by the English conception of liberty and by the English system of
Government.

After his return he settled at La Brede and kept himself busy with the task of writing of
political philosophy. At that time France although under absolute control of King Louis XIV,
yet was more fertile for growth of political theory but Frenchmen were not satisfied with the
political situation, as were their fellows across the channel.

Important works of Montesquieu are:

1.The Persian Letter: He published these letters in 1721. it embodied a brilliant satire on
the existing political, religious and social institutions in France.

2.Reflections and the causes of the Greatness and Decline of the Romans. This book
was published in 1734.

3.The Spirit of Law published in 1748. This book won a great fame and immortality for
Montesquieu because it came out after fourteen year unremitting labor and he made it a
masterpiece for all ages.

Montesquieu’s doctrine of Separation of Powers

Montesquieu expounds his theory of separation of powers to set forth the governmental
organization in order to safeguard the political liberty. He believed that the separation of
powers among the different organs of the government is the best safeguard against tyranny.
He pleads that each power must be exercised by a separate organ and a system of checks
and balances should thus be established for solidarity and harmony of the state.

The theory of separation of powers among Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of
government was best realized in the British Constitution. He came to realize that for
maintaining liberty, the separation of powers was absolutely essential. Montesquieu did not
rely upon observation. Locke and Harrington had taught him what to expect and for the rest
he adopted the myth which was current among the English themselves. Bolingbroke said,
“It is by this mixture of monarchial, aristocratically and democratically power
blended together in one system and by these three estates balancing one another,
that our free constitution of Government has been preserved so long inviolate.”

According to Montesquieu there are three kinds of power:

1.By virtue of the legislative power, the prince or magistrate exerts temporary or permanent
laws and amends or abrogates those laws, which are contrary to the will of the subject.

2.By virtue of the executive powers, he makes peace or war, sends or receives
Ambassadors, establish the public security and provide protection against invasions.

3.By virtue of the judiciary powers, he is vested with the powers to punish criminals and
also to safeguard the life and property of the individuals.

When the executive and legislative are united in the same person, there can be no liberty
because apprehensions may arise. If the judiciary power be not separated from the
legislative and the executive then again there will be no liberty. When it is combined with
the legislative, the existence and liberty of people would be exposed to arbitrary rule. When
it is combined with executive organ, then there will be violence and oppression in the
capacity of a mortal God.

It is quite obvious from all above cited discussion, that the separation of powers among the
three organs of governments fully ensures liberty and freedom, by imposing healthy checks
on the despotism of the government bureaucrats. Montesquieu was of the view that liberty
is an indispensable fundamental for human progress and glory. Everyone is born to enjoy it
without any distinction of color, creed and religion.

Criticism:

1.Montesquieu’s study of English constitution is not very correct until this day; there is no
full separation of powers between different governmental agencies. There the House of
Lords is a legislative as well as a judicial body. The Lord Chancellor partakes of all the three
functions of government.

2.If all the branches are made separate and independent of each other, each branch will
endeavor to safeguard its interests and possibly may jeopardize other’s interest.
3.Perfect separate power in the functions of the government is impossible.

4.Mill was of the view “the separation of powers will result in a clash between the
three different organs of the government because each one will take interest only
in its own powers.”

In spite of all inconsistencies in the theory of separation of powers, it too wielded a

considerable influence in Pakistan, France and America. Montesquieu is placed in the first
rank of those distinguished thinkers who in the eighteenth century, held high standard of
idealism in all that pertains to liberty.

Montesquieu’s views on Forms of Government

The classification of government of Montesquieu is base partly on the number of those who
hold political power and partly on the manner in which that power is exercised. He gives
more importance to the principle on which government is based than to its nature. He
assigned a particular basic principle to every form of government. The principle of
democracy was virtue, of an aristocracy virtue-cum-moderation, of monarchy honor while
that of despotism was fear. He enunciated the dangers attending each form of government if
it lost its basic principle.

Montesquieu forms the government into three types:

1)Republic:
Montesquieu was of the view “A republican government is that in which the body or only a
part of the people, is possessed of the supreme power.” To him, when in a republic, the body
of the people is possessed of the supreme power it is called democracy. Sovereignty rests
with the people in democracy. In Republics, there can be no exercise of sovereignty but by
the votes of the people and these votes express their own will.

2)Monarchies:
Montesquieu remarks that monarchial government is that in which a single person governs
the state by fixed and established laws. He was of the view that the most intermediate
power is that of nobility. This in some measure seems to be essential to a monarchy, whose
fundamental maxim is no nobility no monarch, but there may be despotic process.

3)Despotism:
A despotic government is that in which a single person directs all functions of the
government with his own capricious will, without any law and without fixed rules. His own
words become laws of the land and complete subordination to these laws a expedient.

Each of the form is associated with its peculiar principle:

a) Democracy is based upon political virtue
b) Aristocracy is based upon moderation
c) Monarchy is based upon honor
d) Despotism is based upon fear and oppression

Relation between Forms of Government and religion & Size of State:

Montesquieu was of the view that certain religions had a definite affinity for certain types of
governments. Islam goes well with Democratic Republican form of government, wherein
fundamentals of religion i-e., equality, fraternity and freedom are deeply inculcated and
practiced for the security of mankind and glory of the state. Roman Catholicism is closely
affiliated with monarchial form of government with arbitrary rule and Protestantism even in
this modern age is deeply attached with despotism and cruel expansionism.

Republican form of government is possible only in a state of small size; monarchy suited the
moderate-sized state while a big country or an empire must have despotic government. Real
democracy is possible only ion small city-state. France of Montesquieu’s time was too large
for a republic form of government, Monarchy would suit her best. Montesquieu declared
monarchy, a worst form of government and he unlike Machiavelli discarded the doctrine of
aggrandizement and expansion.

Criticism:

1.It is quite wrong to assume, as Montesquieu does, that democracy and aristocracy are
sub-types of republican form.

2.It is a quite unfair to place despotic government at par with monarchial and republican
forms. Despotic state is not at all state because it is established by the absence of
established law, and hence it is a lawless state, which should not be included in the plan at
all.

3.Montesquieu’s scheme creates distinction between the republican and monarchic form
based upon the number of persons who possess the supreme power, the distinction between
the monarchic and despotic types depends upon the way in which the power of governments
are to be exercised.

Montesquieu as the Aristotle of 18th Century

1.Montesquieu follows the inductive and historical methods of Aristotle and like him, takes
keen interest in the practical political activities.
2.Like Aristotle, Montesquieu too pays his attention on the influence of physical environment
on the life of man and social institutions.

3.Montesquieu steps into the shoes of Aristotle, when he recognizes basic types of
government i-e, republican, monarchial and despotic.

4.Montesquieu closely follows Aristotle when he says that the fundamental types of political
constitutions are fixed once and for all but they are different to some extent under the
impact of the local conditions.

5.Montesquieu’s observation that the law of a society gives to its unique and particular
character, has its parallel in Aristotle’s statement that the constitution of a state determines
the very life and character of its people, if there occurs a change in the constitution, the
state itself becomes altogether a different state.

BENTHAM

Bentham’s ‘Utility’

Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the locus of right and wrong solely on
the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action/policy over other actions/policies. As
such, it moves beyond the scope of one's own interests and takes into account the interests
of others.

Bentham's Principle of Utility: (1) Recognizes the fundamental role of pain and pleasure in
human life, (2) approves or disapproves of an action on the basis of the amount of pain or
pleasure brought about i.e, consequences, (3) equates good with pleasure and evil with
pain, and (4) asserts that pleasure and pain are capable of quantification (and hence
'measure').

In measuring pleasure and pain, Bentham introduces the following criteria: INTENSITY,
DURATION, CERTAINTY (or UNCERTAINTY), and its NEARNESS (or FARNESS). He also
includes its "fecundity" (will more of the same follow?) and its "purity" (its pleasure won't be
followed by pain & vice versa). In considering actions that affect numbers of people, we
must also account for its EXTENT.

John Stuart Mill adjusted the more hedonistic tendencies in Bentham's philosophy by
emphasizing (1) It is not the quantity of pleasure, but the quality of happiness that is
central to utilitarianism, (2) the calculus is unreasonable -- qualities cannot be quantified
(there is a distinction between 'higher' and 'lower' pleasures), and (3) utilitarianism refers to
"the Greatest Happiness Principle" -- it seeks to promote the capability of achieving
happiness (higher pleasures) for the most amount of people (this is its "extent").

Act and Rule Utilitarianism

We can apply the principle of utility to either PARTICULAR ACTIONS or GENERAL RULES. The
former is called "act-utilitarianism" and the latter is called "rule-utilitarianism."

Act-utilitarianism -- The principle of utility is applied directly to each alternative act in a

situation of choice. The right act is then defined as the one which brings about the best
results (or the least amount of bad results).

Criticisms of this view point to the difficulty of attaining a full knowledge and certainly of the
consequences of our actions.
It is possible to justify immoral acts using AU: Suppose you could end a regional war by
torturing children whose fathers are enemy soliders, thus revealing the hide outs of the
fathers.
Rule-utilitarianism -- The principle of utility is used to determine the validity of rules of
conduct (moral principles). A rule like promise-keeping is established by looking at the
consequences of a world in which people broke promises at will and a world in which
promises were binding. Right and wrong are then defined as following or breaking those
rules.

Some criticisms of this position point out that if the Rules take into account more and more
exceptions, RU collapses into AU.
More genearl criticisms of this view argue that it is possible to generate "unjust rules"
according to the principle of utility. For example, slavery in Greece might be right if it led to
an overall achievement of cultivated happiness at the expense of some mistreated
individuals.

Jeremy Bentham

“Bentham was the first among modern philosophers to place women upon a
political equality with men. In Plato’s Republic this equality was to be fully
recognized. But after Plato it was completely forgotten for over two thousand
years.” (H. Thomas)

Introduction:
Jeremy Bentham was the intellectual leader and the real founder of English
utilitarianism; whose deep interest in public affairs covered the period from the
American Revolution to the Reform Bill of 1832. He was born in a rich lawyer’s
family in 1748 in London. From the very childhood, Bentham was scholarly and
pedantic. He learnt Latin when he was only three years old. He also learnt Greek
and French and later on he devoted to the study of Jurisprudence and legal
philosophy. He received the degree of graduation at the age of fifteen from
Queen’s College Oxford. He had an instinctive interest in science and a distinctive
talent for introspective psychology. From his youth he showed a passionate
devotion to social welfare, identifying himself in imagination and determining to
apply to the social sciences the methods that were being worked out in the natural
science.

In 1763 Bentham entered Lincoln’s Inn to begin the study which was to be his
life-long pursuit. In 1772 after having studied law, he entered the bar for practice.
As he grew older, his interests widened and his opinions became more subversive.
His supreme mission was to reconstruct the entire legal system on healthier lines.

At the time of his death, he was at the zenith of fame and glory because of his
unparalleled contribution in the subject of jurisprudence and legal philosophy.
After his death, Doyle says, “He was venerated by a group of disciples, as a
Patriarch, a spiritual Leader, almost a God with James Mill as his St. Paul.”

Jeremy Bentham was a prolific writer and he collected works comprised of

twenty-two volumes. His writings cover a wide range of interest including ethics,
theology, psychology, logic, economics, penology etc. he wrote following most
important books:

1. Fragments of Government
2. A Defence of Usury
3. Discourse on Civil and Penal Legislation
4. Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
5. A Treatise on Judicial Evidence
6. A Theory of Punishments and Rewards
7. Essay on Political Tactics

Importance of Bentham in
History of Political Thought

Bentham holds a distinctive place in the history of political thought. He was more
a legal reformer and jurist rather than a political philosopher. He had nothing
original in his political doctrine and also he did not create new ideas. Bentham was
the first to establish the utilitarian school of thought. Maxey said, “Here was a
doctrine to rock the foundations of all accredited political theory. With ruthless
logic he brushed aside the ancient varieties of both radical and conservative
thought; had erased all distinction in principle between free and despotic politics:
had put it down that divine, feudal right, historical right, natural right and
constitutional right equally and like were rubbish and nonsense. There was no
right to rule and no right to be free, there was only the fact of power and the
circumstances which made that power a fact.”
Influence of Utilitarianism:
Utilitarianism, a British gift to political philosophy, represented a British reaction
against the value generalities about mutual rights and social contract and the
mystic idealism of the German political thinkers. It brought political theory back
from the abstractions of the Age of Reform to the level of concrete realities. The
utilitarian philosophers particularly Bentham and Austin rendered valuable service
to political thought. They were the thinkers who viewed society not from the ivory
tower of isolation but from close participation. They were not idealistic, they were
not utopian, they were not visionary and their philosophy was not transcendental.
They built a new theory of government according to which government was based
not on contract but on the habit of obedience of utility.

Achievements of Bentham:
Bentham was a true practical reformer and a great smasher of political evils in his
age. He took keen interest in the political life of his country. Bentham and his
followers are mainly responsible for the parliamentary reforms in England during
the nineteenth century like the Municipal Reform Act of 1835. The following
reforms are also due to Bentham’s suggestion:

1. Reform of law and legal procedure

2. University education became universal
3. Establishment of trade union

His theory of law established the point of view of analytic jurisprudence, which
was almost the only system of the subject generally known to English and
American lawyers throughout the nineteenth century.

Bentham contributed, sometimes on the request, sometimes as volunteer to the

revision of the legal codes of many countries. In 1811 he made a formal proposal
to President Madison to draw up a scientific code of law for the USA. Later he
made a similar offer to the Czar of Russia and to the Governor of Pennsylvania,
and in 1822 he appealed to “all nations professing opinions.” His confidence in his
ability to create a system of laws guaranteed to promote the greatest good of
greatest number was unbounded.

Bentham’s writings became popular in many countries. His doctrines were very
popular in Spain, Russia, and Iberian Peninsula and in several parts of South
America. His ideas were used by the leaders of the national movements that
defeated the Holy Alliance and created new nations on the ruins of the Spanish
and Turkish Empires. Such was the tremendous influence which Bentham
exercised in the History of Political Thought.
 Bentham’s Views on Rights and Duties

Bentham discarded natural rights to the individuals. But he did not kill the concept
of natural rights. Bentham totally denied the existence of natural law, holding that
law is the expression of the sovereign will in the shape of a command. This
sovereign was absolute and omnipotent against which individuals possessed no
natural rights nor did they have any legal right to show resistance against it.

Bentham was a passionate champion for the existence of freedom and equality but
he would not base them natural law. He supported for the existence of an
authority for the purpose to enforce rights by imposing penalties in case of
violation. Neither law of nature or natural rights could impose limitations on the
unlimited absolute powers of sovereign authority. The only conceivable imposition
to the authority could possibly be made by effective resistance by the determined
subjects.

It is queer to note that, though Bentham denied natural rights, yet he could not
disregard the right of private property. He advocated it for its preservation on the
basis of general utility. The happiness of the individual depended upon security,
subsistence, abundance and equality. Security includes liberty, safety and
property of the individual. Thus the legal reformer recognizes the right of
property. He prefers security to liberty.

Kinds of Rights:

1. Legal Rights:
A vivid and intelligible expression means a faculty of action sanctioned by the will
of a supreme law-maker in a political society.

2. Moral Rights:
It means vivid and intelligible expression than the other. Its sanction is the
opinion or feeling of a group of persons who cannot be precisely identified, but
who nevertheless are able to make their collective or over age will unmistakably
manifest.

3. Natural Rights:
It is a term commonly used without any definite meaning or any form of
usefulness. Nature is a vague and indefinite entity. It may indeed be used as
synonymous with God. In any other sense it denotes something that cannot be
thought as endowed with will, and is incapable of making law. “Natural Rights” is
a phrase that can contribute only confusion in a national system of political
science.

Kinds of Duties:

According to Bentham, duties of following kinds:

1. Political Duty:
It is determined by the penalty which a definitely known person i.e., a political
superior will inflict for the violation of certain rights.

2. Religious Duty:
It is determined by the punishment to be inflicted by a definitely known being i-e
the Creator.

3. Moral Duty:
It depends upon circumstances hardly certain and definite enough to be called
punishment, yet such as to create an unpleasant state of mind in the person
concerned, by putting in disagreeable relations with that infinite body of
individuals known as the community in general.

Bentham denied natural rights and natural law, yet he carried both these things in
his political philosophy. Sabine said, “The liberal elements in Bentham’s
Philosophy resided largely in its tacit premises. When he observed that one man is
worth just the same as another man or that in calculating the greatest happiness,
each person is ‘to count for one and no one more than one,’ he was obviously
borrowing the principle of equality from natural law.”

Bentham’s Views on Sovereignty and Government

Bentham empowered the sovereign with unlimited powers to legislate all and
everything. The supreme government authority, though not infinite must
unavoidably, be allowed to infinite unless limited by express convention. The only
possible restraint on the sovereign authority is his own anticipation of popular
resistance, based upon popular interests. Bentham firmly believed in the written
constitutions as guarantees of rational governments, but he was against any bill of
rights, limitations upon the powers to amend the constitution and all other devices
for restraining the supreme authority and regarded them unsound in theory and
worthless in practice. He said that rights emanated from the supreme authority of
the state, i-e, the sovereign. The sovereign was not bound to respect any
individual rights. A government was liberal and despotic according to the
arrangement of distribution and application of supreme power.

Rights of Resistance:
Bentham thought that a subject had no legal right to show resistance or revolt
against sovereign. Their legal duty is unconditioned obedience to the sovereign.
But a subject has a moral right and a moral duty to resist his sovereign if the
utility of resistance were greater than the evil of resistance. The exercise of his
unlimited powers by the sovereign would depend on considerations of utility.

Government:
Bentham believed that in the long run a representative democracy was a more
suitable form of government than any other to secure the greatest happiness of
the greatest number. The main thing is that the government should be an agency
of good, i-e, of happiness and not of evil. The extension, duration and intensity of
government power should be properly restricted and de-limited with a view to
secure the maximum of happiness and pleasures.

Bentham seems reluctant to agree with Blackstone’s characterization of the British

constitution as perfect, and suggested some amendments to it. He was for the
promulgation of universal manhood suffrage, annual parliaments and voting by
ballot. He disliked oth the monarchy and the House of Lords in Britain. A
republican government was best because it ensured efficiency, economy and
supremacy of the people and brought about the greatest good of the greatest
number on the basis of the identity of interests between the ruler and the ruled.
Democratic constitution is presented by him.

Theory of Punishment:
Bentham held that punishment should be preventive and corrective rather than
coercive and retaliatory. It should be calculated to prevent the spread of evil and
to secure the extension of good. Punishment must not be inflicted where it was
ineffective, groundless, needless or unprofitable. It should be obviously justifiable
and proportionate to the offence committed but it must be sufficient to secure its
ends. It ought to be able to prevent the offender from repeating the offence. It
should be individualized, qualitatively and quantitatively, to suit the individual
offender. The basic principles of punishment are:

1. Equable
2. Exemplary
3. Frugal of Pain
4. Remissible
5. Compensatory
6. Reformatory
7. Popular
8. Certain and not severe

According to Bentham, the only valid test of the adequacy of a punishment was its
ability to secure public welfare. He believed that the English criminal law was
inhuman. He was in favor of the reform of the criminal and the prisons and
suggested the building of his moral Panopticon, a wheel-shaped building for the
housing and proper observation of the criminals. He had a great faith in education
as he wanted to bring about adult franchise, a responsible executive, universal
education and a representative parliament.

John Stuart Mill

“If the caliber of writers is to be judged by their effect on policy, Mill must rank
high. As logician, economist and political philosopher he was regarded as a
prophet in his own age.” (John Bowle)

Introduction:
John Stuart Mill was born on May 20, 1806 in London. He was the eldest son of his
father James Mill who was the disciple of Bentham. J. S. Mill started the learning
of Greek language at the age of three and then Latin at the age of eight. As a
young boy of twelve, he had studied the philosophy of some of the great
philosophers, such as Plato, Herodotus, Homer, Aristotle and Thucydides. He also
learned French language and acquired a great fluency.

Mill was trained by his father and by John Austin. He was greatly influenced by
Bentham’s utilitarian philosophy and his programmes for reformation. But with the
passage pf time, many of the evils against which the early utilitarian had been
working hard, had ceased to exist and Benthamism began yielding before other
philosophic systems. The biological speculations of Darwin and Spencer and the
sociological researches of Auguste Comte stirred the passionate seekers of
learning and knowledge with the initiation of new currents of thought and Mill was
also influenced by them. He modified Bentham from ethical, sociological,
psychological, economic and political points of views.

The year of 1856 was a year of tribulations and chaos on account of Indian
freedom fighters and formidable aggressions of foreign masters. History of India
was written with Indian blood and in this crucial period of life and death, Mill
served the East India Company as an Examiner of Indian Correspondence. In 1858
he retired. Then he became the radical member of the Parliament and remained
almost in the limbo of oblivion. Mill died on 8th May, 1873 at Avignon.
He wrote following books:

1. A system of Logic
2. Some unsettled questions in Political Economy
3. Essay on Liberty
4. Consideration on Re-tentative Government
5. Utilitarianism
6. Thoughts on Parliamentary reforms
7. Subjection of Women
8. Principles of Political Economy
9. On the improvement of Administration of India during the last 30 Years (1858)

Importance of J. S. Mill in the History of Political Thought

J. S. Mill sought after vivid ideas with the ardency of a mystic, the patience and
arduous industry of a man of science. He encountered opponents with
magnanimity and generosity. In praise of his immortal ideas which will ever echo
in the corridors of time, it has been said, “No calculus can integrate the
innumerable pulses of knowledge and of thought that he had made to vibrate in
the minds of generation.”

Mill was the great prophet of sane Individualism or Liberalism. He insisted upon
the importance of human progress in its richest variety. He was one of the
stoutest champions of individual liberty. When we turn the pages of antiquity,
Plato distinctively appears to be the first feminist, passionately advocating the
cause of women to take part in the functions of the government. J. S. Mill too was
a great feminist and he practically pleaded their causes in the parliament. He
firmly believed for equality of women for the benefit and uplift of the state. Mill’s
impact of Feminism obviously appeared in the early 20th century when the
Feminist Movement fought for women freedom for participating in the functions of
the state.

Mill was one of the foremost individualists of all times. He ranked with Rousseau,
Jefferson and Milton as an ardent crusader of individual liberty. He humanized
utilitarian philosophy. He was a staunch enemy of despotism and monocracy and a
great supporter of democracy. He combined political liberalism with economic
socialism and approval of a common ownership in the raw materials of the globe
and an equal participation of all in the benefits of the combined labor. Mill’s
political philosophy contains following important facts:

1. His theory of liberty was his most important contribution to the history of
political philosophy.
2. He favored democracy as the best form of government as a result of adult
franchise.

3. He supported universal suffrage granting the right of voting to women also,

with a system of proportional system.

4. He opposed the secret ballot because it led to favoritism and corruption and
vigorously proposed for open ballot system.

5. He recommended a second chamber. He believed that the final legislative

authority should rest with the House of Commons, but at the same time he
assigned the task of drafting bills, before they come to the parliament for
consideration to the House of Lords.

6. Mill’s method was analytic. He believed that study of history combined with a
knowledge of human nature and a careful analysis of political phenomenon would
result in a gauging of tendencies of great value to legislators and statesmen.

7. Bentham thought of quantitative pleasures. Mill believed in qualitative

pleasures. He drew a distinction between several kinds of pleasures, considering
some as higher while others as lower.

Prof. Sabine said, “Mill’s ethics was important for liberalism because in effect it
abandoned egoism, assumed that social welfare is a matter of concern to all men
of goodwill, and regarded freedom, integrity, self-respect and personal distinction
as intrinsic goods apart from their contribution to happiness.”

Mill’s Views on Individual Liberty

J. S. Mill is universally regarded as a passionate advocate of liberty. He vigorously

whispered for imparting great importance to individual liberty and emphasized
that governmental interference in individual activity should e reduced to the
minimum. In the middle of the 19th century, due to the utilitarian reforms, the
scope of administrative activities increased. Parliament became the supreme and
unchallenged law-making authority, who enacted such laws which vividly
obstructed individual liberty. With the imposition of increasing state regulations,
human activities were suffocated and he firmly believed that liberty was a prime
factor for the development of the society. At that time, policy of Laissez fair was
being abandoned in favor of greater regulations by the state. The people became
politically conscious and demanded universal suffrage.

When Mill wrote, utilitarian liberalism was generally accepted in England. The
democratic efforts made by the earlier utilitarian had been largely successful and
political power had been extended to a considerable proportion of the population.
A large number of old evils and inequalities had been removed. In this process
some of the dangers of democracy became visible, and the tendency toward state
centralization led political theory to the scope of state activities and to the liberty
of the individual. The leader in the intellectual life of the period was J. S. Mill.

Mill’s essay on liberty which equals in eminence to Milton’s Aeropagitica was a

strong advocacy for the freedom of thought and expression with Miltonian favor
against legislative interference as well as against the pressure of the public
opinion. He recognized the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind of
freedom of opinion and freedom of expression of opinion. The limitations of the
power of government over individuals lose none of its importance when the
holders of power are regularly accountable to the community. In political
speculations the tyranny of the majority is now generally included among the evils
against which society requires to be on its guard.

Mill apprehended that the growth of democracy and the increasing legislative
powers of the state tended to reduce individuals to a common type and to swamp
them in the tyranny of collectivism. He believed that social progress could not be
achieved if each and every individual is imparted with fuller opportunity for free
development of his personality. Mill favored freedom of thought, speech and
action. He believed in toleration of opinions and unhampered freedom of
discussion. He had confidence that truth would definitely survive in the struggle of
ideas.

Freedom of the Individual:

Originality in conduct and thought and individuality are essentially basic features
efforting towards social welfare. When individuality is quelled by the law of a
monarch or an aristocrat, the evil of it may be counteracted by the custom of the
masses, but when the masses make the law of repression, custom unites with
legislation to confirm the evil. Individual development enriches the world by a
variety of characters. But he imposes two limitations on this liberty:

1. The individual was not at liberty to do any harm to his fellow beings.

2. He must share labors and sacrifices to secure the society or individuals against
harm.

Mill pleads for certain freedoms for the individual without which he cannot develop
his personality properly. These are:

a. Freedom of conscience
b. Liberty of thought and of its expression in speech and writing
c. Liberty of pursuits and tastes
d. Liberty of association
e. Liberty to adopt his own profession in life
f. Liberty of religion and morals

Mill laid great stress on liberty of thought and expression. Mill’s theory of liberty of
the individual is based upon three essential elements:

1. A strong plea for the importance of impulse and desire in the individual and
letting the individual follow his own impulses in actions which concern him alone.

2. Insistence on the view that spontaneity and individuality are essential elements
in individual and social welfare.

3. Revolt against the tyranny of custom, tradition or public opinion which might
hinder the expression and development of individuality.

Important points of Mill’s Individual Liberty:

1. Mill advocated that individual is sovereign over his body and mind. He must be
left free in all actions that concern himself alone. And society has no right to
impose any restraint over the individual because restraints as such in an evil and
retards the progress of the individuals.

2. Mill assumed that the activities of every individual are either self-regarding or
other-regarding. In the sphere of self-regarding activities may be included matters
which affect the agent only, having no concern with others e.g. gambling, drinking
etc.

3. Mill believed in the individualistic or atomistic conception of society. He says

that individual is not responsible to society for his actions in so far as they concern
the interest of himself and do no affect others.

4. Mill vigorously advocated for absolute and unfettered freedom of thought and
expression.

5. The freedom of action and association was to be limited by the condition that
none should jeopardize other’s rights and freedom.

Criticism:
Mill was bitterly criticized because of his certain inconsistencies on the doctrine of
liberty at the hands of Earnest Barker who said, “Mill was the prophet of an empty
liberty and an abstract individual.”

Mill’s theory was criticized on the following ground:

1. Mill assumed that the individual is sovereign over his body and mind. He should
be left free to act as he wished and society cannot impose any limitation on his
freedom. The soundness of this statement may be doubted. The sovereignty of
individual over himself is not a self-evident proposition. As Mill himself admits,
“there can be circumstances under which it may become legitimate for others to
intervene in a purely personal matter, e.g, when one is about to commit suicide,
surely no one will call it an attack upon one’s liberty.”

2. The bifurcation of human actions into two-self regarding and other regarding as
made by Mill is quite impracticable. No individual is an island in himself. There is
very little that one can do which does not affect other person. It is but natural and
each action of individual will definitely affect the others. Therefore it is difficult to
set apart a sphere of conduct which should be regarded exclusively the affair of
the individual concerned.

Karl Marx

“With Marx, socialism became international or cosmopolitan n scope in contrast to

the association or national industrialism of his predecessors.” (R. G. Gettell)

Introduction:
Karl Marx born in a prosperous family became a victim of misfortunes, a prey of
perpetual crushing poverty and a painfully sensitive to see the incredible
sufferings of humanity because of economic inequality, social disparity,
incalculable violence and mal-treatment towards laborers at the hands of feudal
lords and industrialists. He was born at Treves in Prussia on 5th May, 1818. His
aristocratic Jewish parents embraced Christianity when Karl Marx was only a child.
At the age of 17, he became a law student at Bonn University. In 1826, he left for
the University of Berlin. In 1843, he married Jenny, a member of petty nobility
who remained a faithful counterpart throughout his life.

In 1841, Karl Marx got his degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Jena
on the tropic of “The Difference between the Natural Philosophy of Democratus
and Epicurus.” He mixed with the revolutionaries and his radical thinking made
him suspicious which created obstacle in the security of employment as a
university teacher. Then he entered into the field of journalism. Karl Marx studied
Hegel very thoroughly and noted basic fallacies in his idealistic philosophy.

In early 1845, Karl Marx left Paris for Brussels. But before he left France, he got an
ever-lasting friendship with Friedrich Engel which brought many changes in his
life. Marx-Engel collaboration was one of the history’s most unique prominent and
enduring collaboration. Friedrich Engel became the friend, disciple and passionate
seeker of knowledge and a warm partner. In the summer of 1845, Friedrich took
Karl Marx to England and there he was introduced to the founders of the “German
Workers Educational Union” that had recently started in London. After remaining
for sometime in London, he again came back to Brussels. Marx had to flee from
one country to another on account of his conspiratorial activities. Then he steeled
down in London till his death.

“England has often been called the mother of Exiles”, but for Karl Marx, it became
the dwelling place of miseries and misfortunes. He experienced great distress and
poverty along with his big family. In spite of lot of misfortunes and hardships, Karl
Marx made endeavors relentlessly to unchain the working classes from the
bondage of capitalism. Karl Marx worked round the clock in the British Museum for
developing the economic theories of capital. Karl Marx wrote many pamphlets
defending himself and severely criticizing his opponents. He died as a wounded
soul on March 14, 1883. He led a life of full of pangs and despondency and faced
the hardships of worldly agency with determination, courage and perseverance. In
a speech over his grave in High ate Cemetery, Friedrich Engel declared that “his
name and works will live on through the centuries.”

Karl Marx was a great writer and will ever live on the pages of existence. He wrote
the following master works:

1. Communist Manifesto immortalized Karl Marx. He wrote this with the assistance
and help of his faithful friend Friedrich Engel. This is considered the Bible of the
Communism all over the world.
2. Das Kapital is considered as the foundation stone of communism.
3. Poverty of Philosophy
4. A Contribution to the critique of Political Economy
5. The Holy Family
6. Revolution and Counter Revolution

Political Philosophy of Karl Marx

Karl Marx is rightly called the Father of Modern Communism. The theory of
communism owes its birth to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel. According to the
theory of communism, the only practical thing was to acquire mastery over the
governing laws of society. Apart from this, Karl Marx and Engel wanted to know
the causes of economic changes in human society. They also wanted to explore
what further changes are required. They concluded that the changes in human
society were not the least accidental like changes in external nature. They worked
out a scientific theory of society based on the actual experience of men. Karl Marx
applied this theory to the society in which he lived mainly Capitalist Britain. He
was of the opinion that it was quite impossible to separate his economic theories
from historical and social theories. Marx attacked the existing capitalist
institutions. He did not believe in the essential goodness of man. He conceived of a
man more as an economic as a political animal.

Karl Marx borrowed from Hegel the apparatus of Dialectics but substituted matter
of Hegelian idea. He built his concept of dialectic materialism by interpreting
Hegel’s World Spirit as an economic force. Karl Marx held the view that the
meaning of history lay in the interpretation of material world. Karl Marx is
correctly divisible into three portions:

1. A purely philosophical section on dialectics

2. Pure economics
3. Historical materialism

Hegel’s influence over Karl Marx:

Karl Marx remains incomplete without the study of Hegel. It is true that Karl Marx
rejected the substance of Hegel’s political philosophy and it is a stark reality in
history that Karl Marx adopted the dialectical method developed by Hegel, as the
basis for his historical materialism. Hegel was of the view that history gained its
meaning from the interaction of ideas. There was a perennial struggle of ideas for
dominance over one another. Out of this struggle of ideas, new ideas emerged and
these new ideas corresponded more closely to the ultimate perfection of God
himself.

Every idea according to Hegel, is incomplete with inherent contradiction. The

incompleteness or inherent contradictions is every idea led naturally to its
opposite, which may be called anti-thesis. From the struggle between the two, i.e.
‘thesis’ and ‘anti-thesis’ there emerged the truth embraced by both which may be
called “synthesis”. This ‘synthesis’ becomes a new thesis and again there came an
‘anti-thesis’ and again emerged a ‘synthesis, and the process repeated itself in an
unending chain. Karl Marx opined that history unfolded according to a dialectical
plan. Here he fully agrees with Hegel. But he was of the view that ideas were not
the controlling factors. Ideas do not control the reality. These are the outcome of
material conditions.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel developed communism as an ardent opposing force
to capitalism. Appalling degradation of man in society and crushing poetry were
the real basis for the communist protest. The degradation was accompanied by
uncontrolled industrialization in the middle of the nineteenth century. The whole
Europe was engulfed in moral turpitude, degeneration and oppression which fully
justified the advent of communist’s bitterness and scorn against the capitalistic
structure of society. This caused great frustration among the masses and
consequently they became inquisitive to bring about social justice.

Karl Marx was a social scientist. As a social scientist, he made efforts to look at
this injustice quite impersonally. But these consequences according to Karl Marx
were essentially involved for the accumulation of capital. Karl Marx viewed that in
each and every society industry, “the wages paid to the workers are not the
equivalent of the full value they produce, but only equal to about half of this value
or even less. The rest of the value produced by the worker during his working day
is taken outright by his employer.”

“The truce and the false together in Karl Marx constitute one of the most
tremendously compelling forces that modern history has seen. For the power of
his message and for his influence upon the future movement of the communism,
Karl Marx can be sure of his place amongst great masters of political thought.”
(Wayper)

Proletarian Dictatorship

The Proletariat class comprises of the workers, laborers or wage-earners would

naturally be in the vast majority in every society. Karl Marx was of the view that it
is then quite natural that the dictatorship of the proletariat would be a democracy
of the majority. The “Communist Manifesto” also says “The first step in the
working class revolution is the raising of the proletariat to the position of the
ruling class, the victory of democracy. The proletarian movement is the conscious
movement of the immense majority in the interest of the immense majority.” Karl
Marx believed in the inevitability of this class struggle and the ultimate victory of
the proletariat after a successful bloody revolution, he did not like to leave this
development to the forces of economic evolution. He wanted that this revolution
should be precipitated through organization and energetic sophisticated action on
the part of workers. All the confronted titanic forces should be crushed by the
laborers.

The Marxian ideal was to bring about proletarian dictatorship through violent
means and not through peaceful evolution, resulting in the political and economic
domination by the proletarians. The proletarian revolution against the bourgeoisie
class in the state is directed towards the achievement of two ends:

1. Firstly, this proletarian revolution has to destroy the capitalist structure of

society. In destroying the capitalist stat it is very essential for the proletarian
revolution to destroy all the social, political, legal and other such institutions of
the capitalist state.

2. Secondly, the proletarian revolution has to replace all the social, political, legal
and other institutions with new institutions. These new institutions should be such
as it suits the needs of the proletarian class.

Karl Marx said, “Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the
revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this
also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the
revolutionary dictatorship of proletariat.” Lenin was the true follower of Karl Marx.
He was of the view that Communism is to be achieved in two stages. The first
stage of Communism follows immediately after the seizure of power by the
proletarian. In this stage of communism, society would not be a free society. This
stage of communism contains the blend of vestiges of old and bourgeoisie order.
In the old capitalist state, the capitalist employer and exploiter used to suppress
the minority and in the new stage of Communism or in the proletariat dictatorship
it would be proletariat class which would suppress the minority or the capitalist.
The Communist state differs from the capitalist state in two ways:

a) In it the majority i.e. the workers will expropriate the majority.

b) The revolutionary proletariat will abolish all classes and then disappear as a
class.

The proletarian dictatorship in the transitional period is not a fluctuating period of

“Super Revolutionary” deeds and decrease. On the contrary, the dictatorship of
the proletariat must be regarded as an entire historical epoch full of external
conflicts and civil wars. In the dictatorship of proletariat there is a constant
organizational work along with economic progress. In the dictatorship of the
proletariat, the proletariat will be given full opportunity to educate itself.

Lenin said, “Under the dictatorship of the proletariat we will have to re-educate
million of peasants and petty proprietors, hundreds of thousands of office workers
and bourgeoisie intellectuals to subordinate all these to proletarian state and to
proletarian leadership, to overcome their bourgeoisie habits and traditions, to
re-educate in a protracted struggle under the controlling auspices of the
dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletarians themselves, for they will not be
able themselves of own petty bourgeoisie prejudices at the first stroke as if by
magic, or at the behest of the Virgin Mary, or by a slogan, resolution or decree it
can be done only in the course of a long and difficult mass struggle against the
mass of petty bourgeoisie influence.”

The Communist holds that the proletarian dictatorship means the despotic rule of
the Communist minority. It will be a victory of democracy and not a despotism of a
minority. The proletariat class in power will not maintain the affairs of the state
with repression and violence. Laski was of the view that the dictatorship of the
proletariat means, not the anti-thesis of democracy, but the anti-thesis of the
dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It will be exercised through elected bodies and
subject to public opinion. Lenin also remarks in this regard, “Revolutionary
dictatorship of the proletariat is power won and maintained by the violence of the
proletariat against the bourgeoisie power that is unrestrained by any law.”

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not an end, but a means to an end the
creation of society in which the basic principle of life and social organization would
be, “from each according to his capacity, to each according to his needs.” The
dictatorship of the proletariat is transitory in nature. After the establishment of
the society, dictatorship of the proletariat will not remain. The state will wither
away. All functions of the state will administer themselves and administration will
be a matter of technical and scientific knowledge instead of exercise of political
will and authority. There will be an ideal society of the free and the equal without
any internal disruption and mutual dissension.

Karl Marx and Capitalism

Karl Marx devoted a great part of his life to the study of capitalism I order to
describe the capitalist method of production of his own age and for all ages to
come. By studying capitalism, Karl Marx wanted to know the guiding principle of
its change. Karl Marx studied the capitalism with missionary spirit to make a
scientific forecast on its development. The salient feature of the feudal production
was production for local consumption. In the age of feudalism, persons used to
produce for themselves and for their feudal lords. In those days, production was
meant for consumption. Gradually feudal units of production began to break up.
Profit became the only aim of production in the modern world. Production for
profit required two things, capitalists’ means of production, and the laborers
whose only chance of getting a livelihood was to sell his labor.

In this new system of production, there was a complete change. Now the laborers
produced things not for their personal use. On the contrary the production was
meant for the capitalist to sell for money. In this new system of production, things
were produced not for consumption but for sale in the market. Laborer received
his wages for his capitalist employer for his work and the capitalist employer
received profit. Karl Marx is of the view that profit arises in the course of
production. Sale of products does not produce profit.

According to Karl Marx, the exchange value of product depends upon the Labor
Time spent in its production. A product has a great exchange value if more human
labor has been put into its production. Labor time spent in producing labor power
means the time spent in producing the food, shelter, clothes and other such things
which are essential for the laborer maintenance. Nowadays a laborer is able to
produce in a day more than is necessary to his survival but he is paid by his
employer a wage commensurate with a subsistence level of existence. The
difference is called surplus value. In the modern capitalist society this surplus
value is appreciated by the capitalist employer.

Karl Marx is of the view that capitalists are permanent profit makers because they
appropriate surplus value. It is very true that there is always a difference between
the exchange value of a product produced by laborer and the value of labor power.
In simple terms this difference may be called surplus value. Karl Marx opined that
under capitalist structure of production in each and every factory and industry,
“the wages paid to the workers are not the equivalent of the full value they
produce, but only equal about half this value or even less. The rest of the value
produced by the worker during his working days is taken outright by his
employer.”

In the capitalist system of production, the capitalist always become greedy and
ambitious to increase the amount of surplus value which means more profit for
him. Lust for profit is the prime factor in the capitalist system of production. The
capitalist make more profit only by exploiting the laborer. According to Karl Marx
exploitation of the laborer is another salient feature of capitalism. This
exploitation results in class struggle. Class struggle is perennial and perpetual in
the capitalism. The worker is fighting for the existence of his life and he wanted to
avoid intimidation and ultimately class struggle starts. The laborer demands
higher wages and shorter hours of work for improving his position. On the other
hand, the capitalist wants to make more profits and hence there is a constant
clash and struggle between the capitalist and the laborer, which can never come
to an end so long as the capitalist system of production lasts.

Karl Marx is of the view that property in any form is not capital, unless it is used to
produce surplus value. The early accumulation of capital was very largely open
robbery. But there was another way also through which capital came into
existence. According to Karl Marx the primitive accumulation is the real origin of
capital. He ridicules the legend of men, moderate in food and drink who served
from their meager living. Karl Marx said, “This primitive accumulation plays in
political economy about the same part as original sin played in theology. Adam bit
the apple, and thereupon sin fell upon the human race. In times long gone by
there were town sorts of people; one, the diligent, intelligent and above all frugal
elite: the other lazy rascals, spending their substance, and more in riotous living.
Thus it came to pass that the former sort accumulated wealth and the latter sort
had a t last nothing to sell except their own skin. And from this original sin dates
the poverty of the great majority that, despite all its labor, has up to now nothing
to sell but itself and the wealth of the few that increases constantly although they
have long ceased to work.”

With the victory of the proletariat, the class struggle puts an end to this process
by ending capitalist system of production. Apart from class-struggle, there are
other obstructions to the smooth development of capitalism. In other words we
may say that these obstacles as a matter of fact are inherent in the capitalism. The
most important among these obstacles, is the economic crisis. This crisis creates a
great obstacle to the smooth course of capitalist development. Whenever
economic crisis occur, it checks the expansion of capital. Economic crisis do not
check the expansion of capital, but often led to the destruction of the capital
accumulated in past years. Karl Marx said, “In these crisis there broke out an
epidemic that, is all earlier epochs, would have become an absolutely the epidemic
of over-production.”
 Theory of State

“The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common
affairs of the bourgeoisie as a whole.” (Karl Marx)

State is thought of as parliament or some representative institution. Karl Marx

concluded that the development of the state had nothing to do with any form of
representative institutions. But he was of the view that state is a machine through
which the ruling class imposes its will on the majority. According to Karl Marx,
state is not meant for the promotion of the welfare of its people nor bestows any
right of political obligation and obedience but its coercion and that a class
coercion. The state acts as an agency of class coercion in the hands of dominant
economic class rather than an association of citizens is the pursuits of a common
purpose.

According to the Communist theory, the state is nothing but a tool of the dominant
class in society. Economic is the domineering factor which becomes the base of all
structures of the society. According to Aristotle the state came into birth for the
sake of life and state continues to exist for the sake of good life. According to
classical view, state is an institution meant for the proper development of the
personality of its each and every citizen. Laski said, “State strives to hold a just
balance between the different elements in society. It strives by its policy to effect
such an adjustment of the relationship between citizens and will enable each of
them to realize, if he so desires, the fullest implications of human personality.”

Karl Marx vividly differs from the classical views regarding state. He says the state
has never and can never aim at the common good of the community as a whole.
According to Communist Manifesto, the state is the executive committee of the
bourgeoisie. Karl Marx said, “State is nothing more than the form of organization
which the bourgeoisie necessarily adopt both for internal and external purpose for
the mutual guarantee of their property and interest.”

According to Karl Marx, there was no state in primitive society and as soon as
human society was formed it bifurcated into two classes. It became very essential
for the privileged class to have an armed force for the purpose to maintain the
privileges of the privileged class and secondly to protect the interests of the
privileged class. Friedrich Engel said, “This public force exists in every state, it
consists not merely of armed men, but of material appendages, prisons and
repressive institutions of all kind.” Naturally, the ruling class having the apparatus
of force and absolute rod of authority will always coerce upon the other classes of
society. Fear and intimidation of the ruling class constrained the people to subdue
for complete obedience and hence the Marxian state aims at crushing the
independent will of its subjects. Communists hold the views from the record of
history that the state exists only to help the capitalist in exploiting and
suppressing the laborers.

Karl Marx viewed state as a product of class antagonism. Lenin said, “Where,
when and to what extent, the state arises depends directly on which where and to
what extent, the class antagonism of a given society cannot be objectively
reconciled. And, conversely the existence of the state proves that class
antagonisms are irreconcilable.” Karl Marx was of the view that the state will be
able to wither away completely when society has realized the value, “From each
according to his ability: to each according to his needs.” Then there would be no
problem of production and its distribution. There would be no question of mine
and thine. Every one will work voluntarily according to his ability and capacity and
will get share according to his needs and requirements.

Classless Society:
Karl Marx was of the opinion that class struggle is perpetual and constant between
man and man and consequently man always fought for his own existence. It ends
only if the final and ultimate victory of the labor is achieved. This is a known factor
that in the capitalist structure of society, but not over the means of production and
its direction was vested in the hands of the capitalist. Proletariats in that society
are neglected people always living at the sweet mercy of capitalist. When violent
bloody revolution in the name of communism bring about complete and ultimate
victory to the proletarian revolutionaries, and the complete annihilation of the
aristocratic and capitalist class in the society ushers a new epoch of social equality
and economic parity. With the advent of proletarianism, a new system of legal,
economic, political and production world emerges out. In this new system, all the
functions of the government and the means as well as technique of production
were to be controlled by the society.

Friedrich Engel said, “Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more
completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians it
creates the power which under penalty of its own destruction is forced to
accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation
of the vast means of production already socialized into state property. It shows
itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political
power and turns the means of production into state property.” All the class
distinction in society would disappear, and with the disappearance of the class
distinctions in society, the class struggle would also come to an end. The
proletariat would use their power to eliminate private ownership of means of
production. As soon as private ownership of means of production is eliminated, all
class distinction would automatically vanish and society would become a stateless
and classless society.

Criticism:
1. Karl Marx’s theory of state stands against the classical theory of state.
According to classical view, the main reason for the existence of the state is the
promotion of the good of the community. On the contrary, Karl Marx’s state is a
machine by which one class exploits and suppresses the other.

2. Karl Marx’s views do no explain the exact nature of the state. It gives a wrong
conception. He says that the ruling class is the representative of an economic class
and the ruling class is always interested in pursuing its own interests. This is
incorrect view of Karl Marx. The example of medieval kings and emperors stand
against the theory of Karl Marx as they were not the representative of an
economic class and consciously pursuing the interests of their own class. On the
contrary, the ancient and medieval kings were the representatives of the whole
society.

3. Karl Marx’s theory of stat is quite applicable to the first half of the nineteenth
century, but for twentieth century it is quite inapplicable. In the first half of the
nineteenth century, Laissez-faire policy was predominant but today its forces are
no longer reliable. Now we live in an era of democratic socialist planning.
Nowadays state is meant for the promotion of the common good. Thus it can be
said that Karl Marx’s theory of state is not at all applicable to the states of modern
times.

4. The conception of Karl Marx that victory of proletariats over the capitalists
would result in the disappearance of class distinction is absolutely incorrect and
untrue for glaring reasons that he had created class distinction i.e. bourgeoisie
and proletariat, two great hostile camps and two prominent classes constantly
indulging in class struggle and warfare which culminated into oppression and
chaos.