Thomas Hobbes and the Rise of Merchant Capitalism

When I read the introduction to Leviathan, I was struck by the geography and time; Paris, 1651. I realize that countless authors look at this location and date and place Hobbes’ writing within the historical context of the English Civil War. So I will not waist my time repeating them.

This geography and time, France and Brittan 1600s, is important to me for a different reason—it was at this place and time that of merchant capitalism became the dominate mode of production.

The transition from feudalism to capitalism was multi-facetted and associated with many radical changes in the way that the majority of the Western European population lived. Generally, an economy shifts from feudal to capitalist relations when surplus ceases to be extracted by lords through coercion and begins to be extracted on a contractual basis.

Capitalism necessitates individualistic, acquisitive, maximizing behavior by most individuals within the economic system. Hobbes' understanding of the human nature and governance fits capitalist culture like a glove—understanding human behavior as individualistic, acquisitive and maximizing. This is evident in his comparisons between man-kind and creatures. Hobbes argues that man-kind is not like the animals because humans:

1) are “continually in competition for Honour and Dignity”

2) “…, whose consists of comparing himselfe with other men, can relish nothing but what is eminet.”

3) “Man is the most troublesome, when he is most at ease”

4) And that agreements among men can be achieved “by Covenant only, which is Artificiall: and therefore is no wonder if there be somewhat else required to make constant and lasting; which is a Common Power, to keep them in awe, and to direct their actions to the Common Benefit.”

I find his emphases on contracts, the new, dominate capitalist facilitator of surplus extraction particularly telling.

I realize that at this point some of you are probably thinking, Machiavelli wrote in Italy during an earlier time period, devoid of merchant capitalism, and came to similar conclusions about human nature so how can I justify there being any connection at all?

There are a few distinctions between Hobbes and Machiavelli that are interesting and back up my argument.

1) Hobbes focuses on contracts (associated with a capitalist mode), Machiavelli focuses on coercion (associated with a feudal mode)

2) Machiavelli focuses on maximization for the Prince(fuedal mode), Hobbes focuses on maximization for the subject(capitalist mode)