Hobbes and Locke the precursors of contractualist theories
Introduction
Hobbes and Locke are two of the precursors of contractualist theories. Although both of the contract as an element of the social order, the depositary of the delegate power varies greatly between the two authors, is resorted to the contract. Thomas Hobbes, through his well -known appointment, man is a wolf for man, already anticipates that the absolute freedom enjoyed by man in a state of nature leads to a permanent state of war as a result of the manifestation of Conatus.
Developing
Although there is a natural law that dictates what must be done, for men, by not understanding the consequences of their actions, it is not possible to submit to it, it is because of this approach that the State seems necessary. The will appears as a repressive element of this Conatus, however, Hobbes considers that as it is impossible for the wills of many men to be coordinable, the will of the State must be literally one, to which the rest submit. The origin of the State is in that submission pact. This state, an institution created by the man, is formed when a deliberate assembly is constituted that aims to designate a person who will be recipient of said submission. Thus, the State, through that pact, is shown as a mechanism of collective action. In this way, through submission to public and indivisible power, man renounces his freedom in Aristotelian sense, obtaining as a benefit the existence of sufficient power that guarantees his protection.
John Locke considers, unlike Thomas, that the man enjoying in a state of nature of a perfect freedom, reason and right will be the norms that his behavior governs. However, Locke considers that such a situation has never been given, since an element that monitors compliance is necessary. Since Locke considers that this surveillance is everyone’s task, and that, therefore, there is no one destined to exercise authority, every man in society signs a pact by which he submits to elementary norms, a pact that is not after thestate of nature, but compatible with him. Locke affirms that the natural relationship between son and father facilitates this work, while creating a habit of submission.
The difference is that in political society, unlike the family, renounces its decision and defense capacity. This power delegation constitutes the distinctive feature of a political society and avoids the dire consequences derived from being a judge and part, typical of the state of nature. Unlike Hobbes, he does not consider the monarchy for civil society valid, since he submits everyone but one;This society will undergo the opinion of the majority and must obey the established authority. However, and since no one is born by nature, the community reserves the right to modify the agreement if the ends are not complying with. These purposes gather the conservation of life, freedom, possessions, peace and security, and an effective division of powers will be their guarantee.
Although fascism and national socialism start from a different situation once World War I (Italy between the victors and Germany among the defeated), in the two we can find a crime climate ended the conflict: the marginalization of the territorial claims of Italy will beHardly criticized (for example, through the Carnaro letter), while in Germany, due to its defeat and subject to the Versailles treaty, an boom of political extremism will be experienced.
Also in both regimes this discontent will be channeled through a political figure full of leadership: Hitler in Germany and Mussolini in Italy;Leaders who will have, in turn, with two theoretical ones who will assume the work of providing each of the movements with content: Rosenberg in the German and Gentile case in the Italian. Thus, the Italian fascist state that Gentile defines in his works is considered totalitarian (term assumed by Mussolini himself) and his role will be eminently more relevant than the one who fulfills the party, since he is entrusted to the classic Hegelian ethical mission. On the contrary, the German state, subordinate to the hegemony of the party, fulfilled a biological, ethnicist and cultural function.
They do have in common their positioning against revolutionary ideas (despite the socialist origin of Musolinni), individualistic or liberals, and see in their respective states a tool for the defense of Volk, in the German case, and of the statist corporatism, inThe Italian case. In this sense, although the party was key in both examples for structuring the movement, the Italians achieved a purely interclassist support (high bourgeoisie, middle class and ex -combatants), while the exclusive vision of the national socialist bloc led more difficult alliances, a fact that a fact that was a fact that a fact that was a fact that a fact that a fact that a fact that was a factIn a way, explain the different papers that will fulfill party and state in each of the regimes.
conclusion
On the other hand, and despite the broad social support with which they both had, the Germans also did not get the support of the intellectual layers, support that the Italian regime did thanks thanks the intermediation of Gentile. One of the key similarities is the resource to myth in the sense of Sorel: a racial myth in the German and national case in Italian. From the German conception of myth, in turn, a fundamental difference follows: unlike national socialism, fascism does not assume racial and much less anti-Semitic issues, at least until the collaboration of Hitler-Mussolini.
Finally, they present similarities in the conflicting relationship with the Church that, despite certain agreements in Italy, would entail a hegemony of antirelligious positions. However, we can find, also in both systems, with much of the ritualism and liturgy of religious contexts, ritualism that will be reflected in their congresses and other interventions.
Leave feedback