If You Get Human Nature Wrong, the Whole Thing Breaks Down: Manifesto of the Communist Party (Marx-Engels, Vol. 50, pp. 415-434)

          There is one idea in this reading that smacked me across the face. To me, it explained why Communism failed:

          The Communists are distinguished from the other working class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality; 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to press through they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole (425, emphasis added).

          Matching up the right system to complement human nature has been a major theme of the first year readings. There is a lot of interesting stuff in the Manifesto. Marx's and Engels' thoughts on history and class struggle are intriguing. Their thoughts on morality and workers' rights are also interesting.

          But the entire theory breaks down because they miss the mark on human nature. A system that relies almost entirely on virtue will always fail. Humans do not generally "point out and bring to the front the common interests" of all.  Nor do they "always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole." No person will do this unless it is in their personal best interest to do this. You can't keep a rabbit in a box and you can't keep a snake in a cage. And you can't expect people to govern themselves based upon virtue alone. I won't dwell on this point any longer as it is a common theme of this blog.

          There is another idea that Adler raised in the study guide that is worth mentioning.  Marx and Engels predicted the collapse of capitalism by the ever widening gap between overproduction and underconsumption. Adler points out that this prediction may have come true if wages remained at a mere subsistence level. This is because if the laboring masses do not have the means to purchase the goods they are producing, then eventually the market will dry up and the whole system will collapse in on itself. But in the 130 years after Marx and Engels wrote the Manifesto, wages in capitalist countries kept up well enough to generally keep supply and demand in equilibrium.

          In recent years, though, wealth inequality in the US has increased. According to this CNN article, the top 1% now holds 38.6% of the nation's wealth. While the "bottom 90%" only holds 22.8% of the nation's total wealth.

          Is this wrong or bad for our society? I think it is.  And it goes deeper than the fact that 90% of the population may not be able to buy Teslas or put solar panels on their houses. Philosopher T.M. Scanlon gives four reasons why inequality leads to negative consequences for our society.  The basic premise is that if the rich use their money and influence to create rules to benefit themselves and their children to the political and economic exclusion of others, then there truly is no freedom of opportunity. This limits competition and creates an oligarchy that guts our Republican Democracy and limits the voices and opportunities of the masses and their children. Some have argued that the frustration from those whose voices have not been heard by our government has led to the so-called populist rise of our current President.

          While Engels and Marx completely missed the mark on the cure for class inequality, I think they may have correctly identified some flaws in capitalism. And I think some of those flaws are manifesting themselves in our society today. Wealth and class inequality is a problem. Communism is not the cure for this problem. The cure is a subject for great debate and too much for me to try to address in this post.

         
          

Is Virtue a Prerequisite to Republican Government: The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Federalist (American State Papers, Vol. 43, pp. 1-3, 11-20, 29-53, 62-66, 103-105, 153-156, 162-165, 205-218)

"But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself" (Publius, Federalist Number 51, Vol. 43, p. 163).

If government reflects our nature, what does that say about us? And does the continuation of our system of government require any subordination of our will to the public good? Or, can the system be set up in such a way through checks and balances to counteract ambition with ambition?

Some scholars such as J.G.A. Pocock and Gordon Wood have argued that the Founders abandoned the idea of virtue as a prerequisite to republican government. In his The Creation of the American Republic, 1776 - 1787, Wood argued that it was the Founders' position that "America would remain free not because of any quality in its citizens of spartan self-sacrifice to some nebulous public good, but in the last analysis because of the concern each individual would have in his own self-interest and personal freedom" (Wood 612). Wood acknowledged that the Founders continued to publicly promote virtue. But that the necessary preconditions for a virtuous citizenry did not exist.

Conversely, the late Richard Vetterli and Gary Bryner argued in their book In Search of the Republic that the Founding Fathers believed that "virtue" was a necessary condition of self government. "But of one thing they [the Founders] appear to have been certain: a citizenry lacking in virtue was not capable of sustaining a democratic republic" (Vetterli and Bryner 2). Moreover, they argued that "the Founders attempted to, and were ultimately successful, in responding to both traditions. They believed that republican virtue and liberal individualism -- self interest, properly understood -- are compatible and interdependent" (Vetterli and Bryner 8, emphasis in original).

Neither Hamilton nor Jefferson listed "virtue" per se as one of the first principles of republican government. In Federalist, No. 31, Hamilton listed his "primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasonings must depend." The maxims that related in his mind to ethics and politics included "that there cannot be an effect without a cause; that the means ought to be proportioned to the end; that every power ought to be commensurate with its object; that there ought to be no limitation of a power destined to effect a purpose which is itself incapable of limitation" (Vol. 43, p. 103).  While virtue is not expressly listed, some of these are value statements ("oughts") that arguably require some restraint for implementation.

Jefferson's "self-evident" truths do not necessarily comport with Hamilton's. Hamilton never mentioned the "truths" in the Federalist "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness" (Declaration of Independence, Vol. 43, p. 1).  Perhaps Hamilton didn't believe that these things are self-evident or even "true."

Hamilton and Jefferson were different men with different backgrounds and values. This is the case with each individual we collectively refer to as the "Founders" as well as our elected officials representing us today. Over the past two-hundred thirty years, our nation has managed (with the exception of the Civil War, the occasional riot, and awful inequality towards racial minorities and women) to overcome serious differences through the passage of laws by the legislative branch, the implementation of those laws by the executive branch, and the resolution of most disputes through the judiciary.  

I think the bottom line is that the Founders figured out that most people act in their own best interest notwithstanding what is in the nation's best interest.  And so they devised a system that blunted ambition with ambition. They created due process to make sure that similarly situated people are treated similarly. They created separation of powers to ensure that no branch of government could overwhelm another branch of government. They provided for the freedom of the press to ensure that government action is generally transparent. They created a legal system that punished bad behavior so that it would be in everyone's best interest to obey the law.  All these checks and balances presuppose that people will take what they can unless and until it is not in their best interest to do so.

Virtuous and fair conduct in the affairs of government is ideal and aspirational. And many elected officials, public servants, soldiers, and citizens put the needs of the country ahead of their own. But if we replaced checks and balances with a greater reliance on public virtue, I doubt it would stand up much longer.  Human nature includes elements of self-restraint and self-interest. But the latter usually overwhelms the former.

In sum, many of the Founders discovered that "[t]he republics of antiquity had failed because they had 'attempted to force the human character into distorted shapes.' The American republics, on the other hand, ... were built upon the realities of human nature. They were free and responsive to the people, framed so as to give 'fair play' to the actions of human nature, however unvirtuous" (Wood 611, quoting William Vans Murray, Political Sketches from 1787).  Looking back, while there are exceptions, our country has not been a beacon of virtue over the past two-hundred and thirty years. And yet it survives and flourishes. We have survived wars, civil war, racial and gender inequality, massive cultural and social differences, scandals at the highest levels of government down to local governments, and even Donald Trump (at least so far)!  President Trump may end up putting this issue to the ultimate test.

Under the system put in place by the Founders, there are incentives for people to act with virtue.  But only because it is in their own best interest to do so.   That our republic has survived over the past two-hundred and thirty years is a testament to the genius of our Founders. They devised a system of government that married the ambitions of the individual parts with the good of the whole. It's messy and imperfect, but it works.