whole, therefore, as regards the powers of the State, the world has gone as Hobbes wished, after a
long liberal period during which, at least apparently, it was moving in the opposite direction.
Whatever may be the outcome of the present war, it seems evident that the functions of the State
must continue to increase, and that resistance to it must grow more and more difficult.
The reason that Hobbes gives for supporting the State, namely that it is the only alternative to
anarchy, is in the main a valid one. A State may, however, be so bad that temporary anarchy
seems preferable to its continuance, as in France in 1789 and in Russia in 1917. Moreover the
tendency of every government towards tyranny cannot be kept in check unless governments have
some fear of rebellion. Governments would be worse than they are if Hobbes's submissive attitude
were universally adopted by subjects. This is true in the political sphere, where governments will
try, if they can, to make themselves personally irremovable; it is true in the economic sphere,
where they will try to enrich themselves and their friends at the public expense; it is true in the
intellectual sphere, where they will suppress every new discovery or doctrine that seems to
menace their power. These are reasons for not thinking only of the risk of anarchy, but also of the
danger of injustice and ossification that is bound up with omnipotence in government.
The merits of Hobbes appear most clearly when he is contrasted with earlier political theorists. He
is completely free from superstition; he does not argue from what happened to Adam and Eve at
the time of the Fall. He is clear and logical; his ethics, right or wrong, is completely intelligible,
and does not involve the use of any dubious concepts. Apart from Machiavelli, who is much more
limited, he is the first really modern writer on political theory. Where he is wrong, he is wrong
from over-simplification, not because the basis of his thought is unreal and fantastic. For this
reason, he is still worth refuting.
Without criticizing Hobbes's metaphysics or ethics, there are two points to make against him. The
first is that he always considers the national interest as a whole, and assumes, tacitly, that the
major interests of all citizens are the same. He does not realize the importance of the clash
between different classes, which Marx makes the chief cause of social change. This is connected
with the assumption that the interests of a monarch are roughly identical with those of his sub-