In Transcending the Illusions of Marxism, I denied the bridge that Marxism attempts to intervene in the world. Marxism, known as "science," is merely an ideology, and thus must be transcended. Social contract theory, infused with humanism, evokes the brilliance of humanity, but also contains excessive elements of fantasy. Therefore, when faced with a socially rich social contract theory, we do not fall into illusions but rather become intoxicated by it, fantasizing about the re-emergence of the general will. However, while the social contract is appealing, one must not overindulge!
Social Contract Theory in the U.S. Constitution#
The U.S. Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776. As the first experimental field of modern natural law thought, the Declaration highly summarizes and reshapes the ideas of Enlightenment thinkers.
In the Declaration, it begins with a Lockean notion of inherent human rights.
"All men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness;"
Are people equal at birth? There is more than one answer. However, the American founders acknowledged that people are equal. They affirmed the existence of individual natural rights. Precisely because individual natural rights are inalienable, regimes that rely on force to infringe upon the rights of the people are unjust. It is evident that no secular authority is higher than that of God.
This denies the legitimacy of British rule over America and provides a basis for American independence in "higher law." From then on, the justice and law represented by God are always primary, while secular law and authority are always secondary. Thus, later, the judiciary could review the legislation of legislative bodies, because even Congress does not hold supreme power; supreme power belongs only to the people. No one has the authority or qualification to represent the people, just as no one can deprive them of the natural rights endowed by God.
Then comes social contract theory. People possess natural rights endowed by God and could exercise these rights freely in the world. However, due to the limited nature of resources and the emergence of private property, the originally peaceful state of nature was disrupted. People had no choice but to unite, promising to give up some or all of their rights, voluntarily residing under the rationality and law of the community. They sought a freedom under the law.
Governments are instituted to secure these rights, and deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That is, the people do not crawl beneath power but rather submit to the general will of the community. The manifestation of the general will is the good laws enacted by elected institutions according to proper procedures.
Because the rights of the people give rise to state power, when state power is not under the control of the people, the people have the right and the obligation to overthrow the government. The right to resist in the U.S. Constitution is precisely this.
When a government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute 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.
Criticism of Social Contract Theory#
Social contract theory is the program of American independence and the criterion for its institutional perfection. It provides a new hope for those who do not want to be slaves under tyranny, thus gaining great reputation and recognition. Because of this, it has also received various criticisms.
- Western social contract theory, based on the fictitious doctrine of the state of nature and abstract theories of human nature, views popular sovereignty as the expression of the common will of all members of society beyond class, and is therefore idealistic and unscientific.
- Maine argues that the individuals in Rousseau's social contract theory are all people in a hypothetical state of nature, stripped of historical characteristics. "We need not waste time analyzing the philosophy of politics, art, education, ethics, and social relations built on a foundation of a natural state."
- Dike points out that the error of social contract theory lies in: first, starting from isolated individuals, which does not conform to human social nature. Second, since humans are social, there cannot be inherent rights that exist outside of society; in terms of social rights and obligations, the latter precedes the former.
- The contradiction of social contract theory becomes a fact: the lives of citizens and the political community are used by those dedicated to political liberation to maintain selfish rights. Members of civil society, the selfish, become the end, the "real person," while citizens are reduced to means and servants.
The first three viewpoints seek the reasons for the errors of social contract theory. In short, they believe social contract theory is not objective and does not conform to the realities claimed by their respective theories. The last viewpoint does not seek the reasons for the errors but points out its contradictions based on the results caused by social contract theory.
Evaluation of Criticism of Social Contract Theory#
The reason social contract theory has gained such high recognition is that it articulates the voices of the persecuted. Its proposal of establishing a social contract is merely an intuitive understanding of the relationship between rights and power. The natural law school is more like proposing a new morality, an ideal situation.
The later new natural law school also turned to procedural justice due to the subjectivity of the moral concepts of the natural law school, gaining reliance on justice in procedure.
Critique of Social Contract Theory by Marxists#
Those who criticize social contract theory as idealistic are actually standing from the so-called Marxist position. Marxism is known for its objective materialism. Its so-called materialism, along with the newly developed terms like surplus value and historical materialism, is merely an attempt to conduct an objective analysis of the world.
Conducting objective analysis from an objective perspective is not necessarily objective, and conducting subjective analysis from a subjective perspective is not necessarily subjective.
Among so many objective dimensions, economic factors may be very important, but evaluating their importance relative to other political and cultural factors is entirely an objective judgment. The value of Marxism lies not in the so-called objective conclusions derived from its so-called objective analysis, but in the importance of the objective perspective. As for whether material determines consciousness, that is an objective question. We can certainly consider the correctness of one answer, but our understanding may not be objective.
Returning to viewpoint one, it argues that social contract theory and the natural law thought it relies on are fictitious and trans-class, and therefore idealistic. However, when analyzing a thing or theory, Marxists should stand outside the thing and analyze the role of social contract theory in human society from a materialistic perspective. Instead of standing within the thing and denying it because their methods are inconsistent with the internal structure of the thing. Social contract theory may be subjective for the Enlightenment thinkers, but it is not necessarily so for Marxists, nor does it need to be.
In other words, if any viewpoint is condemned as idealistic, that in itself is not materialistic. As for whether Marxists believe social contract theory is merely an effect of social consciousness, that is an internal analysis of Marxism. True materialism holds that everything is objective and does not necessarily require economic base reasoning to consider issues. The truth of things is right there, and even my materialistic understanding may be an illusion.
From Historical Jurisprudence to Social Jurisprudence#
The second viewpoint emphasizes the historical reasons for the generation of law. That is, the historical reasons for the formation of state systems and institutions, including government. The third viewpoint emphasizes the influence of human sociality on law.
What they deny is not the spirit of natural law but the method of discussing law. Historical jurisprudence believes that the role of history should be considered, while social jurisprudence believes that the role of society should be considered.
In short, whether from historical jurisprudence or later economic analysis... all attempt to analyze the origins of law and the state using a more objective method and perspective. This is largely inspired and urged by natural sciences. Furthermore, previous scholars have already discussed this; if not from a new perspective, even the dung beetle rolling dung lacks novelty.
The Reasonableness of Social Contract Theory#
Social Contract Theory and Theocracy#
The natural law school unfolds natural rights from a moral perspective and thus forms a social contract. Only then do the state and law come into being. Its argument for natural rights is almost a belief or faith. As seen in the Declaration of Independence, "the rights endowed by their Creator" hint at this.
It is not merely relying on the thoughts of the natural law school that leads people to believe in inherent human rights. The long-standing medieval period in Europe laid the groundwork for theocratic thought. Whether in the church or monarchy, they are merely people under God. The idea of inherent human rights does not require proof; it is a natural matter. On the contrary, natural law thought is another interpretation of faith in God. The development of commerce and industry needs to avoid interference from monarchical theocracy, and the people's faith in God also needs to be reattached. Social contract theory emerged accordingly.
Thus, "In God We Trust" is printed on American currency; witnesses must swear on the Bible. The medieval theocratic thought, which once plunged Europe into darkness, played a significant role in the rise of democratic systems.
Simplicity of Social Contract Theory#
Throughout history, thinkers are as numerous as stars, but those who truly have a significant impact on humanity must possess one characteristic—simplicity. Profound thoughts may deter people, while simple thoughts can be praised. For a thought to have a huge impact on society, it must be understood by the mainstream of the times.
The social contract, in simple terms, is a contract with the state. It places the state and the people on an equal footing. The state seeks something from the people, and the people seek something from the state. It is merely a transaction.
Whether Marxists or various schools of jurisprudence, they all claim that the social contract theory is unreliable. Using almost imaginary reasoning, without conducting experiments or social surveys, it has instead become the basis for the American and French revolutions, ushering the entire world into an era of democratization. What a great achievement! Unfortunately, it was resolved by a few declarative thoughts from the proponents of natural law.
In fact, a statement by Rousseau encapsulates this well:
"The most important law of all is not inscribed on marble or bronze, but is engraved in the hearts of citizens."
As long as the people uphold this belief, it becomes the greatest objective fact. No amount of criticism is merely impotent jealousy. Because "we hold these truths to be self-evident."
"We hold" is the truth; if the people believe in social contract theory, it will lead everyone to consciously accept the adjustments of natural law. When people solve political issues through law, it will enhance the authority of the law. In other words, believing in social contract theory itself will foster a society of social contracts. This is something Marxists cannot evaluate.
Critique of Social Contract Theory in This Article#
Viewpoint four points out the alienation of society after the social contract. The purpose of establishing a social contract is to create a society where everyone is equal, secure, and free, but the general will of the community is always usurped. Even social contract theory has become an accomplice. The laws of the community have become tools for capital to control the people.
We do not want to deny the ideals of social contract theory, but it is merely a signpost, only able to point us in the right direction. From a series of failures, we gradually realize that besides the goals of the social contract, we must have a means to maintain the boundaries of individual freedom even after signing the contract.
The Governed Did Not Consent#
Due to certain unknowable factors, we are born on this land, using ancient pictographs, with yellow faces and black pupils. From the moment we are born, we possess various identities: son, grandson, citizen. We may live in narrow apartments in cities or in desolate fields in the countryside, and none of this is a matter of our choice; it is merely our chosen fate.
Even as an American, should one obey a social contract that was never signed just because the Founding Fathers and the people of that time relinquished their rights?
Many people benefit from obeying the law and thus believe they should obey it. I cannot help but ask, if rape brings pleasure, does that count as receiving a benefit, and therefore should one also obey?
Thus, as a governed individual, the rulers govern me without my consent.
The Ability to Withdraw from the Contract#
Even if signing a social contract is an implicit choice, a contract that cannot be withdrawn is essentially bullying of the weak by the strong, a violation of the individual by the group.
If an individual lacks the ability to withdraw from the social contract, then this contract is absolutely unequal. Equality refers to the respect between both parties of the contract; fundamentally, it is about the balance of power between the state and the individual. If the powers of the two are not equal, the individual will always be bullied. The ability to withdraw from the contract is the most basic ability in the power comparison between the state and the individual. If one does not even have the ability to withdraw, then the individual has completely become a slave.
Viewpoint four points out the distortion of individuals after signing the social contract, which can be said to be influenced by capital, but on the other hand, it is also that individuals have lost the right to resist capital.
The Declaration of Independence adopts a Lockean social contract theory, where citizens only relinquish a portion of their rights, retaining the rest. Rousseau's social contract theory, however, advocates for the relinquishment of all rights. He believes that only in this way can true equality be maintained after the transfer of power. If, as Rousseau claims, relinquishing all rights is also a choice, then total relinquishment is like a sharp curved sword without a hilt; no social system can control it. Lockean democracy retains the tradition of British conservatism.
Thus, retaining individual rights is a relatively feasible approach. Of course, according to Rousseau's social contract, everyone must relinquish all rights, which lacks the legitimacy of consent from the governed.
Awakening from the Social Contract#
I once was forced to listen to a lecture by someone who said, "The legitimacy of our regime does not come from the social contract; that is a Western concept. Our legitimacy comes from rescuing the people from the crisis of national extinction, thus justifying our rule."
I have never seen such a shameless person. Even if one once heroically saved the beauty, they not only want the beauty to obey but also want her descendants to continue to obey. This insidious intent has found its legitimacy in rule—"shamelessness."
Rescuing the people from national extinction neither gained the consent of the governed nor allowed the people to withdraw from the social contract, even weakening the people's ability to withdraw from the social contract, which is the same flaw as social contract theory.
In this sense, whether democratic or autocratic, both will be trampled as the people's ability to withdraw from the social contract diminishes. Those who advocate for shedding blood once for future generations to enjoy democracy do not realize what they are truly resisting.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." — Jefferson
Although Jefferson's viewpoint is somewhat bloody, he points out the infinity of seeking freedom.
In essence, the people are not resisting a particular person or party; they are not even resisting. Rather, they are constantly maintaining the balance between the individual and the group, continuously defending the boundaries of individual freedom.
Therefore, as an individualist, my proposed solution is to withdraw from the community or to maintain the ability to withdraw. The so-called ability to withdraw actually includes the ability to live independently. When a person can choose to live independently or join a group, they cast a vote of negation. Of course, maintaining the strength of the individual against the group is a significant issue, and it is not urgent.
Conclusion#
Marxists have their ideal society, and the natural law school, Rousseau, and others also have their ideal society. We also have our ideal society. However, our ideal society is from a more individual-centered perspective. While social contract theory is good, its means are not effective. We need to find a more effective way to achieve a balance between the individual and the group.
[[2023-09-04]]