SOCIAL CONTRACT

The social contract theory explains the origin of the state from a liberal perspective, viewing it as a product
of mutual agreement among individuals to fulfill certain social needs. Rooted in the mechanistic concept,
the theory sees the state as an artificial construct formed through deliberate effort, implying a shift from
a pre-state to a post-state life. It is not a natural institution but a man-made device intended to serve the
interests of all. The state, thus, is an expression of the ‘common will’.

Though early ideas of this theory appear in Eastern and Western ancient thought—like Kautilya’s
Arthashastra, Greek sophists, and Roman law—the theory was formally developed in Europe to replace
feudal values with capitalist ideals.

Exponents of the theory:

1. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679):
Hobbes, tutor to Charles II, justified absolute sovereign power in his work Leviathan (1651),
condemning the 1642 Civil War as a sign of societal breakdown. He believed that only absolute state
authority could ensure social order.

Hobbes viewed human nature as inherently selfish, driven by desires and passions rather than
reason. In the state of nature—lacking law and justice—life was marked by conflict, fear, and
insecurity, where "every man is enemy to every man" and life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and
short." With no authority, it was a state of anarchy where “might is right.”

Hobbes emphasized this was not historical fact, but a theoretical scenario showing the dangers of
the absence of government. Morality, duty, and law, he argued, only arise with the establishment of
a governing authority. Natural rights were merely powers used for self-preservation, and natural
law—based on prudence—motivated people to leave the anarchic state and form a government.

Hobbes Social Contract: Hobbes proposes a single social contract through which individuals leave
the state of nature and simultaneously create both society and the state. This contract reflects
the philosophical idea that government is based on the will of the people, not force.

➔ The contract is made among individuals—not between the people and the sovereign—since
the sovereign comes into existence only after the contract is formed.
➔ Each person surrenders their natural rights to a 'common power' to ensure peace and
security. This sovereign, whether an individual or assembly, holds absolute and supreme
authority, and the people become his subjects.
➔ The powers granted to the sovereign are irrevocable; reclaiming natural rights would lead
back to the anarchy of the state of nature. Therefore, Hobbes rejects the right to revolt or
revolution, as any repudiation of the contract would destroy both government and society.
➔ Sovereignty, in his view, is absolute, indivisible, and inalienable, creating unlimited political
obligation. However, Hobbes’s theory assumes a perfect sovereign—raising the question of
how flawed human beings can legitimately wield such absolute power in reality.
1
Page

www.chetanbharat.com Call / WhatsApp: 9779353345

 2. John Locke (1632-1704):
• Locke defended the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and supported constitutional monarchy. In his Two
Treatises of Civil Government (1690), he argued that people have the right to remove a monarch who
acts despotically. Though not against monarchy, he insisted it must be based on the consent of the
people.
• Unlike Hobbes, Locke described the state of nature as a state of peace, goodwill, and mutual
assistance, not of war. It is a state of liberty governed by natural law, which is the moral code within
human conscience. People are rational and treat others as ends, not merely as means. However,
since some may violate moral rules for self-interest, and in the absence of a common authority,
justice cannot be guaranteed.
• This inconvenience prompts people to form a civil or political society through a contract. According
to Locke, natural rights include life, liberty, and property, along with the right to judge and punish
violations of natural law. Upon entering political society, individuals give up this judicial power to the
community but retain their natural rights to life, liberty, and property.
Locke’s Social Contract: Locke addresses the issue of government formation by proposing a three-
stage contract:

1. Individuals unanimously agree to form a community and pool their natural powers to
protect rights.
2. The community, by majority vote, sets up legislative and other institutions.
3. Property owners consent—either directly or through representatives—to any taxation.

➔ This multi-stage theory differs from Hobbes, who sees society and state as forming together.
Locke distinguishes between society (formed first) and government (formed later). Thus, if
the government fails, society remains intact and can form a new government.
➔ Locke views government as a trust—bound by constitutional limits and subject to the
people's will. This rules out absolutism, as natural rights (life, liberty, property) are entrusted
by God and cannot be arbitrarily transferred. Government exists to protect these rights, not
to violate or redistribute them without consent.
➔ Unlike Hobbes, who advocates total surrender of liberty to ensure order, Locke supports
only partial and conditional surrender of rights—particularly the right to judge and punish—
which is given to the community. But this is on the condition that the government will
protect fundamental rights.
➔ This leads to two key implications: (a) Government must rule with the consent of the people,
who possess reason and moral judgment. (b) If a government violates its trust, people have
the right to overthrow it and establish a new one. This principle justified the Glorious
Revolution of 1688.
➔ Locke also emphasizes the right to property as fundamental. He argues that mixing one’s
labor with natural resources gives exclusive ownership, independent of others’ consent. His
theory of taxation reflects this—the government may only take what is necessary and only
with the owner's consent.
2
Page

www.chetanbharat.com Call / WhatsApp: 9779353345

 3. Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778):
Rousseau, though not writing with a specific political agenda, profoundly influenced literature and
revolutionary thought, especially the French Revolution (1789). In his Discourse on Inequality (1755), he
describes man in the state of nature as a 'noble savage'—equal, self-sufficient, and content.

However, with the rise of civilization, inequality emerged through the development of arts, sciences,
private property, and division of labour, leading to the formation of civil society. Rousseau initially sees
the state as a necessary evil caused by these inequalities—echoing ideas later found in Marx.

But in The Social Contract (1762), Rousseau revises this view. He now argues that the state can be
justified—not as a reflection of inequality but as a means to protect liberty. He begins the work with the
striking phrase: “Man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains.” While this suggests a loss of freedom
in the civil state, Rousseau shifts focus to justify authority through natural agreements, declaring that
no man has natural authority over another and might not make right. Thus, legitimate authority arises
only from agreement or consent.

Through the social contract, men trade their natural liberty (the unlimited right to pursue desires) for
civil liberty and secure ownership of property—making the loss of natural freedom worthwhile.
Rousseau's Social Contract: Rousseau, like Hobbes, proposes a single social contract, leading to
absolute, indivisible, and inalienable sovereignty. However, unlike Hobbes, Rousseau locates
sovereignty not in a ruler but in the people themselves, giving rise to the concept of ‘popular
sovereignty’. Individuals surrender their natural rights to the collective body (the general will), and
thus regain them in a stronger, collective form—everyone benefits as society protects its members.

➔ The ‘general will’, a unique contribution of Rousseau, becomes the true sovereign, laying the
foundation of modern democracy. It is inerrant, indivisible, and omnipotent, much like
Hobbes’s sovereign, but rooted in the collective interest rather than individual rule. While
Rousseau values liberty in the state of nature, he argues that changing conditions (population
growth and resource depletion) make natural liberty unsustainable. Hence, civil society is
formed to preserve freedom.
➔ According to Rousseau, true liberty is realized through law, which expresses the general will.
Obedience to general will is not a loss of freedom but its realization. Hence, when an individual
acts against his will under the general will, he is “forced to be free”, since it aligns his personal
interest with the common good.
➔ The general will must be distinguished from the particular (or actual) will, which reflects
selfish, short-term desires. The real will, in contrast, represents reason, stability, and the
common good. True freedom lies in overcoming actual will and following the real will. The
general will reconcile individual and collective interests, not by compromise but by expressing
the highest moral and civic ideals of each person.
➔ However, individuals can struggle to distinguish their real will from their actual will. This
conflict is resolved through the general will, which guides individuals beyond confusion.
Rousseau begins with a mechanistic and liberal view of the state but evolves toward an organic
and idealist one. Thus, while Rousseau is a brilliant and influential thinker, his ideas are also
3

complex and sometimes contradictory—praised and criticized by both liberals and idealists
Page

alike.

www.chetanbharat.com Call / WhatsApp: 9779353345

 Critical Analysis of Social Contract Theory:
The social contract theory of the origin of the state has been widely criticized as historically
inaccurate, logically flawed, and philosophically weak. Thinkers like David Hume rejected the
idea that government originated from a deliberate agreement among individuals. Instead, he
argued that governments evolved because they enforced justice, and people supported
authority for their own benefit. Hume also criticized the notion of tacit consent, saying that
cultural and habitual ties bind people to governments regardless of consent.

➢ There is no historical evidence supporting the idea of a pre-political "state of nature"

followed by a contract to form a government. The Mayflower Pact (1620) is sometimes
cited, but it was created by people already familiar with governance and not emerging
from a stateless condition.
➢ Historian Sir Henry Maine found that societies originally functioned on the basis of status,
not contract. Contracts only became relevant in the modern era with the rise of
individualism. Hence, projecting the modern idea of contract back to primitive society is
bad logic. Early humans were governed by customs and kinship structures, not deliberate
agreements.
➢ Philosophically, critics like Tom Paine challenged the idea that a past contract should bind
future generations, calling it a hindrance to progress. In the modern age, the idea of
freedom of contract has lost its earlier sacrosanct status.
➢ While the theory claims the state represents the general will and harmonizes individual
interests, in reality, powerful groups often claim to speak for society and exploit this
justification. The theory oversimplifies the complex issues of inequality and injustice in
capitalist societies.

Historically, the social contract theory emerged during the transition from feudalism to capitalism,
providing a theoretical foundation for the market-based society, where relations are formed by
contract rather than tradition. Thus, while flawed, the theory served a historical function in justifying
new social and political relations.
4
Page

www.chetanbharat.com Call / WhatsApp: 9779353345

5
Page

www.chetanbharat.com Call / WhatsApp: 9779353345

 LIBERALISM
Liberalism is a political principle that prioritizes individual liberty, especially freedom from
authoritarian state control. It originated in the late 17th century Western Europe to end feudal
privileges and support the emerging entrepreneurial class, helping drive social progress.
Liberalism is not a rigid ideology but an evolving intellectual movement that adapts to new ideas
and challenges. Its key beliefs include:

1. Human rationality: Individuals are rational and capable of contributing to personal and social
progress.
2. Harmony of interests: Individual self-interest and the common good are reconcilable.
3. Natural rights: Individuals possess inherent rights that no authority can violate.
4. State as an artificial creation: The state and civil society are created by individuals to serve
the common good and are legitimate only if they fulfill this function.
5. Primacy of procedure: Emphasis on correct processes (e.g., legal fairness) over outcomes.
6. Civil liberties: Freedom of thought, expression, association, movement, and legal protection
are vital. Any restrictions must ensure equal liberty for all.
7. Freedom of contract: Individuals must consent freely to obligations. The state acts as a neutral
enforcer but cannot uphold unjust or coercive contracts.
8. Public policy: It should arise from free bargaining among interest groups.

Liberalism sees market society as an ideal model, where the state’s role is limited to protecting
life and property, enforcing contracts, and providing minimal public services. The state is
viewed as a necessary evil, with the individual as the ultimate end and no room for absolute
state authority.
Key thinkers of Classical (or Negative) liberalism include John Locke (father of liberalism),
Adam Smith (father of economics), and Jeremy Bentham (founder of utilitarianism). They
advocated laissez-faire, or minimal state interference in the economy. In the 20th century,
Herbert Spencer reaffirmed these ideas by applying natural science principles to society.

John Stuart Mill (1806–73) sought to revise utilitarianism and laissez-faire principles to lay the
philosophical foundation for the welfare state. T.H. Green (1836–82) added a moral dimension
to liberalism, fully developing welfare state theory. This revised form of liberalism, known as
Positive liberalism, advocates a proactive role of the state in ensuring individuals live with
dignity.

Politically, liberalism supports democracy, which aims to meet the needs of common people.
Economically, it supports capitalism, but since capitalism often leads to economic inequality,
the welfare state serves to balance this by protecting ordinary people’s interests.
Streams of Liberal Thought:

1. Individualism:
• Views humans as rational beings deserving of dignity and independence.
• Rejects sacrificing individual interest for group benefit.
6

• Believes only individuals have rights and interests, not collective entities like the state or
Page

unions.

www.chetanbharat.com Call / WhatsApp: 9779353345

 • Favors a voluntary, market-based society with minimal taxation.
• Early proponents: John Locke and Adam Smith.
2. Utilitarianism:
• Seeks the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
• Founded by Jeremy Bentham, who believed human behavior is driven by the pursuit of
pleasure and avoidance of pain.
• Bentham emphasized quantity of pleasure, without distinguishing between types.
• J.S. Mill refined this by recognizing qualitative differences in pleasures and valuing individual
liberty above all.
• Mill also supported taxing the rich to benefit the poor, thus leaning utilitarianism toward
individualism and setting the stage for welfare liberalism.
Contribution of Liberalism:
Liberalism's key contribution lies in replacing traditionalism with modern rationalism,
asserting that social and economic relations should be based on reason, not tradition. This
shift, led by the emerging middle class (merchants and industrialists), resulted in the transition
from feudalism to capitalism in both economic and political spheres. However, this also
worsened the condition of the working class under classical liberalism.

Yet, since liberalism had rooted itself in reason, it logically led to socialism, which used the
same rational foundation to demand better conditions for workers. This dynamic belief in
reason allowed liberalism to evolve in response to new challenges, offering fresh insights into
freedom, equality, justice, democracy, and progress.

Today, liberalism is relevant in two major contexts:

1. As a theory of capitalism – where it faces internal contradictions that must be addressed

through human values.
2. As a theory of constitutionalism – where it supports limits on political power and upholds
enduring political values, ensuring its continued relevance and survival.

Critical Appraisal of Liberalism:

While liberalism is a dynamic ideology that has evolved over time, it has failed to solve the
deeper problems of humanity. Its persistent attachment to capitalism makes its newer
versions seem like strategies to protect or justify the capitalist system.

1. Liberalism's Bourgeois Character:

A. Originally, liberalism emerged to protect bourgeois (capitalist class) interests against
feudal powers.
B. In its early phase, it promoted laissez-faire, minimal state interference, and individual
freedom, especially to safeguard property rights, often at the cost of humanitarian
concerns (e.g., opposition to factory and housing reforms).
C. Even today, the right to property is sometimes defended even when it results in injustice
7

and inequality.
Page

www.chetanbharat.com Call / WhatsApp: 9779353345

 D. After the French Revolution, liberalism began to support state regulation and the welfare
state, not out of genuine concern for the working class, but to stabilize the capitalist
system by pacifying unrest through incremental reforms.
E. As a result, the welfare state is often alleged as an illusion of welfare, helping to
maintain bourgeois dominance.
2. Group Interest Imbalance:
A. Liberalism assumes that in a representative democracy, the state reconciles the
interests of all social groups. While this may be true in some contexts, it fails in
developing nations.
B. In such societies, groups differ in their awareness, organization, and influence.
C. For example, in India, business elites are well-organized and powerful, whereas
consumers are poorly organized, resulting in an imbalance in group interest
protection, despite decisions being made by elected institutions.
8
Page

www.chetanbharat.com Call / WhatsApp: 9779353345

 SOCIALISM
The meaning of socialism varies across thinkers and contexts, as noted by C.E.M. Joad who likened
it to a hat worn by everyone and thus lost its original shape. Despite varied interpretations, a basic
definition is needed. The Oxford English Dictionary defines socialism as a theory advocating
community ownership or control of the means of production (land, capital, property) administered
in the interest of all.

• Joseph Schumpeter offers a more detailed view, where public authority controls production
and decides what to produce and how to distribute it, replacing private ownership and
management.

Essence of Socialism:
It seeks an economic system where key instruments of production serve the public interest
under public ownership and control. It is based on the belief that true liberty and equality
require not just political rights but also economic reorganization, so citizens gain substantive
rights.

The diversity of socialist thought arises from different answers to how socialism should be
established, and these distinctions are essential to understanding socialism’s full scope.
Types of Socialism:

1. Evolutionary Socialism (also called Liberal or Democratic Socialism):

◆ Advocates gradual reform and compromise between capitalism and socialism.
◆ Operates through democratic means, parliamentary reform, and economic planning.
◆ Aims to secure economic rights of the working class within the existing system, believing in
harmony between classes.
◆ It aligns with liberalism and accepts partial changes toward socialism.
◆ Fabian socialism is a key example of this school.

2. Revolutionary Socialism (also called Marxian Socialism):

◆ Seeks a complete, radical transformation of society to replace capitalism entirely.
◆ Rejects compromise and class harmony; instead, it emphasizes class struggle.
◆ Advocates for the working class to overthrow capitalism through revolution.
◆ Its goal is a fully socialized economy and a classless society.
◆ It directly challenges the contradictions within capitalist society.
3. Fabian Socialism: Emerged in England in 1884 through the Fabian Society as a form of
evolutionary socialism, contrasting with Marx’s revolutionary approach. Named after Roman
general Fabius, known for slow but strategic victories—emphasizing gradual change over
sudden revolution.
➔ Did not rely solely on the working class—also aimed to influence the middle class. Sought
gradual social change through state ownership, democratic methods, trade unions,
9

education, and political engagement.

Page

www.chetanbharat.com Call / WhatsApp: 9779353345

 ➔ Advocated peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism using existing democratic
institutions. Viewed social reform as achievable through specialized knowledge, legislation,
and public administration.

Aims and Objectives of Fabianism:

1. Emancipation of Land & Industrial Capital: Abolish private ownership of land and industries.
Transfer wealth-producing resources to community ownership for equitable benefit.
2. Equality of Opportunity: Ensure rent and interest go to Labour, not idle classes. Achieve
economic and political equality with minimal intrusion on personal liberty.
3. Dissemination of Socialist Ideas: Promote socialist ethics and democratic methods to raise
public awareness and transform democracy into socialism.
4. Democratic & Gradual Reform: Sydney Webb emphasized that real change must be:
Democratic, gradual, morally acceptable, and constitutional.
5. Universal Education: Sydney Olivier argued for education as a tool of liberation. Called for
child and adult education including literature, art, clean environments, and public cultural
access to uplift the working class.

4. Guild Socialism: It emerged in England (1916–1926) as a socialist movement influenced by both

socialism and the medieval guild system. It aimed to combine Marxian class struggle with
workers' control over industries, while abolishing the wage system.

Key Features:

1. Class Struggle Focus – Retained the Marxian idea of class conflict.

2. Abolition of Wage System – Rejected wage labor and demanded worker representation in
industrial management.
3. Consumer Inclusion – Emphasizing the role of consumers alongside workers.
4. Reconstruction of the State – Rejected the old exploitative state, but proposed a new civic
organization to manage public life.

Critical Appraisal Socialism:

1. Lack of Coherent Doctrine: Evolutionary socialism exists in multiple forms (Fabianism,
revisionism, syndicalism, etc.) without a unified philosophy or consistent programme. While it
substitutes class cooperation for class conflict, and democracy for proletarian dictatorship, it fails
to show how these methods can effectively achieve socialist goals.
2. Weak Working-Class Base: Some forms (like guild socialism) are working-class based, but others
(e.g., Fabian socialism) are middle-class intellectual movements, disconnected from the actual
proletariat.
3. Legitimization of the Bourgeois State: Evolutionary socialism adapts to capitalism and liberal
democracy, offering a safety valve to reduce discontent without changing the core capitalist
10

structure. It ends up maintaining the market system with slight reforms rather than replacing it.
Page

www.chetanbharat.com Call / WhatsApp: 9779353345

 4. Market Socialism & Its Failure: To boost efficiency, even socialist regimes adopted market
socialism (Yugoslavia, Hungary, China, etc.), blending market principles with socialism. But this
approach failed to resolve scarcity, led to bureaucratic corruption, and eventually contributed to
the collapse of socialist regimes.

Conclusion
Despite its limitations, evolutionary socialism serves as a useful tool to lessen the harsh effects of
capitalism, and is preferable to unregulated capitalism with unchecked competition. It enables
common people to resist capitalist exploitation from within the system, though it often fails to fully
transform capitalism due to a lack of strong and organized public pressure.

The capitalist class sustains itself by offering minor concessions, creating a false sense of "common
welfare", while social contradictions remain unresolved. When the exploited classes become aware
of these contradictions and organize themselves, meaningful systemic change becomes possible.

Even Marxism requires the rise of class consciousness and organization among the oppressed for
revolution. In modern, industrialized societies, armed revolution is less feasible; thus, democratic
and constitutional means can be effective if the exploited are alert, unified, and active.

A democratic-socialist blend is now seen as not just possible, but logical and inevitable. If democracy
is real, it must fulfill the socialist aspirations of the common people.
11
Page

www.chetanbharat.com Call / WhatsApp: 9779353345