The Diseased Bodies Politic
The diseased bodies politic represented the inception of Communist and Fascist thought, giving rise to radical political ideologies, and influencing the regimes of nefarious world leaders along the way. Political theorists historically have and remain influenced by Platonism and Athenian democracy, their interpretations of authority and society greatly differ, expanding into diverse realms of thought far removed from the initial conception of polity; these are known as the diseased bodies politic. Historian Alan Ryan writes that “[t]he institutionalization of thought that ‘some are free’ is the Greek polis,” adding that this limited politically active citizenship to property-owning males, (Ryan, A., p. 667). Marx would reject this elitist perspective, calling for the annihilation of private property, (Marx, K., p. 18). The diseased bodies politic represent the disbursement and mutation of Plato’s political theory to the limits of catastrophe, though each writer held reverence for their distinct view. While each political era was built upon its former state, the diseased bodies politic fabricated revolutionary ideas far removed from traditional political thought first expressed in Ancient Greece, (Ryan, A., p. 5).
Georg Willhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) marked the introduction of a bridge between the diseased bodies politic and the early modern body politic, (Ryan, A., p. 655). Hegelian thought diverged from Hobbesian thought in that freedom was not achievable without a state to regulate the actions of its subjects, (Ryan, A., p. 663). Hegel waged against Rousseau for his “belief that states are founded on contracts,” Hegel’s views were that it was possible to overcome the uncertainty of life by utilizing logic to understand the nature of the way things are, and believed that “the intelligibility of the world [was not] accidental,” (Ryan, A., pp. 656-657, 776). Hegel claimed that his philosophy was “theodicy,” and that history could not happen with God, (Ryan, A., p.669). Hegel held distinct views on the acquisition of private property, unlike that of Marx, though Marx remained influenced by Hegelian thought, (Ryan, A., p. 680). Despite critical scholars who claim Hegel to be atheist, he was a conventional Lutheran, (Ryan, A. p. 657). Historian Alan Ryan notes that despite Hegel’s Lutheran faith, he “wished to show without relying on revelation or mystical intuition, that human beings are at home in the world, that the world is our world. We are not thrown into a meaningless place,” p. 657). Hegel believed in a rational order of public affairs; and held an interest in economics, politics, and culture; these positions are reflected in his work “The Philosophy of the Right,” (Ryan, A. p. 655). Hegel defined one’s superiority as marked by avoidance of the material world and its burden; this included overlooking the fear of death, (Ryan, A. p.660). It was Hegelian thought that would influence further disease in the body politic, giving rise to Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche. Hegelian thought was contributory to the rise of fascism and the Nazi party, whereby like Immanuel Kant, Hegel believed that “Jewish Sabbatarianism and Jewish dietary laws made Jews only dubious members of a modern civil society,” (Ryan, A., p. 689).
Karl Marx (1818-1883) was influenced by Hegel, yet held no theory about political authority, (Ryan, A., p. 770). According to historian Alan Ryan, Marx claimed that he had “found Hegel standing on his head and had set him on his feet,” admiring Hegel’s “grotesque and rocky melody,” (Ryan, A., pp. 775-776). Marx differed in his beliefs that he set forth the remedy for uncertainty and isolation as revolution, (Ryan, A., p. 776). Marx’s writings on classism were strictly binary, a false dichotomy between slave and free, (Ryan, A., p. 795). Despite contemporary revolutionaries paying homage to Communist ideology, Karl “Marx did not provide a fully developed theory of revolution,” writes Ryan, (Ryan, A. p. 800). Marx considered his own thoughts better placed in social theory, viewing law and order as temporal as the state itself, (Ryan, A. p. 770). Unlike Hegel, Marx prophesied a universal utopian future that all would reach fulfillment, yet those he influenced utilized this idealist reality to attain personal power, exploiting the working class, (Ryan, A., p. 769). Historian Alan Ryan writes that Karl Marx’s most outlandish claim about politics was that “in a fully socialized economy there would be no politics;” Marxism holds that the administration is necessary and that politics are not, (Ryan, A., pp. 770-771). Karl Marx believed the source of all suffering was exploitive Capitalism, dedicating his life to the writing of a personal vague utopia, void of tradition, (Ryan, A., p. 771). Conversely, Marx was born and raised Jewish, however, after the Napoleonic Wars his family changed their name (from Levi to Marx), while his father became a Lutheran in order to practice law under the anti-Semitic Prussian legislation, (Ryan, A., p. 772). It is likely that Marx saw aspects of his own father in Hegel, as both were Lutherans willing to deviate from the Christian doctrine. Institutional religion no doubt had an immense effect on the young mind of Karl Marx, and contributed to his hatred of organized morality and capitalism.
Despite Marx’s well-educated upbringing, he held a limited view of politics and philosophy, restricted by his own misunderstandings and experiences (Ryan, A., p. 772). In an effort to support his own theories, Marx sought a job as an unsuccessful columnist, where he fantasized of revolution (Marx, K., p. 772). In his commissioned work, the Communist Manifesto, Marx declared that the totality of his political philosophy could “summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property,” (Marx, K., p. 18). This simplified solution was Marx’s path to a unanimous utopia of collective fulfillment, yet his doctrine has proven devastating to all who attempted to apply it. Engels had given the late Marx credit five years earlier upon his death in 1883, writing “for ever [sic] freeing the whole of society from exploitation, oppression and class struggles – this basic thought belongs solely and exclusively to Marx,” (Marx, K. p. 44-49). It is unclear if Marx considered his own theories on exploitation as he was commissioned to write the Communist Manifesto; did the money he was paid to create have any influence on its position? Under Marxian theory, mass production leads to isolation, and personal deprivation from fulfillment; according to Karl Marx, the more efficient a worker, the more he falls oppressed to his employer, who yields the majority of the profit, (Ryan, A., p. 778). Rejecting Market Socialism, Marx cited impersonal forces, comparing workers to “adjuncts of machinery,” according to Alan Ryan; “[w]e are unalienated when what we do and what we create express our inner selves and when our inner selves are as they should be,” (Ryan, A. p. 778). Unlike Hegel, Marx resented Stoicism, believing that “in properly functioning society every individual would be fulfilled in the fulfillment of the species,” (Ryan, A. 779). As historian J. Tyler Dickovick writes, “[m]any early Marxists hoped for a “permanent revolution” around the world and diagnosed the global inequalities that capitalism had engendered,” (Dickovick, J.T., p. 112) It would be Marx’s revolutionary ideas that would inspire Vladimir Lenin’s 1917 Russian Revolution, although by this time, Lenin had distorted his vision of Marxist utopia, (Ryan, A., p. 940). It was Lenin’s deviation from Karl Marx’s original position, that gave rise to Joseph Stalin and the development of Stalinism; it would be Stalin’s contorted position that would enable China and North Korea to establish the means of national security and global sustainability, (Ryan, A., p. 940). On Stalin’s deviation from Marxian thought, historian Alan Ryan writes that “Stalin would have murdered Marx,” (p. 906).
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was an admirer of Socrates, yet advocated his suppression by Athens, (Ryan, A. p. 29). Journalist Henry Louis Mencken wrote of Neitzsche that, “[i]f he was anything in a word, Nietzsche was a Greek born two thousand years too late. His dreams were thoroughly Hellenic; his whole manner of thinking was Hellenic; his peculiar errors were Hellenic no less,” (Nietzsche, F., p. 2885). Nietzsche’s philosophy built on Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi’s concept of nihilism, paving the way for generations of diseased bodies politic, . Nietzsche wrote that “[t]he sick are the great danger of man, not the evil, not the ‘beasts of prey;’” facilitating inspiration for the derailment of thought that occurred in fascist dicatatorships. “The extent to which fascism was an amalgam of ideas culled from Hegel, Saint-Simon, Marx, Nietzsche, and Sorel was apparent to…the two major theorists of Italian Facism…Alfredo Rocco and Giovanni Gentile,” (Ryan, A., p. 935). Alan Ryan writes that unlike Marx’s bottom-up approach; “[u]nder fascism, authority flowed upward from the individual and then down again from the state; it was a cyclical process,” Ryan, A., p. 939). Benito Mussolini was an avid reader of such writings, greatly influencing his political positions on authoritarian rule. Hitler followed in his footsteps, gaining an even more disturbing interpretation of Nietzsche’s writings. When Nietzsche’s work was translated into English in 1896, it spread an influential wave across American polity, (LOC). Following Nietzsche’s death in 1900, the influence of his philosophy took the blame for many atrocities including World War I, and World War II; despite this, Nietzsche rose to prominence in the 1920’s, (LOC). According to a New York Times article published August 22nd, 1943, Hitler gifted Mussolini the complete works of Friedrich Nietzsche for his birthday, (NYTimes). If Nietzsche could not be more representative of the diseased bodies politic; Nietzsche traversed the globe in search of a remedy for his failing health, while writing his philosophy before himself succumbing to disease, (Nietzsche, F. 2882). The diseased bodies politic represent the last days of political theorists, as Ryan denotes, “[a]fter World War II it was sometimes said that political theory had died…[yet] [w]hile political theory was said to have died, the century was said to be the century of ideology,” (Ryan, A. p. 913).
As the Lord called on Saul during his conversion in Acts 26:18 (NASB) “to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me;” Christians must approach the century of ideology with an open mind and stoic faith. While it falls easy to designate a grotesque ideology as wrong in our own eyes, the light of the Lord holds dominion over darkness in all forms, and by this we can achieve a resounding and sustainable alternative to nihilistic Marxian political theory; offering hope, prosperity, and objective truth. We must act as the light to bright the Lord to the lost, and make disciples of the nations regardless of their political theory, there exists but one authority. As Jesus spoke in Matthew 7:2 (NASB) “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.” Rather than decide on a specified methodology, Christians must utilize their sovereignty to fulfill the great commission of the anointed and save the world; for the Kingdom of God holds the essence of a functional polity above all other political theories.
Conclusion
Some more than others, each independent political thinker provided their own level of influence in the culmination and evolution of inherent depravity that resulted in the diseased bodies politic. What began in Ancient Greece as a synonym for the health of a population, devolved into a sick divergence from its original polity. As previously noted, World War II marked the end of political theory, as ideologies took precedence over the philosophy of government, (Ryan, A., p. 913). There, however, exists a contemporary demand nearly a century later following the age of ideology, for the resurgence of political theory, and the body politic as applied to the modern age. The implementation of objective truth in the revived contemporary body politic is the necessary ingredient required to sustain the same declaration given by Plato so disturbed over time. By the will of God, all diseases of polity can be cured, including the body politic, as the implementation of His grace calls for its revival.
–September 28th, 2023
Bibliography
Acts 26:18 (NASB)
Dickovick, J. T., Eastwood, J. (2018). Comparative Politics: Integrating Theories, Methods, and Cases, 3rd Edition. [VitalSource Bookshelf 10.3.1]. Retrieved from vbk://9780190086305
LOC. (Accessed on September 27th, 2023). Introduction - Nietzsche: Topics in Chronicling America - Research Guides at Library of Congress. https://guides.loc.gov/chronicling-america-nietzsche.
Matthew 7:2 (NASB)
Marx, Karl; Friedrich Engels; David McLellan. The Communist Manifesto (Oxford World's Classics). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Delphi Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche (Illustrated) (Series Five Book 24). Delphi Classics. Kindle Edition. culmination that led to
NYTimes. (1943). Nietzsche to Mussolini. https://www.nytimes.com/1943/08/22/archives/nietzsche-to-mussolini.html
Plato. (Accessed on September 27th, 2023). Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/friedrich-jacobi/.