Eric Hobsbawm - Age Of Revolution 1789 -1848

IDEOLOGY: SECULARwas strong enough neither to inspire a revolution nor to safeguardagainst one. The philosophically feeble John Locke rather than thesuperb Thomas Hobbes remained the favourite thinker of vulgarliberalism; for he at least put private property beyond the range ofinterference and attack as the most basic of 'natural rights'. And theFrench Revolutionaries found it best to put their demand for freeenterprise ('tout citqyen est libre d'employer ses bras, son Industrie et sescapitaux comme itjuge bon et utile a lui-mime. . . . Il peut fabriquer cejjui luiplait et comme il lui plait') 1 into the form of a general natural right toliberty ('L'exercise des droits naturels de chaque homme n'a de bornes que cellesqui assurent aux autres membres de la sociiti lajouissance des mimes droits').*In its political thought classical liberalism thus swerved from thedaring and rigour which made it so powerful a revolutionary force.In its economic thought, however, it was less inhibited; partly becausemiddle class confidence in the triumph of capitalism was much greaterthan confidence in the political supremacy of the bourgeoisie overabsolutism or the ignorant mob, partly because the classical assumptionsabout the nature and natural state of man undoubtedly fitted thespecial situation of the market much better than the situation ofhumanity in general. Consequently classical political economy forms,with Thomas Hobbes, the most impressive intellectual monument toliberal ideology. Its great period is slightly earlier than that with whichthis volume deals. The publication of Adam Smith's (1723-90)Wealth of Nations in 1776 marks its .beginning, that of David Ricardo's(1792-1823) Principles of Political Economy in 1817 its peak, and 1830the beginning of its decline or transformation. However, its vulgarizedversion continued to gain adherents among businessmen throughoutour period.The social argument of Adam Smith's political economy was bothelegant and comforting. It is true that humanity consisted essentiallyof sovereign individuals of a certain psychological constitution pursuingtheir self-interest in competition with one another. But it couldbe shown that these activities, when left to operate so far as possibleunchecked, produced not only a 'natural' social order (as distinct fromthe artificial ones imposed by aristocratic vested interest, obscurantism,tradition or ignorant meddling), but the most rapid possibleincrease in the 'wealth of nations', i.e. the comfort and wellbeing, andtherefore the happiness, of all men. The basis of this natural order wasthe social division of labour. It could be scientifically proved that theexistence of a class of capitalists owning the means of productionbenefited all, including the class of labourers hiring themselves out toits members, just as it could be scientifically proyed that the interests of237