The real substance of this essay begins with Hume’s assertion that, “The greatness of a state, and the happiness of its subjects… and as private men receive greater security, in the possession of their trade and riches, from the power of the public, so the public becomes powerful in proportion to the opulence and extensive commerce of private men” (II.i.4). This idea seems inherently flawed, especially in modern contexts since it goes against all we know about the nature of capitalism. Hume is, in essence, suggesting that if there are several very wealth men (for us, capitalists) who are enjoying luxuries, both material and cultural, then their shared experience will somehow benefit the common man.

Furthermore, this concept from Hume in “Essays Moral Political and Literary” by David Hume suggests that these wealthy elite who would be helping society through their luxuries would be doing some because it meant it was a time of peace in which all men had time to devote to luxurious pursuits since there would be excess wealth. While this may have been a grand vision, it is a difficult one to grasp for the modern reader since it seems as though the lower non-privileged class would be always subject to the movements of the elite (even though this has occurred in some form throughout history). If war broke out or foreign trade was interrupted, it would be these lower classes that would be the first to give up the luxuries of excess production and in this sense it is very timely in its outcome.

Of these non-special classes (the vast majority) Hume states, “The bulk of every state may be divided into husbandmen and manufacturers. The former are employed in the culture of the land; the latter work up the materials furnished by the former, into all the commodities that are necessary or ornamental to human life” (II.i.5). It is interesting here that production is being associated with not only that which is necessary (crops and livestock, for example) but with luxury commodities, things that demonstrate that a particular country is far enough progressed and peaceful that it has the time, energy, and financial well-being to devote to such enterprises. With so many hands laboring in these sectors there are more people free to engage in luxury, thus all benefit. Hume calls these masses of workers, “superfluous hands” since they are able to enjoy luxuries and are thus “idle” in the sense that are not producing anything material for the state.

In Essays Moral Political and Literary, Hume suggests that the ruling class takes these people and puts them into armies to “increase the dominions of the state abroad and spread its fame over distant nations” instead of allowing them to remain free to enjoy the fruits of peace and relative prosperity. Furthermore, this can be directly with Marx’s ideas in Capital that the capitalist is always looking for surplus labor. The “capitalists” in this case would be the state since they see that people are not being used to their maximum productivity. In Hume’s view, these laborers have fewer and baser wants than those of the other class he defined and thus this is a natural movement to employ these “superfluous hands” to benefit the state.

            Although this sounds quite modern, especially since this analysis has lent it a capitalist slant, Hume does not look forward and consider the future fruits of this prospect, but rather looks to the way it worked in Sparta and ancient Rome. According to Hume, “The republic of Sparta was certainly more powerful than any other state now in the world, consisting of an equal number of people; and this was owing entirely to the want of commerce and luxury” (II.i.7). Hume supposes that these were people who were highly industrious—not for their own personal benefit, but for the good of the state. They employed their skills and trades and because of this single-mindedness and want of luxury, they were glad to fight for the country during a time of war. He looks at the industry of Sparta and then to the military might of Rome who, like Sparta, used the “superfluous hands” to take on ever more military conquests. Instead of allowing a time of peace to remain, Hume commends these ancient people for gathering a small amount of internal stability and then instantly have them go out looking for more.

To perform an analysis of “Essays: Moral Political and Literary” by David Hume in a literary sense, this very act itself is akin to the capitalist. Once a fair amount of security has been gained, this allows for surplus capital and thus the quest to expand out ever further ensues in the blind driving search for more and more. Again, also like capitalism, this search for more and even the final gaining of it could not be possible without the laborer. For Hume the laborer is a natural class of people, born simply for the purpose of being tools for his idea of the educated class thinkers to put to use. While this may seem like too literal an interpretation, there is no point in the text where it appears Hume is concerned with the happiness of this lower class, but only the state in general and, in fact, e wonders about this when he states, “it is natural on this occasion to ask whether sovereigns may not return to the maxims of ancients policy and consult their own interests in this respect, more than the happiness of their subjects” (II.i.8). The subjects, clearly, are that second class he mentioned at the beginning of the essay and are thus, by his own admissions, the ones naturally inclined to serve the demands of the one with the capital—the ruler of the state and its associated elite.

In Hume’s view, the sovereign has the responsibility to relegate the roles and level of production on the part of the subject. He states that when there are many superfluous hands, without inspiration because of a level of stability, it is necessary to have a diversion for these people. “They have no temptation, therefore to increase their skill and industry since they cannot exchange their superfluidity from their labor beyond what suffices to maintain them…. A habit of indolence naturally prevails” (II.i.10). Instead, armies must be strengthened and industry, in all senses of the word must be employed. Hume suggests that the same theory be applied to foreign trade.

In “Essays: Moral Political and Literary” Hume says that foreign commerce will augment the power of the state as well as the wealth and happiness of the subjects. It increases the stock of labor in the nation; and the sovereign may convert what share of it he finds necessary to the service of the public. “Foreign trade, by its imports, produces furnishes raw materials for new manufacturers; and by its exports, it produces labor in particular commodities which could not be consumed at home” (II.i.14). Essentially, Hume is stating that with a broadened pool of commodities will have more luxury and thus be happier. There will be less of a strain on the subject of its region, even though it farms out the labor to other places. Again, it must not be forgotten that all of this would be the product of taking the original “superfluous hands” of the common people of the region to create the armies necessary to forced foreign trade as well. One cannot help but consider what the true definition he is using for foreign trade and whether or not it extends into the colonization efforts that were certainly a vital element of the European economy at this time.

As a final thought, it would be an entertaining and academically rich experience to imagine a protracted conversation between Karl Marx and Hume or even just to think deeply about how the last fifty years of capitalist society is both a confirmation of some of both of their ideals as well as a rejection. Although the emphasis on this study has been on Hume, it is impossible not to think about the present economic conditions and not to think about Marx and how they are alike and different. It is especially interesting that Hume, in his essay entitled “On Money” that was discussed that the very introduction of this paper, foresaw the problems inherent in foreign trade. Through both essays examined here, it is clear that he had mixed feelings about foreign trade. While on the one hand, it benefited the general population through an introduction of new goods, it threatened economic stability just as his idea of a society like Sparta would have both greatly helped society rather limiting it in other terms.

Other essays and articles in the Main Archives related to this topic include: Analysis and Summary of Principles of Political Economy by John Stuart Mill  •  The Economics of Socialism: An Historical Perspective  •  Marx and Locke: Comparison of Views on Government, Property and Labor  •  Summary and Analysis ofThe Essential Adam Smith by Robert L. Heilbroner  • Analysis and Summary of General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money by John Maynard Keynes