Results 1 to 11 of 11
Political Theory - Rousseau and Hobbes
I am happy to assist in the study of both Rousseau and Hobbes, particularly concerning how both approached the issues of political legitimacy, the relationship between freedom and equality, and the effectiveness of democracy as a method of decision-making. If anyone has any questions to ask concerning these theorists and the ideas they put forward, you should feel free, and I can try and answer your questions directly, or advise you on what commentaries you should read. If you go on to study politics at university you will almost certainly have to study both of these theorists and it's easy to see why - Hobbes was one of the first theorists to break away from traditional conceptions of authority and argue that legitimate political arrangements come into being as a result of a "covenant", whereby the inhabitants of a "state of nature" (i.e. the condition of mankind prior to the transition to a political society, in which life is "nasty, brutish, and short" according to Hobbes) agree to give up certain rights which they would otherwise be able to exercise, in return for the assurance that others will do the same, so no individual will be put at a disadvantage as a result, provided that all obey the covenant. The outcome of the covenant is the creation of the sovereign, which all men agree to obey as the depository of their rights and the product of a mutual and voluntary agreement into which they have entered as rational beings in the hope of promoting their own preservation. Rousseau adopted the same premise - the notion of a voluntary agreement which he termed the social contract (also the name of his most famous text on political theory) but reached a new set of radical conclusions. Rousseau is one of my favorite theorists and should be of interest to us as communists, as he acknowledged the corrupting effect of economic inequality on political democracy.
Anyway, depending on the level of interest, I might try and get a study group going, in which case this thread might be moved, or stay in the same place if we change the structure of the forum.
I think I'll be doing Rousseau next year, so this is definitely relevent to me. If there are enough people, I'll most certainly join the study group as well. Although, at the moment, I don't know enough about either theorist to simply ask questions, so could I ask where I could get a decent introduction to their works online?
You should be able to find both 'Leviathan' and 'The Social Contract' as well as other works by Hobbes and Rousseau online with no problems, although I personally prefer having an actual book in front of me, and the best way to understand their ideas is just to read the texts - you should be able to get through 'The Social Contract' quickly as it's only a short text, at least in comparison to other works of political theory, but it will take you longer to get through 'Leviathan' even though Hobbes is widely seen as more structured and logical in his approach. As for commentaries, you might have to go to the library to find them, as the only online commentaries I've ever encountered have only been available on the university network. Some of my favorite commentaries:
Gauthier, David, 'The Logic of Leviathan'
Goldsmith, M.M., 'Hobbes's Science of Politics'
Sommerville, J., 'Thomas Hobbes' Political Ideas in Historical Context'
Tuck, Richard, 'Hobbes: A Very Short Introduction'
Berlin, Iasiah, 'Freedom and its Betrayal', 'Rousseau'
Bertram, Christopher, 'Rousseau and The Social Contract'
Dent, Nicholas, 'Rousseau', 'The Social Contract'
Hall, Gildin, 'Rousseau: An Introduction to his Political Philosophy'
I have also done a fair amount of reading and study into Rousseau and Hobbes and would be willing to contribute what I can to such a discussion.
- August
If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.
- Karl Marx
Yeah, I far prefer to have a copy in my hands. I actually bought Leviathan a while ago, but the language was a bit dry and it was a pretty big read as well. I'll give The Social contract a read when my exams are done though.
I'm interested Bob, I'm going to be doing some Rousseau soon.
Ivan "Bonebreaker" Khutorskoy16.11.2009"We won't forget, we won't forgive"
I can't help it, but I can't stand Rousseau. Yes, he had a good vision on what was to be done. But on the other hand he neglected his own children (all five of them - just gave them away!). How can you read Emile without taking that into account?
Hobbes is a very intriguing figure, but I don't believe in "social contracts". Too "meta", idealistic for me.
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err.
That's one of the things we may be able to discuss - Hobbes may not have believed in the covenant as a literal event but used it and other aspects of his work as conceptual devices to convey the notion that the primary condition for political legitimacy is the consent of the governed. Hobbes's ideas also need to be situated in historical context as one of the commentary titles listed above suggests - especially the English Civil War which Hobbes saw as an example of what can happen when citizens are influenced by false doctrines and are led to challenge the power of the sovereign or demand that sovereignty should be divided between more than one institution.
We can also analyze both writers from the viewpoint of historical materialism by examining the extent to which they were both influenced by the societies in which they lived and the events they witnessed, and whether their ideas can be seen as ideological in nature - i.e. designed to support the power of the bourgeoisie by obscuring the true nature of the state.
Count me in.
In these times of crisis, lots of politically illiterate folks rant against the "collectivism" implicit in the "general will," and yet the notion that the latter is inalienable, infallible, indivisible and absolute does reek of idealism.
"A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)
"A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
If anyone's interested in starting a serious study group for this, let's get it going! I think we should study either one of the texts - it would be better if we do 'Leviathan' because Rousseau drew a lot of his ideas from Hobbes and other earlier theorists who developed the idea of the social contract, but in view of its length, it might be easier if we just do 'The Social Contract', which is divided up into short books and makes for easier reading. If we opt for the latter, it might be best to start by just going through a summary of Hobbes, so we can grasp his ideas, and put Rousseau in context.
CB Macpherson's introduction to Leviathan is online, along with the text itself.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=e...result#PPA5,M1
