Does Thomas Hobbes literally debunk every anarchist faction out there

Yes.

He was referring to social conditioning before that term was in common usage.

Has anyone tried to reconciliate Hobbs with leftism?

bump

...

lenin

this would be my next question, his ideas seem really interesting when applied to Marxism, does it make communism a world where the state controls the means of productions but the workers control the state so therefore the workers control the means of production, or does it just flat out me FALC is unachievable because of rationally action resulting in conflict

that doesn't debunk any of his ideas tho

you cant disprove something that has no evidence to support its claims in the first place.

I don`t really see how you can apply something that inherently advocates for state to ideology that seeks to abolish state.

It could be only applied to socialism.

Read Rousseau.

his evidence is pre society history, the state of nature, for why we would act violently to one another when we do not have a state to enforce security

so does he just flat out disprove the possibility of communism ever coming round, forcing us to accept socialism as the closest we'll ever come

how so?
i'm not going to read the entirety of Rousseau "progress has made us naturally morally evil" meme man. Outside of his comments on private property how exactly does his ideas prove Hobbes wrong

He did not claim absolute knowledge but used understanding of prehistory and had clever assumptions of why and how state was ultimately formed. Not to mention that our anthropology kind of proves him right how wars before neolithic revolution had higher death ratio.

So you haven't read him basically, okay great to know you're ignorant of different views on the matter and a fan of reducing other philosophers you haven't read to single line quotes taken out of context.

Still an assumption, dosn't mean mean jack shit.

Either you've never read hobbes or you don't know shit about anthropology, or both. Sounds like both.

Why should I have to read the entirety of Marx "redistribute all the wealth" meme man?

oh shit because that's not a good representation of what he says

the point of this thread was to try and hear arguments against Hobbes so that i wouldn't be ignorant, rather then sifting through the 2000 plus pages of his works to try and find n argument that may or may not exist

...

Rousseau was awful. The general will is a spook.

Lazy fuck

Not really, since I think that communism would have a de facto state in form of collaboration committee between all the worker collectives that would be otherwise autonomous.

Sounds more like you have never read "War Before Civilization" nor studied the groundwork and data that it is based on.

...

i don't have all the time in the world, not everyone in the working class does and there are people i'd rather read

Data that has not been contradicted by modern findings on archaeological sites.

i work a 40+ hour work week and i find the time to read obscure philosophers, listen to academic lectures, jerk off and do activist shit, only reason you wont read them is out of pure fucking laziness. If you have time to shitpost on hear youve got time to fucking read, its your own fault your not doing so.

No, he was a shit tier theorist and terrible writer.

For those who haven't actually read him, he uses metaphysics relating to the laws of nature and human nature to say that by virtue of living in civilization we make a contract with each other that creates the state. The state cannot do anything to breach this contract besides failing to enforce laws, as our contract is not with the state, but with each other.

Rousseau is the only one who actually makes a good argument about what would constitute a legitimate state.

shit, here, you go, its free. gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm

Stop making exucess

Hobbes' conception of "human nature" was meme tier and there are many assumptions he makes that are completely absurd and entirely undefended by his own writing.

How does this pass a valid critique on Holla Forums these days?

You mean create a leftist rational for a state? JUST FUCKING READ ROUSSEAU!

earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/rousseau1762.pdf

Why does Hobbes trigger liberals and anarkiddies so much?

wat

If conflict is logically derived and needs intervention to stop then make a repressive set of laws in your anarchist group. Not that hard.

Mostly by advocating for absolute sovereignty for the state without any regard for "rights" citizenry.

that is a gross misinterpretation of his work

his argument was not that progress has made us naturally morally evil, but that with civilization comes a loss of certain freedoms and has enshrined inequality through the creation of private property and artificial hierarchy seized by force.

Hobbes proves himself wrong. He makes ridiculous arguments about human nature using metaphysics that give literally any authority license to do whatever they want without regard for the will of the people, so long as they enforce the rule of law, by saying that by definition, whatever law the state puts into place is just, and that any attempt to usurp a functioning state is illegitimate. His position isn't even logically coherent, for there is no state that exists today or in his time that wasn't founded upon the usurpation of another state!

How about you read through 2 hundred pages of Rousseau instead

Verifiably wrong. Garbage philosopher, no better than "muh human nature" freaks.

he is the "muh human nature"

That's retarded though.
Material conditions are forcing man to either abolish the state or let power vaccuums steer us all to doom

Hobbes was pretty leftist actually. Don't know why he gets so much hate. Mankind is naturally evil under capitalism. That is why communism is essential.

his whole project was trying to create an atheist for monarchy.

*atheist argument

Without monopoly on force by de facto state material conditions would become worse.

Rousseaushills out in full force itt
frenchies get out

Is Holla Forums slowly but surely improving?

Hobbes is the natural conclusion to Stirner.
Indeed, Hobbes knew about the egotist nature of humans all too well, which is why even though he argued for absolute monarchy regardless of its "quality", he did say that should the state ever try to actually destroy you, you can and should resist.

He triggers people because they have no arguments against his flawless logic other than "muh-muh-muh human nature (how ironic) is a carebear, we'd never kill each other!"

the idea that primitive human groups always killed neighboring tribes is ahistorical
They often did, but they often didn't. There are many cases of tribal groups coexisting peacefully, trading, providing mutual aid, and confederating.
Maybe they went to war more often than not, but I don't buy the argument that this means human groupings could never coexist peacefully if there wasn't scarce resources for what people need to live comfortably.
Ideology is also a powerful drug. Get everybody drunk on anarcho ideology and maybe they won't kill each other.
Not an anarchist myself btw

but that wasn't what Hobbs said, he said that the state had to have the mandate of the people to function, if it was just some totalitarian state without support from the people even with the greatest suppression it would quickly come to an end. Hobbs is saying that a authority has the power to enforce the will of the people, and so long as they are enforcing the moral laws of the people of the time they are free to do what ever is needed to keep the state afloat

i try my best

honestly this is the main thing I'm getting from him. Other then people telling me to read Rousseau there has been no decent criticism of Hobbs's leviathan this entire thread

they tribes the coexisted peaceful where usually because they had nearly equal power in terms of strength, you'd never see bigger tribes co-operating with smaller ones when they had the manpower to just run them down like thy did a lot

Quote where hobbes said that.

That's not true.

he said multiple times that any law created by the sovereign was by definition just

I think you're mistaking Locke's arguments for Hobbes.

at what point is the authority considered void by the people? at a 50% vote? 30%? this is what gets me. What people are we talking about here that the authority is serving? and what is this authority doing to help us?

Hobbes was right about most everything. Locke and Rousseau were completely full of shit. Especially Locke.

at least explain yourself instead of being so blunt with your claims

when it is overthrown

but how if only 30% are being oppressed.
is just not good enough. A state, if any, need's to be directly accountable to all, not some monarch who cant be fucked to care for his subjects.

On the contrary, Hobbes says people do not have the right to overthrow a government on account of disagreement over laws, over feeling their rights are being impeded. The state's only job is to keep people out of the state of nature, only if a state is failing to do this does hobbes say people have a right to overthrow a state. He was very much writing as a reaction to Cromwell and the English Civil War.