Why haven't you read him yet, user?

Why haven't you read him yet, user?

I have and the volonté générale is spooky as fuck.

I disagree. The general will, when looking at the perspective of how to engage in society to increase your own liberty, is the only workable idea. Even an egoist, I think, would prefer to live in a society governed by the logic of the general will, as it gives themselves power over their society. An egoist, would thus also only obey the general will to the extent that they desire or are forced to. But that's true of all forms of social organization.

What are you trying to say?

The idea that such a thing as the general will exists and the individual and has to bow down to it is inherently authoritarian. If your interest doesn't correspond to the general will, you are wrong and it is justified to oppress you. It's the same as Stalinists defending state violence when it has progressive aims, is in unity with "historical necessity" etc.

I have. He's incredibly based.

cause I haven't read enough marx yet. No time.

I'm saying that the general will is neither right nor wrong in its specific actions against individuals. Rousseau makes a very important distinction that the general will can only exist in the abstract, and only the government imposes actions on particulars. The general will gives individuals power over society, as they deliberate and voice their support over certain measures over how things are run. It's power, however is not absolute. The people who bring about a system which gives the general will power, i.e. through revolution will naturally create a constitution which frame the power and place of politics, as well as the limits of state power.

The egoist, of course, regards no state as legitimate. But, in order to live with people he must compromise and agree to a set of rules with his neighbors. These are not sacred rules, but rules that will be pragmatically be respected for the same reasons they were agreed to. The closest one can get to a union of egos through the state.

Stirner was a mistake

Classcuck.

He was, along with Schelling and Bellamy, one of my favorites during my philo university years. Then I thoroughly read Marx (as in actually read him first hand, and not the regurgitated reinterpretations we were given in class) and realized he was just another historical footnote; one of many stepping stones towards the establishment of a proper understanding of things, and that he is today but one of many deprecated thinkers with all things considered still much poetic and historical value.

It's time to read, user

Liberalism is a classcucked ideology. Rousseau is beloved by left-leaning liberals for a reason user. Also he had a hate boner for Hobbes for some reason which made his already bad "philosophy" come off even worse.

Like pottery

Its just avant-garde autocratic fetishism there is nothing new about what they believe, its the repackaging of an existing ideology. go look at NazBol twitter they all want the Roman Empire with Socialist affectations. Its not something that has even a little bit to do with Leftism

It's not like socialist thought has its roots in liberalism or anything.

This is like saying you shouldn't read Marx after Lenin came along.

Literally who

His name is literally in the file name. You can read his shit itt

...

Hobbes is a comrade and I say this as an anarcho-shitposterist.

Ah yes, the great 6c863fc6ebd27f. Truly a revolutionary man.

I wouldn't call I necessarily republicanism. If you read the social contract, it sounds very Similar to what democratic confederalism wants. Its municipal based government, and has to be for people to actually debate issues.

Newfag confirmed.

Leviathan is a great read, he was an evil fuck and people who unironically like monarchists as a leftist are probably not leftists at all

Hobbes was at least honest in his desire to see absolute naked power realized. That said, his actual theory is praxeology tier.

yes, honesty is the greatest virtue that a social predator can have. give me the psychopath who tells me he wants to eat me for dinner instead of the one who pretends to be leading me through darkness, like our past President

Hobbes wasn't a true monarchist though. He refused to even knowledge divine claims to power. For him property, morality, and government itself all came down to violence. That analysis is much more similar to Marxism than say Locke or Rousseau's spook heavy bullshit about muh made-up rights. Not saying I believe that he is the best political theorist ever, just that he was the best liberal one.

He said that direct democracy was impossible though and supported representative democracy instead, saying that the participation of miillions at once would have been impossible, something disproven by the Parisian Sections just a few decades after his death.
Most things points towards him being a Jacobin before anything else.

Wew, lad.

Also Hobbes wasn't a monarchist, he was an absolutist. He didn't care whether it was one person, a small group of people or a national convention that ruled, as long as it held absolute power. What he most certainly wasn't is a monarchist in the divine right sense.

He was a revolutionary thinker in that he first established the idea of a social contract. Honestly, I think him and Stirner have a lot in common.

If you actually read Rousseau, you'd know he had very little to say on rights, only to point out the logical contradictions of others basing the state on concepts of right, his project was one of creating state who's legitimacy was coherent and actually gave people more freedom than they lost to it.

He supported monarchy, that's what counts really.

He and Stirner are similar to the extent they both recognized the state as an expression of power and property and nothing more in reality. Beyond that, they don't have much in common considering Hobbes had plenty of human nature spooks.

Maybe if you actually read a fucking book once in a while you wouldn't go around making these bullshit claims.

Yeah, being against representative democracy was one of Rousseau's biggest things.

You didn't read my post, let alone Leviathan.

yeah, you're a risen nihilist god
Nah he preferred monarchy.
I agree with that

Liberal political theorists after Hobbes tried their hardest to abstract the violence from government. Left Liberals today love Rousseau precisely because he was the most successful at doing so. Seriously the idea that government represents anything other than the interests of the powerful is absurd and spooky as all fuck.

Absolutism includes monarchy you dumbfuck. His whole book was a defense of the english crown on non-theological grounds.

Try actually reading Rousseau for once faggot. He criticized almost every existing state for being just that. His whole project was to figure out a way to make a state that wouldn't represent the interests of the powerful. He wasn't even particularly utopian in this fashion, either, if you read the discourse on inequality, he realizes the material forces which created the state, and that equality of wealth to the degree one man would be unable to buy off another would need to be created for the social contract to work.

I have, he's great as an introduction to a leftist view to how hierarchy, class, property, and social relations all interact with one another. He's definitely something that beginners should be reading at the least.

bump

He was an authoritarian/collectivist/socialist piece of shit

stay buttmad classcuck