What do Tankies think of Thomas Hobbes?

what do Tankies think of Thomas Hobbes?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ARz6kYS12cg
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

They secretly accept his defense of State power.

Because they are misanthropes and conservatives.

if having a negative view of human nature makes you a conservative, then I guess I am a conservative

He was right about "human nature" under capitalism. Also he was one of the only liberal philosophers who admitted that all morality and "justice" was merely a function of state power rather than some kind of spooky innate quality of humanity and/or reality.

when can we all just accept that the withering away of the state is a meme

No. DotP surprises the capitalists. Similarly, in a liberal democracy, a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie exists as every party is forced to agree on the constitutionally guaranteed rights of private property of means of production and freedom of contract. In the DotP, this is reversed. Only nominees from worker organizations, such as the communist party, trade unions, cooperatives, pioneers, women's organizations, etc. are allowed to candidate for councils. This way, the worker surpresses the capitalist.

What you are referring to is the concept of Democratic Centralism - which means free discussion within the party, but acting as a united front. Furthermore, I'd Iike to add that instead of Hobbes notion of a flawed human nature, the Marxist-Leninist concept of the DotP orientates itself on the material conditions that presuppose the expressions of self-interest of the people.

meant for >>1891979

Also "suppresses" instead of "surprises". Im typing on my phone, although I think it surprises them as well.

How can the state wither away if you are encircled by capitalist nations??!

that's a good point, but i'm still skeptical of the idea that revolutionaries would just walk away from power if they achieved their global revolution

If there is global revolution, that would mean almost instant communism. Once that happens, the state is lost, I'd assume something happens what the Leftcoms think of communization. Maybe some state actors would have to be forcefully removed. But that is far, far into the future.

Thinking "humans suck, therefore humans should be repressed to the greatest extent" is pretty conservative, yeah.

tankies in a nutshell

I never said this. However I find that the liberals/proto-liberals who get triggered by Hobbes usually have utopian views about human nature (or hold even spookier ideas about how it doesn't exist, which is completely unscientific.)

...

Oh wow, the tankie likes Hobbes, who could have possibly predicted this.

If you think Hobbes was right, you are literally an idealist and a reactionary. Hobbes was giving a post-hoc justification of state power that already existed and, "coincidentally", I'm sure, happened to benefit him tremendously. I'm sure his tune on the State and human nature would change quite tremendously if it happened to be a State that repressed people like him (i.e., bourgeois anti-democratic intellectuals).

IIRC he was a cathcuck writing in defence of the cathcuck monarchy because he fled from persecution from the protestant liberal roundheads

also I don't agree that his arguments were all post hoc
someone living in the 17th century might very well have a better idea what humans living absence of state power have to deal with, then people do today

Hobbes was less idealist than any other Liberal philosopher. Also I don't think that he was right about everything. His points about human behavior are fairly accurate however. Also "democracy" during his time was even more of a joke than it is today so it is unfair to characterize him as some kind of fascist.


All famous liberal political theorists did this. That's what made Marxism so revolutionary and unique.


Leviathan was published in 1655. He wasn't arguing against anything other than petty wars over even pettier disputes between wealthy landowners and the royal(s) they wanted to represent them.

A summary for y'all happy campers.

Nothing wrong with one of those things

have you got any more of these for other philosophers?

Yeah, but it will cost you.

what can I do for you comrade

You give me yanqui dollares, my pachyderm friend.

i'm sorry, I just spend my last petroldollar getting a bible verse engraved on my AR15

will you accept this rareish IRA/Gadaffi pepe instead?

You can get one for free, but that's it.
Supply and demand, you know,

...

The general will is spooky as fuck. Also very bourgeoisie.

They're would actually be stages of the bourgeois system dying off this would probably take generations.

No human alive today is ready for complete communism.

Agreed. Just look how long the transformation from feudalism to capitalism took.

I really need to re-read leviathan I think I last read it when I was 17

Pretty based tbh

Even when I agree with the statement, a smug anime face still triggers me.

Yes, Rousseau was very much an inspiration for the Utopian Socialists.

Glad to see more Hobbes fans here. Personally Hobbes is the only liberal I recommend reading before moving on to Marx and Lenin.

Personally I'd recommend Locke, even if only just to make it crystal clear how stuck in the 17th century American political culture and institutions are.

Olly from Philosophy Tube has a decent video on the context of Social Contract theory, for anyone interested in the history of imperialism.
youtube.com/watch?v=ARz6kYS12cg

Idealistic but somewhat interesting. Thanks, comrade.

Locke is basically Hobbes lite. His justification for propriety is pretty amusing to read as a communist though.

Locke is great for BTFOing ancaps and lolberts about the role of the liberal state, especially if they start waxing about Jefferson or other founding fathers

...

...

dragon maid is trash m8

Why not put this shit in the constitution instead of perpetuating political oppression?

spooner is a reactionary shitstain

But they do kill each other in primitive societies user…
Like all the fucking time

...

Thomas Hobbes somehow managed to convince the Crown that giving a little freedom to peasantry will pay off in the long term, thats genius

He was also surprisingly secular. He even says that a right to rule that is based on God's alleged will is invalid. Pretty weird stuff coming from a guy who is said to have been a hardcore monarchist by contemporary Rousseau loving liberals.

he got tons of grief from his contemporaries for articulating his ideas in a 100% secular manner