Q: Has anyone used a deconstruction of the Hobbsian social contract where the proletariat functions as the absolute sovereign? And no, Marx did not do this.
Hobbsian social contract theory
What the fuck are you trying to say nigga.
I don't think so. For Hobbes the sovereign has to be singular. Same with Locke, though he allows for parliamentarian, regicide, even. Probably it's Rousseau you want to use from the social contract theorists for a semi-working remodeling of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
I'll dump a longer article, and two books that will interest you.
parliamentarism* – fucking autocorrect
You don't know what you are talking about.
Correction: monarchy is the optimal type of commonwealth for Hobbes.
He certainly prefers it, but in the end, only the sovereign's power to keep the peace counts. That's also why his conception of the commonwealth doesn't know a "right to rebellion" or similar. If rebellion is possible, the sovereign has failed his task and thus seized to be sovereign.
In all honesty I haven't read Hobbes, only Roussea and Locke and I was relying on my liberal philosophy teacher's description of him (uncritically). Turns out he offered a parody not just of Russeau but of Hobbes as well, while defending Locke dogmatically.
Are you a conservative by any chance?
No, I just think the Marxist conception of the state is seriously lacking and there's a lot to learn from classical liberal political theorists. Except for Locke. Fuck Locke.
Zizek argues for reintegrating Hegel's conception to counter the Marxist defects.
muh naturalized private property
is that a picture of anarchist calvin from calvin and hobbes
Readings Hobbes in a manner that runs counter to the structural unity of his unique social contract theory by flipping the absolute sovereign from the individual to the group proletariat.
Bakunin destroyed Rousseau though.
nietzsche destroyed Rousseau though
bordiga destroyed liberalism though
The very term "contract" is an oxymoron in the use of his term. It's like raping a person and arguing their consent was tacit because they eventually stopped screaming for help
Political power diluted to that level is meaningless.
Isn't that the point, though?
No. The 'point' is the self-abolishment of the proletariat.
I mean the point of the deconstruction
Perhaps that's the point of Marxism, but not the point of Hobbesian theory.
This idea of distributed sovereignty sounds tantamount to statelessness which Hobbes thought was an ill advised endeavor. Hobbes depicts the state as a necessary evil which protects us from internal and external threats in exchange for some liberty.
t. anarkiddie who got totally btfo by reading based hobbes
No, he isn't compatible with your ideas because he is right, and you are wrong.
bordiga was a liberal
Actually one of the main reasons that many Catholic monarchists at the time detested Hobbes for Leviathan was because in his conctractualist theory the sovereign could be a collective entity like a council or senate. This is mentioned in the introductory piece to the, iirc, Penguin Classics(?) edition of the book.
anarkiddies btfo yet again
Hobbes also "allowed" for republics but thought they were too weak to govern effectively since instead of having one sovereign with two persons you would have multiple representatives (who would all have both a private and a public interest which would inevitably lead to corruption and mismanagement.) In a way Hobbes was describing what we now understand as "bourgeois democracy."