Rousseau vs. Hobbes

If you ever study anthropology its clear that priori to state apparatus human life was nasty short and brutish. Unlike Rossau`s idealism Hobbes is based on reality.

Regardless, whenever the state apparatus collapses there is mass violence.

No debate, Rousseau wins every time

AnCap Stalin

Yeah, when something people are dependent on their entire lives suddenly disappears bad shit happens.

this is frufh

Mass violence isn’t the war of all against all. There may be chaos and violence, but people inevitably congregate into groups, led by warlords etc.

Hobbes was better because he understood the harsh reality of things. Rousseau just went >muh nature

Hobbes was right about the need of a state, primarily to domesticate man, and wrong about many other things. He btfos the anarkiddies.
I'm not too familiar with Rousseau.

Hobbes was somewhat idealist in his ideas about human nature, but still probably the least idealist anglo philosopher. Rousseau was an idealist for sure, but that's not really his fault as he was stuck operating in the enlightenment humanist framework that based all its theory on reason being divinely inspired.

The job of any good marxist is to examine these philosophies and extract the kernel of materialism that existed in both. Rousseau is extremely valuable as one of the first critics of property and for his critique of state legitimacy.

Hobbes, however, was just a massive asshole.

Hobbes because he wasn't a turbo idealist like Rousseau. Also anthropology has vindicated him.

t. brainlets

t. liberal

t. monarchist

This proves nothing about statism. All it says that most deaths from prehistoric cultures were violent. not that the state's creation magically made it less so.

Yep.
Anthropologists visiting remote stateless peoples in the 1960s were expecting to find peaceful groups living in harmony, but instead they found these societies had murder rates orders of magnitude higher than our own.

No the state exists to "stay the sword' and prevent societies from devolving into violence.
Also

This is correct though. All morality and law comes from violence and pain. You sound kind of spooked friend.

...

Also read this.

Leftists are often too spooked to remember that we human beings are intelligent apes and have an enormous capacity for violence.

This may reek of dehumanizing liberal determinism, but it is also true.

What was Hobbes idea of freedom? I heard it was something naïve

Stop conflating primitive peoples into one monolithic group. The way they act is entirely a result of their material conditions, not some fact of human nature. There are plenty of examples of primitive cultures that truly are pacifistic.

The state is the sword and it's a constant presence of violence. The lower murder rate has nothing to do with statism, otherwise effectively stateless regions would be just as violent as prehistoric ones, or inversely, less violent regions should have the most effective or totalitarian state, when in reality they're usually just the wealthiest.
You're conflating is with ought. That's the origin of those things but it's not their justification.

That's not even reality. Humans have more to fear from states than each other nowadays.

There is no individual or group of individuals more dangerous and omnipresent than the state.

How about the bourgeoisie?

Their power solely comes from the state.

that's because there are states on every inch of dirt on this planet
this keeps people from getting murdered left and right

Ha, no.

They do.

If Jeff Bezos converted all his money into gold bullion and cypto currency, and went to live on a cruise ship in international waters, he would still be one of the richest people in the world, and none of his power would be derived from the state.

anthropologists tend to be anarchists though. And just posting the number of people who died violently doesn't prove that statelessness is more violent because medical technology has increased so much since the development of states.

anthropologists are libs in my experience

Rousseau inspire the french rev. on that count alone hes better

the more radical anthropologists tend to lean anarchist. Graeber, Clastres.

This example is asinine but I'll entertain it.
Who would legitimize his money if not the state? He can have all the gold he wants, but it's thanks to international law, i.e. a law that a large amount of states globally agreed to, legitimizing his wealth. It's thanks to states that he can use that wealth to buy supplies to not have to resort to cannibalizing his crew. It's thanks to states that, when he has to inevitably land somewhere for repairs, he has the police to stop people from taking that wealth.

Capitalism requires the existence of the state to function, because it uses the state to protect private property.

Correct. And it is exactly this that reduces the violence. It's literally what Hobbes prescribed, and he was right to do so.
statism>I do what I want you're not my real dad

the perpetual brainlet

Violent deaths means more violence in general.

Rousseau falls apart when you actually examine his arguments on a materialist basis because of how obscenely idealist he is. Muh general will is seriously spooky liberal crap. No wonder left liberals worship him.

The general will is probably one of his more grounded ideas, all it is is the abstraction created when a people come together and decide how to do something in a general way.

Without the state there would be no force to ensure property thus denying the bourgoise what makes them powerful.

And without a state to enforce his ownership of Amazon Bezos would just be a case of plastic surgery and steroids, cruise ship filled with gold or not.

If the state disappeared the bourgeoisie would simply erect a new one in its place. If you want to get rid of the state you have to eiminate capitalism.

Without property how would they accomplish this?

The same way they did it the first time. The modern state has only existed for a couple hundred years.

how would they accomplish it without the monopoly on violence, like that provided by the contemporary state, or those of historical power concentrations like monarchs/kingdoms? private armies and mercenaries?

Lol no. Hobbes' a priori nonsense isn't supported at all by the anthropological record, in fact it proves quite the opposite. When you take away central authority, people organize along non-hierarchial lines, not devolve into chaos. Read Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. It's one big scientifically-supported fuck you to Hobbes and his cronies like you.

Nietschze

Kropotkin was not an anthropologist.

but the anthropological and historical record supports him.
Stephan Jay Gold was an evolutionary biologist who made the case that Kropotkin was 100% right as well.

Hobbes. Rousseau was the first anarcho-liberal.

marxists.org/subject/science/essays/kropotkin.htm

...

Hobbes was wrong. Leviathan describes vampires, not people - and the state described is nothing else than prison where top honchos detour violence onto others by pretending to be scary muhfuggas to hide the fact they're scared, stupid and powerless

what an astute comprehension of egoism

Pick one anarchists.

not a contradiction. "human nature" refers to a liberal meme that was made up to justify capitalism.The second point is literal biology.

Hobbes and Rousseau didn't have a whole lot of historical data to go by.

How do you not see the contradiction?

It isn't. The less developed a state is, the more violent its people.