Wypipo be like "let's make these political...

Rousseau fell for the nobel savage meme.

Fuck off Voltaire. Rousseau didn't use the term "bonne sauvage" even once in the entire corpus of his work.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage#Erroneous_identification_of_Rousseau_with_the_noble_savage

In fact, Rousseau only preferred the "state of nature" over civilization in sofar as civilization is, by its very definition, an oppression of liberty (no civilization without laws after all). Even then he did not argue for humanity to go back to walking on all fours as Voltaire famously mocked him for (after all, if you're going to do that why the fuck would you write a political theory in the first place? Why not just write a one page paper that reads "we should like... live in the woods man"). Instead, precisely BECAUSE going back to the state of nature is impossible, he sought a solution against tyranny (ie. answering the problem of Thomas Hobbes' "might makes right" philosophy).

Try actually reading Du Contrat Social instead of going by memes. For fucks sake the "might makes right" thing is brought up in the first four or five pages.

Attached: letmetellyou[1].jpg (820x801, 386K)

No idea who the first two guys are but I know for a fact the last guy is the devil incarnate

You know that he didn't invent communism and socialism, right?

>No idea who the first two guys are
Nobody important, just the inventors of liberalism in its modern form.

Attached: 1558013520541.png (545x724, 378K)

Rousseau was a man-whore who wanted an "enlightened" dictatorship and a tyranny of the majority, and Marx spent all his time criticising capitalism instead of creating a viable alternative (how will the state wither? How do you manage a megacity with no state or government?) while leaching off of his friend and banging the maid.

Rousseau is the only good one.

>Rousseau was a man-whore who wanted an "enlightened" dictatorship
Citation needed.
>and a tyranny of the majority
Which is why he made such a big point out of distinguishing "general will" and "will of all", right?

You're also contradicting yourself: you cannot have a dictatorship and mob rule at the same time.

Rousseau was a windbag. My least favourite French speaking person.

In his writings he specifically mentions that those that oppose the majority should lose their rights. He also supported the idea of an enlightened despot to "ensure" everybody was treated equally. His type of liberalism was the worst kind. Also he literally was a man whore and apparently was just an all around unpleasant fellow to be around.

Indian philosophers beat all these subhumans. Keep caring about political and economic shit while we pondered the nature of the universe in 600 BCE.

The who invented communism then? Satan himself?
We don't learn this shit, we just know that Reagan invented modern conservatism

>Marx
>White

Lmao

Attached: 9bkhyYv.jpg (433x505, 32K)

>In his writings he specifically mentions that those that oppose the majority should lose their rights
Not really. He states that rights are given by the social contract, which is where we get into the general will vs will of all debate.

>He also supported the idea of an enlightened despot to "ensure" everybody was treated equally.
Where? Cite me. Everything about his writing appears to oppose despotism, he spends the first pages of The Social Contract arguing against kingship and his description of a government (balanced between "the government" and "the sovereign (people)") seems to resemble Ancient Athens more than anything (with a popular assembly dictating the laws and archons handling day-to-day governance, though in his commentary on the constitution of Poland he did recognize the merits of having an assembly of representatives).

I'd like it if you actually provided a source, because I'm mostly using the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

>Adam Smith irl: We should get rid of trade protections because the ones we've got in place are unfairly favoring the mercantilist class at the expense of the rest of the country. I know everyone's worried that lowered tariffs will mean that British business owners will move all their investments overseas and the people back home won't be able to find work and survive, but trust me when I say that rich people won't decimate the labor force of their own country. "Led by an invisible hand" our island will be spared the downsides of unregulated trade, thanks to investors and owners' home bias. t. Wealth of Nations, page 456

>Libertarians today: You heard the man, deregulate everything! The invisible hand of the free market and unrestrained personal selfishness will make sure everything's fine.

Attached: maxresdefault (1).jpg (948x720, 66K)

Attached: image.png (543x300, 138K)

>who invented socialism then?
God

Attached: images.jpeg.jpg (479x640, 26K)

>Marx
>not Hegel
This thread is a mistake from the beginning.

>trust me when I say that rich people won't decimate the labor force of their own country. "Led by an invisible hand" our island will be spared the downsides of unregulated trade, thanks to investors and owners' home bias. t. Wealth of Nations, page 456
Is this just fucking retarded, or am I missing something here

I have the book here somewhere, sorry I need a while to find it. But the idea fits with his mentality of "forcing people to be free". He has very little stock for individual rights and representative democracy.
"Thus, in order for the social compact to avoid being an empty formula, it tacitly involves the commitment – which alone can give force to the others – that whoever refuses to obey the general will will be forced to do so by the entire body. This means merely that he will be forced to be free”.
I will find his passages on wanting "enlightened individuals" to manage his whole utopian society, but it may take a while, sorry.

Good image
The actual argument that Adam Smith was making about the "invisible hand", that unregulated capitalism wouldn't hurt English workers because English business owners would prefer to invest in England and give their countrymen jobs was retarded.

The "invisible hand" that Libertarians always think Adam Smith was talking about, that deregulation and selfishness will end up being best for everyone, is even more retarded.

Look up Cawthon "Guiding the Wills of Men" it helps break down the fact that rousseau wanted communal ownership of property, almost no individual rights, and some sort of enlightened philosopher king managing the whole affair.

>But the idea fits with his mentality of "forcing people to be free".
Yeah, that's a very controversial phrase that's often used against him but it doesn't mean much more than the universal application of the law. It means everyone within the social contract is constrained to the general will, whether you like it or not, especially because he believed in a society where everyone would effectively be bound laws they subjected upon themselves (as opposed to laws prescribed by some and forced unto others).

>He has very little stock for individual rights
That's a valid criticism I actually share, the fact that he believes ALL rights come from the sovereign. Though that makes sense if you completely dismiss the supernatural and retain only popular sovereignity. Though luckily this doesn't appear to have been too influential on doctrine, either in France or outside of it, given that the French doctrine distinguishes between civil rights (which does follow the Rousseauvian "subject to the sovereign" reasoning) and human rights (which are inalienable).

>I will find his passages on wanting "enlightened individuals" to manage his whole utopian society, but it may take a while, sorry.
The funny thing is that for roughly the same passage, Rousseau is criticized from two sides for mutually contradictory things. Kind of like how you at the same time argued that he supports despotism and mob rule. Those who misunderstand the difference between general will and will of all claim that he believes whatever the mob decides is right. Some of those who do make the distinguishment believe that he thinks "enlightened dictators" should be able to do as they please in the name of the common good. In reality he acknowledges the people as sovereign, but also believes that sometimes the government should ignore the will of the masses to pursue the common good. This is an obvious field of tension that exists in all but the most direct of democracies.

Stop apologising for his garbage. While highly educated and well spoken for the times, his ideals boil down to the same selfish protection of the owner class at the expense of everyone else. Your precious founding fathers didn't give a single shit about non land owners.

stcroixreview.com/archives_nopass/2001-03-Leadership/Rousseau.pdf

I found it, the discussion of property takes place on pages 4-5, but I don't see any argument for communal property. Rather the belief that property rights do spring forth from the general will (as do all rights, something I personally don't fully agree with).

>and some sort of enlightened philosopher king managing the whole affair.
Page 6 discusses the origins of leadership (in popular sovereignity) and Rousseau flipflops between elected leaders and leaders selected by lottery (both things that actually happened in Athens, confirming the theory that Rousseau had an Athenian-like state in mind).

The document even brings up how Rousseau's leaders differ from the Platonic philospher-king.
>Yet, whereas Plato proposed that such a hierarchy existed as a part of the natural order, Rousseau maintained an insistence on equality. Even though the leader might be superior in ability and understanding, he ultimately, like his followers, remains subject to the general will. Consequently, the leader’s task is to convince the follower that his ideas are their ideas, that his will is their will.
>The successful leader, then, is one who can persuade others to align their wills to his.
It seems to emphasize persuasion and reasonable debate over "the wistest know best because they're the wistest".

I dont know who that guys are

I wasn't defending him, his economic and trade policies were basically a steal for the already rich and well-off. You're correct.

That being said Adam Smith, despite being pretty fucking dumb a lot of the time, at least had a consciousness. He could recognize how destructive the rise of unregulated capitalism has been on human society, even as it increases material production. Even he could see it was turning human beings into joyless slaves, and that the rich were using the tools of government to defend and enrich themselves at the expense of the workers and the common welfare.

>marx
>white

Oh wait, I already see the reasoning in the latter pages now. The reasoning is pretty much that, by making the decision making process subject to the ability of leaders to convince the masses, you get communism and fascism. While that's kind of a jump (and Marx makes zero reference to Rousseau in his works), I do kind of understand where he's going with this. If you have a sufficiently skilled demagogue who can convince the masses that communism/fascism is in their favor, you get communism/fascism.

Personally I'd argue that this isn't so much a thing that can be put down to Rousseau per se but the inherent paradox of democracy: does democracy include the right to vote one's rights away? This is also why I like Rousseau's philosophy, but disagree with his belief that all rights spring from the social contract (and why I like the Declaration's distinguishing between alienable civil rights and unalienable human rights).

Though that doesn't mean Rouseau should be seen as detestable or even directly responsible for ideologies directly contradictory to the liberalism Rousseau and the other philosophes desired. Just as flawed, in how most philosohies are flawed and philosophy itself is a permanent work in progress.

I just want to say you are smart and better organized than me. I was mostly making shitposts about french liberalism and clearly not treating the subject with appropriate nuance. I have a bias against Rousseau's desire for a more direct democracy and his ideas of what constitutes the "will of the people". Although some would call him one of the "fathers of the Terror". Really the only point I wanted to make was that I prefer Anglo political philosophy to Continental political theory, and that both Rousseau and Marx had sultry personal lives. Thanks for raising the bar though!

I mean there were dozens of memers in the 19th century. It's just Marx got stuck with us.

>He could recognize how destructive the rise of unregulated capitalism has been on human society, even as it increases material production. Even he could see it was turning human beings into joyless slaves, and that the rich were using the tools of government to defend and enrich themselves at the expense of the workers and the common welfare.
Ok but you think people under socialism were any freer when they exchange capitalism for being a slave to the state with zero individual rights or free expression?

You are a smart dude. What are you doing on Jow Forums?

I'm sure Rosseau could have foreseen Stalin in the 1700s.

Attached: fc20d7ba75499df5113b2b3f94b87730.jpg (512x384, 22K)

Nah, it's fine. You forced me to face some criticism as well and I especially liked the document you linked me to. As for Anglo philosophy, I think you'll find that on most parts they're generally in agreement. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen was written with the aid of Jefferson, the Founding Fathers wanked off Montesquieu, Rousseau was considered a guest of honor during his exile in England and both Hume and Paine were made honorary French citizens during the revolution. You'll find that a lot of these thinkers were part of the same international clique, constantly writing in reaction to one another.

My social life imploded after college. Now I'm here shitposting, pretending to be MED BVLL to trigger Germanoids.

>Your precious founding fathers didn't give a single shit about non land owners.
In fact very early on there was the conflict between Federalists who wanted an aristocratic society where the elites controlled everything and the Jeffersonians who envisioned a democratic society of small farmers and craftsmen.

Attached: r787f.png (1280x1024, 137K)

Hope that social life picks up man, I am going through the same. What is helping me is charity programs and calling old friends. Also Based MED BVLL poster.

Generally rich people don’t mind large government programs to protect their interests, so long as those functions of government are being paid for by everyone and are limited to protecting the investor class and don’t expand towards ensuring security for workers. The private sector needs a large amount of government subsidies to function, along with tax breaks and the ability to minimize labor protections to “remain competitive”. This is how the American economy has functioned essentially forever, but especially since the mid-70s. Government security for the investors and owners, precariousness for the vast majority.

Business and state are so intertwined in the US (and in every country today) there’s almost no difference between the two. You may be using either a personal computer or a cellphone to browse the internet right now. All three of these inventions were basically created as military technologies developed out of the public sector, they weren’t invented by risky smart guys out of their garage in Seattle. At a certain point these technologies are eventually handed off to businesses to be sold on the consumer market to make private profit and keep the National economy moving. The computer you’re using had to be bought by you twice, first as a taxpayer to develop the technology, then as a consumer to purchase the technology again from some guy claiming credit for “inventing” a technology he just modified for personal use. We should stop thinking that there’s a clear division between business and state when both are being used towards the same ends. For all Adam Smith’s faults, this sort of system is what he was railing against.

Also the idea that the only alternative to this is some central party controlling everyone’s lives is a fallacy.

This guy was pretty cool.

Attached: mill.jpg (642x800, 52K)