Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau Comparison Grid

[BaggerofTea]

As the terms right and left become more muddled. I think we should go back to a more basic political test of where someone lies on the liberal-conservative spectrum.

Based on this chart, I am Locke-Rousseau thinker

Who are you?

 

[JahFocus CS]

I lean more towards Rousseau than Locke

 

[BaggerofTea]

I lean more towards Rousseau than Locke

My fellow Anarchist breh

 

[CACtain Planet]

A mix of Hobbit and Russ

 

[Sukairain]

Rousseau

Plato and Paine are also outstanding

Hobbes is worth studying because he lays out how shyt will go down in a libertarian anarcho-capitalist utopia. "..continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

Marx also is worth studying because of his lacerating critique of capitalism. Of course his proposed solution to the evils of capitalism was error-ridden and mistaken (and should no longer be taken seriously), but his analysis of capitalism is some shyt. "The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates"

That's the big five in political philosophy for me. Plato, Rousseau and Paine have the vision for the future. Marx tells you what's wrong with things as they are. Hobbes tells you what will happen if you let this madness continue to get out of hand. As a set they're perfect.

at evil writers like Ayn Rand and Edmund Burke

 

[JahFocus CS]

Of course his proposed solution to the evils of capitalism was error-ridden and mistaken (and should no longer be taken seriously)

Workers controlling the means of production and democratically determining production and distribution is "error-ridden and mistaken (and should no longer be taken seriously)"?

 

[CACtain Planet]

Rousseau only works in majority CAC countries with singular cultures like Denmark and Iceland

 

[BaggerofTea]

Rousseau

Plato and Paine are also outstanding

Hobbes is worth studying because he lays out how shyt will go down in a libertarian anarcho-capitalist utopia. "..continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

Marx also is worth studying because of his lacerating critique of capitalism. Of course his proposed solution to the evils of capitalism was error-ridden and mistaken (and should no longer be taken seriously), but his analysis of capitalism is some shyt. "The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates"

That's the big five in political philosophy for me. Plato, Rousseau and Paine have the vision for the future. Marx tells you what's wrong with things as they are. Hobbes tells you what will happen if you let this madness continue to get out of hand. As a set they're perfect.

at evil writers like Ayn Rand and Edmund Burke

Workers controlling the means of production and democratically determining production and distribution is "error-ridden and mistaken (and should no longer be taken seriously)"?

@JahFocus CS is 100% correct to question the validity of that statement

Industrial democracy may have its issues buts its ability to decentralize economic power makes it invaluable to moving forward.

 

[BaggerofTea]

Rousseau only works in majority CAC countries with singular cultures like Denmark and Iceland

I think Rousseau can succeed in more diverse populaces, they need to be educated though.

 

[Grano-Grano]

I lean towards none. Western political thought is bullshyt

 

[JahFocus CS]

I lean towards none. Western political thought is bullshyt

Please tell us more about the indigenous Afrikan political thought you focus on.

 

[Sukairain]

Workers controlling the means of production and democratically determining production and distribution is "error-ridden and mistaken (and should no longer be taken seriously)"?

Look at how it was put into practice. It didn't work out like that. Simply another elite, the party elite, came to take over the place occupied prior to the communist revolution by the royalty or capitalist elite. That's why it should no longer be taken seriously - because it has been attempted, ostensibly at least, and failed not only to succeed but even to meet its own criteria. Moreover the philosophical foundation for communism itself has been destroyed. If you're familiar with Marx, you will know he talked a lot about dialectical materialism, his own take on the Hegelian dialectic. For a dialectician like Marx, communism is the anti-thesis created in response to the particularly brutal form of capitalism that was in vogue during the early 19th century. I mean you had children working 96 hour weeks as chimney sweeps in the cities - that shyt does not happen anymore. Capitalism has changed, the thesis has changed; so communism as the anti-thesis must change with it. But it hasn't really.

But mainly the issue I have with communism (like libertarianism) is that it has a far too idealistic vision of what humans are actually like. In the USSR for example everybody was guaranteed a job no matter how bad they were at it.

Just imagine, you're working your ass off mining coal or working in a factory. You put your heart and soul into your work. There's nothing more important to you than mining coal. Then you look over to see your colleague, who shows up drunk and sleeps through every shift, and no disciplinary action is going to be taken against him for his behaviour. He's going to take home the same pay as you do, too. Pretty soon you're going to lose your own motivation and drive, because why put your heart and soul into a backbreaking job like coal mining when you get exactly the same out of work for goofing off? And this problem seeps into all other fields of employment, too. The incentive argument is really important I think, and there is no sufficient communist solution to providing people incentive to push themselves and push the boundaries of human knowledge.

So to conclude, I think Marxism is fantastic for understanding what is wrong with capitalism, but not worth studying for solutions to capitalism.

 

[CACtain Planet]

I think Rousseau can succeed in more diverse populaces, they need to be educated though.

Educated by whom though and what purpose will that education serve?:notibih: Will it serve to indoctrinate to become more of a servant of the state or will it promote free thinking? Im sure it would be more on the indoctrination to serve the state side in order to keep up with the idea that "Individual wills are subordinate to the general (collective) will":brasille:

 

[BaggerofTea]

Educated by whom though and what purpose will that education serve?:notibih: Will it serve to indoctrinate to become more of a servant of the state or will it promote free thinking? Im sure it would be more on the indoctrination to serve the state side in order to keep up with the idea that "Individual wills are subordinate to the general (collective) will":brasille:

If people understand how to critically think and be logical beings I think that leads to a better society anyway.

State indoctrinates though forcing the regurgitating of information

A good education teaches one to think critically

 

[Grano-Grano]

Please tell us more about the indigenous Afrikan political thought you focus on.

Xeer - Wikipedia

And good ole Sharia law