urlphantomhive's review against another edition
3.0
This is one of these editions that are mostly interesting for the historical importance, in this instance the French revolution. As such, I thought it was interesting to read some of it (just like most of the more political works in the Little Black Classics collection - but I would not pick up a more complete work of Rousseau because I thought the writing was very dry and not that pleasant to read.
~Little Black Classics #82~
Find this and other reviews on my blog https://www.urlphantomhive.com
~Little Black Classics #82~
Find this and other reviews on my blog https://www.urlphantomhive.com
veethorn's review against another edition
5.0
Fascinating read. Sharp thoughts, clearly had quite a lot of impact. Sometimes internally contradictory wrt ideal governments and the will of the people, but for the most part a both good and highly applicable read, even if the part about how unlikely it is that bad and corrupt leaders will be elected (as opposed to chosen in a dictatorship) is, while true, a little depressing right now. But there is a lot to be said for his reasoning around the common good vs the personal good and how the best sign of a well functioning government is an engaged and knowledgeable citizenry.
amberrush's review against another edition
3.0
Rousseau, mostly known as the title 'the father of romanticism', explores how society should be ruled by the public and not the state or government. His famous line 'one is born free and tied up by society' is echoed throughout the book. Extracts from the "social contract", in itself, suggesting we are part of a business or agreement rather than just living, stating what is the basis of his works, we need to reform society back to the innocence of children. Suggesting the government is almost a middle man between the public and the state and changes our perception of democracy and limits our say in change. According to Rousseau, democracy will never exist instead we will vote or ask for what is merely wanted in society rather than what believe ourselves. Later discussing the faults of Aristocracy and hereditary power instead the government enhances this but the public are left to pick up the mess and agree with them. All citizens of the country are equal in the body politic, agreeing with egalitarianism, and each of us has equal power to change the government, what stops us is society and what they want to hear. The purpose of the state and government is to certify what the public want not to change that as we see today. 3/5
matthew4's review against another edition
2.0
I'm sure it was fairly radical at the time, and I like his disregard for the bureaucracy, but all in all doesn't translate well to our current concrete context.
lectrixnoctis's review
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
3.0
'No true Democracy has ever existed, nor ever will exist.'
Rousseau argues that a state's only moral, political authority comes from its people in "The Social Contract" selection.
This piece of literature, in no doubt, is essential for our history essay on human society, especially when we are talking about monarchy and democracy. I enjoy reading about historical text and reading about history; in general. I thought that this piece of wood was quite inspiring; Sometimes internally contradictory with superior regimes and the will of the people but a good and highly applicable read for the most part. The piece about how outlandish evil and immoral leaders will be elected is. While it is a slight pain right now, there is much to say about his logic around the common good versus personal interest. The best sign of a well-functioning government is involved and knowledgeable citizenship. However, I had to read a few passages from it at the end of the school. Sadly, they did not stick with me since I could remember them before reading this book. Nevertheless, I do think that if you are interested in history and politics, you should definitely if this book a try.
Rousseau argues that a state's only moral, political authority comes from its people in "The Social Contract" selection.
This piece of literature, in no doubt, is essential for our history essay on human society, especially when we are talking about monarchy and democracy. I enjoy reading about historical text and reading about history; in general. I thought that this piece of wood was quite inspiring; Sometimes internally contradictory with superior regimes and the will of the people but a good and highly applicable read for the most part. The piece about how outlandish evil and immoral leaders will be elected is. While it is a slight pain right now, there is much to say about his logic around the common good versus personal interest. The best sign of a well-functioning government is involved and knowledgeable citizenship. However, I had to read a few passages from it at the end of the school. Sadly, they did not stick with me since I could remember them before reading this book. Nevertheless, I do think that if you are interested in history and politics, you should definitely if this book a try.
lydia_reads's review against another edition
3.0
"The limits of the possible in moral things are less narrow than we think. It is our weaknesses, our vices and our prejudices that shrink them. Mean spirits do not believe in great men at all; vile slaves smile mockingly at the word liberty."
If only possibility translated easily into reality.
Rousseau's analysis of the political climate of his day is surprisingly applicable to our current global situation. His summary is scarily accurate and his solutions wonderfully idyllic if only they were likely to happen. Whilst I concur with nearly all of his model for the perfect political system, he is certainly more optimistic than I am in his assertion that it is entirely possible. Rousseau can forsee a world without greed, malice, pride or personal ambition which seems a great distance away from the grasp of humankind even 250 years after the publication of this work.
I am more inclined to agree with his observation from earlier in this work that "no true Democracy has ever existed, nor ever will exist." Still, it's nice to dream...
mary_kristine1's review
5.0
This work played an influential role in the French Revolution. In here, Rousseau argued that a state’s political power should lie with its people, next thing we know, the monarchs were overthrown… and replaced by….uh……
Book I: Of The Social Contract
Rousseau affirms that family is the first model of political societies; with the father as the ruler and children as people. Once the children reach the age of reason, they become their own masters- they alienate their liberty when either necessary or useful to them. The difference is that in a family setting, ruling is derived from love while in the State, ruling is derived from the pleasure of commanding.
If you have to obey by force, you do not obey by duty, and if you do not obey by duty, you do not need to obey at all. Strength does not spawn right to command, even though it seems like it. Yielding to force is an act of necessity and, at times, even prudence, not of will. You are obliged to obey only legitimate powers, but who holds the legitimate power?
Grotius asks: “If an individual can alienate his liberty and sell himself to a master, why could not a whole people alienate its own and subject itself to a king?” To alienate is to renounce your character, your liberty, your morality. There is no, or at least there should be no, compensation equivalent to a human being. Absolute authority of one and boundless obedience of another is a contradictory and pointless convention. A slave has no right against his master, since all that he has belongs to his master. A slave’s right is not his but his master’s. When a man alienates himself, he does not give himself, he sells himself, for subsistence. For what, then, do the people sell itself? For subsistence? A king provides subsistence for his subjects the same way his subjects provide his own, might I add, extravagant subsistence. For fear of being robbed of property? The people have no property. For peace? King’s wars, caused by insatiable greed and personal ambitions, inflicted more misery than harmony. Do the people sell themselves freely then? The Sovereign or the body politic neither has nor can have any interest contrary to theirs. Thus, duty and interest enable two parties to help each other out.
“No man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains.”
Book III: Of The Social Contract
Rousseau starts by introducing two causes of every free action; moral will that determines the act and physical will that executes it. If you want to piss, you would naturally want to go to the comfort room, to do this, you would also naturally have to use your feet and move. Should a differently abled man wish to run or Usain Bolt wish to sit, both will remain where they are. This is pretty much how the Legislative and Executive branches of the government work. The Legislature acts as an agent of the general will of the people and the Executive, well, executes said will.
There’s this really interesting experiment in the book. First, we know that the Sovereign can only be considered collectively (eg: Sovereign Filipino people), but each individual is called a citizen. Now, the Philippines has a hundred million citizens. The sovereign is to citizen as 100 million is to one. Ergo, each citizen has only one over one hundred millionth part (0.00000001%) of the sovereign authority. I’m really bad at explaining maths but I hope that made sense. Rousseau goes further and explains that the larger the state, the more strength the government must have in order to contain its subjects, the more temptations and tendency to abuse power, and the more the sovereignty citizens must have to contain the government. In short, there must be parity between the government and the citizens. This only means that no two governments are alike, that there can be as many types of government as states differ in size.
Rousseau identifies three different wills of the government; personal will directed for private gain, corporate will of the members for their common advantage, and general will of the people. In a perfect government, the first must be nonexistent, the second subordinate to the last, and the last the dominating will. However, wills are more active when they are more concentrated, when it involves less members. Thus, the opposite of the perfect government happens, the general will is always the weakest. “The government slackens to the extent that magistrates multiply” Is this to say that the best government is that of a single ruler? hmmmmmmM
Each form of government has its inadequacies. Democracy with its vagueness and tendency to be abused and corrupted. Democracy degenerates into Ochlocracy. Rousseau even points out that “no true democracy has existed, nor ever will exist.” It is against the nature of man to submit himself willfully to a government comprised of a small number of men.. Aristocracy with its institutional inequality that puts the wealthy on the pedestal. Aristocracy degenerates into Oligarchy. The wealthy, deliberating affairs by themselves and for themselves, is the government. Monarchy with all its powers concentrated to a single Monarch. The whole state is ridden by personal will. Monarchy degenerates into Tyranny. Everything moves towards the same end, whether it is good or bad for the general will, is wholly to the Monarch’s decision. The consistency of the royal government depends on the character of the ruling monarch. The whole state can either be under the rule of a wise king, a child, a monster, or an idiot, depending on the succession…
Chapter 15: Of Deputies or Representatives left quite a mark on me. Here, Rousseau elucidates the role of money in any State. Okay, sure, everybody knows about how money makes the world go round, what’s new? What’s new is that things shouldn’t work like that, or at least wholly. Must we really go to war? We pay the military and stay home for that. Must we really enter politics? We elect and pay officials and stay home for that. We pay to exempt ourselves from duties. We pay for comfort. Sure, you can say “I worked hard for my money, I get to decide what do with it”, except you don’t. Let me remind you of Marx’s words (okay, not exact words), you don’t acquire money or any property through your labor, what you acquire exploits you. When people serve with money rather than with persons, public services cease to be the main objective, the State is a mockery. “In a truly free state, citizens do everything with their own hands and nothing with money.”
Rousseau also has a very interesting take on modern system of representation aka elections. In ancient republics and monarchies, the people never had representatives. The word as we know it now didn’t exist until the 16th century. Republican states like to boast freedom, but as soon as the people elect representatives, it ceases to be free.
“It would be absurd if the citizens united could not do what each of them can do separately.”
Book I: Of The Social Contract
Rousseau affirms that family is the first model of political societies; with the father as the ruler and children as people. Once the children reach the age of reason, they become their own masters- they alienate their liberty when either necessary or useful to them. The difference is that in a family setting, ruling is derived from love while in the State, ruling is derived from the pleasure of commanding.
If you have to obey by force, you do not obey by duty, and if you do not obey by duty, you do not need to obey at all. Strength does not spawn right to command, even though it seems like it. Yielding to force is an act of necessity and, at times, even prudence, not of will. You are obliged to obey only legitimate powers, but who holds the legitimate power?
Grotius asks: “If an individual can alienate his liberty and sell himself to a master, why could not a whole people alienate its own and subject itself to a king?” To alienate is to renounce your character, your liberty, your morality. There is no, or at least there should be no, compensation equivalent to a human being. Absolute authority of one and boundless obedience of another is a contradictory and pointless convention. A slave has no right against his master, since all that he has belongs to his master. A slave’s right is not his but his master’s. When a man alienates himself, he does not give himself, he sells himself, for subsistence. For what, then, do the people sell itself? For subsistence? A king provides subsistence for his subjects the same way his subjects provide his own, might I add, extravagant subsistence. For fear of being robbed of property? The people have no property. For peace? King’s wars, caused by insatiable greed and personal ambitions, inflicted more misery than harmony. Do the people sell themselves freely then? The Sovereign or the body politic neither has nor can have any interest contrary to theirs. Thus, duty and interest enable two parties to help each other out.
“No man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains.”
Book III: Of The Social Contract
Rousseau starts by introducing two causes of every free action; moral will that determines the act and physical will that executes it. If you want to piss, you would naturally want to go to the comfort room, to do this, you would also naturally have to use your feet and move. Should a differently abled man wish to run or Usain Bolt wish to sit, both will remain where they are. This is pretty much how the Legislative and Executive branches of the government work. The Legislature acts as an agent of the general will of the people and the Executive, well, executes said will.
There’s this really interesting experiment in the book. First, we know that the Sovereign can only be considered collectively (eg: Sovereign Filipino people), but each individual is called a citizen. Now, the Philippines has a hundred million citizens. The sovereign is to citizen as 100 million is to one. Ergo, each citizen has only one over one hundred millionth part (0.00000001%) of the sovereign authority. I’m really bad at explaining maths but I hope that made sense. Rousseau goes further and explains that the larger the state, the more strength the government must have in order to contain its subjects, the more temptations and tendency to abuse power, and the more the sovereignty citizens must have to contain the government. In short, there must be parity between the government and the citizens. This only means that no two governments are alike, that there can be as many types of government as states differ in size.
Rousseau identifies three different wills of the government; personal will directed for private gain, corporate will of the members for their common advantage, and general will of the people. In a perfect government, the first must be nonexistent, the second subordinate to the last, and the last the dominating will. However, wills are more active when they are more concentrated, when it involves less members. Thus, the opposite of the perfect government happens, the general will is always the weakest. “The government slackens to the extent that magistrates multiply” Is this to say that the best government is that of a single ruler? hmmmmmmM
Each form of government has its inadequacies. Democracy with its vagueness and tendency to be abused and corrupted. Democracy degenerates into Ochlocracy. Rousseau even points out that “no true democracy has existed, nor ever will exist.” It is against the nature of man to submit himself willfully to a government comprised of a small number of men.. Aristocracy with its institutional inequality that puts the wealthy on the pedestal. Aristocracy degenerates into Oligarchy. The wealthy, deliberating affairs by themselves and for themselves, is the government. Monarchy with all its powers concentrated to a single Monarch. The whole state is ridden by personal will. Monarchy degenerates into Tyranny. Everything moves towards the same end, whether it is good or bad for the general will, is wholly to the Monarch’s decision. The consistency of the royal government depends on the character of the ruling monarch. The whole state can either be under the rule of a wise king, a child, a monster, or an idiot, depending on the succession…
Chapter 15: Of Deputies or Representatives left quite a mark on me. Here, Rousseau elucidates the role of money in any State. Okay, sure, everybody knows about how money makes the world go round, what’s new? What’s new is that things shouldn’t work like that, or at least wholly. Must we really go to war? We pay the military and stay home for that. Must we really enter politics? We elect and pay officials and stay home for that. We pay to exempt ourselves from duties. We pay for comfort. Sure, you can say “I worked hard for my money, I get to decide what do with it”, except you don’t. Let me remind you of Marx’s words (okay, not exact words), you don’t acquire money or any property through your labor, what you acquire exploits you. When people serve with money rather than with persons, public services cease to be the main objective, the State is a mockery. “In a truly free state, citizens do everything with their own hands and nothing with money.”
Rousseau also has a very interesting take on modern system of representation aka elections. In ancient republics and monarchies, the people never had representatives. The word as we know it now didn’t exist until the 16th century. Republican states like to boast freedom, but as soon as the people elect representatives, it ceases to be free.
“It would be absurd if the citizens united could not do what each of them can do separately.”
More...