I wrote:
>>This is basically right, except that Hobbes did not "naturalize"
property ownership.<<
Mine writes: >in fact, he did. this is the sole idea behind R's criticism
of Hobbes in _On the Origins of Inequality_. Hobbes falsely projected what
is social (property) onto human nature, to say that it was in human nature
to acquire property. R disagreed with him since he believed private
property was a social invention, "not" a natural condition of human being.
R says "averice" "oppresion, desire", all the attributes that liberal
contract theorists traced to human nature are the charecteristics we gain
in society. he then continues in the same passage, they "portrayed savage
men". "it was in fact CIVIL MAN they depicted"<
I think we basically agree on this: Hobbes put "possession" -- and thus
possessiveness (the seeking by each individual to accumulate power after
power) -- into the "state of nature," which is illegitimate, as Rousseau
points out. In the terms I used, this positing of possessiveness reflected
Hobbes' experience with the English Civil War and the rise of capitalist
competition.
But following R, there's a distinction between "possession" (control) and
"property" (state-endorsed rights). Hobbes did not put property into the
state of nature. He wanted property to exist, though, which is an important
reason he wanted the Leviathan to impose order. Similar to the plot of many
Westerns, "private property" couldn't exist until the Sheriff rode into
Dodge on his white horse to shoot and/or jail the Bad Guys.
>i always find _Origins of Inequality_ a very important piece of work on
the "anthropology" of human development.that being said, it should not be
read from a romantic point of view as if R was talking about an abstract
state of nature.. it should be read from a materialist point of view.<
I like that book too. It's a very abstract and hypothetical anthropology,
akin to a lot of "sociobiology" in style of analysis (trying to figure out
what people were like without society) but with more attractive conclusions
to most leftists. Even though as a materialist I get something out of it, I
wouldn't call it a materialist book. (Materialism involves studying the
empirical world, among other things.)
My handy-dandy philosophical dictionary defines "Romanticism" as a movement
rejecting the 18th-century Enlightenment, emphasizing imagination and
emotion against the Enlightenment's emphasis on Reason. That fits R. While
the Encyclopedists (Diderot, etc.) were glorying in the benefits of
"civilization" and the early stages of capitalism, along with the
importance of transforming people and conquering nature with the
application of Reason, R pointed to the down-side of civilization's
development (the increase in inequality, etc.) and the fallacy of
separating reason completely from emotions. (In the SOCIAL CONTRACT, he
wrote that the most profound law is that which is inscribed "in the hearts
of the citizens," while hoping that the shared sentiments of the citizens
-- patriotism, etc. -- would find expression in the general will.)
>R was *not* Marx, but if I were to choose among Locke, Hobbes and R, I
would definetly put R near Marx, *not* near Hobbes..<
Luckily we don't have to make that choice. R might be thought of as the
father of modern collectivism, but he wasn't a democrat (until _after_ the
all-knowing, all-seeing Legislator imposed a Social Contract that involved
censorship, propaganda, a civic religion, etc.)
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
