Marx and Rousseau: The Social Contract and Beginning of Revolutionary Theory
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 12. 2020
- The beginnings of a truly revolutionary theory started coming to fruition from the late chasms of the enlightenment, and discourse over late political theory and the social contract. Understanding the beginnings gives us insight on some of the shortcomings of idealism, and the differences between contemporary revolutionary theory starkly set in materialism. Examining Rousseau's The Social Contract gives further insights into the movement of Marxism and the liberal revolutions set during his time.
This entire channel is funded by you all. If this channel is something you enjoy, anything helps: / epochphilosophy
Books covered in video:
The Social Contract (Rousseau): amzn.to/2VvnDUu
The Communist Manifesto (Marx & Engels): amzn.to/2JBqSXC
If you want to support the channel for free, use the amazon affiliate link, this helps us IMMENSELY: amzn.to/32hdeQB
Watch the stream:
Twitch► / epochphilosophy
Join our community on Discord:
/ discord
Socials:
Twitter► / epochphilosophy
Instagram► / epochphilosophy - Zábava
Hi, friends! Wanted to swing by and comment that this entire channel is only possible with your help on Patreon! If you want to support the channel you get access to early access, transcripts, voting on newer video topics, name in credits, etc. Also something that helps is bookmarking our Amazon link and using it on all your purchases. It supports me and you force Jeff Bezos to shell out some cash! It's a win-win. Thanks for anything you can do to support.
Patreon: www.patreon.com/epochphilosophy
Amazon: amzn.to/32hdeQB
@epochphilosophy you lost me near the end. The school I attended had REQUIRED identity editing, Marxist PRAXIS as a form of dispositions theory to screen people for their political beliefs and students were meant to make an oath supporting the cause on video and for a grade. I sure as heck would call that FULL Marx authoritarian behavior in practice. It felt like a cult. It did not feel American.
You and Plastic Pills are currently doing the best theory work on CZcams. I'm floored at the production value of this video.
Zizek once said that ”Marx is the greatest embodiment of the Enlightenment.”
I know why. that is because of the agnosticism, some of them consider the supernatural phenomenoums.
For me it`s a dangerous thought. enlightement compared to what we have known about, is madness.
God is a wierd guy.
Socialism is just a continuation of the radical project of the French Revolution
@@00coelho more or less. there`re subjective variables in my reaserch area.
I`m an internationalist lusitan(portuguese), i know how it works when we Christian people talks about this utopia.
Would you mind if i explained it for you?
@@rodrigoferreira9527 Well now I want to know.
@@jessevilla3696
For example, Hegel is the Opposite of Marx’s Social theory,why?That’s because he simply don’t pay Attention to what is happening now and ever,that is to say,believing in soul and all of this discussion about the existence or not of this incommon order. That’s how we humans consider only what is common between us,the collective identity that can be Seen by any individual irracional aspect.
At this point,it is considered that Hegel is the father of human spirituality,meanwhile,Marx doesn’ agreed the existence of sacred families,this argument reminds me of Engels’s book:“the origin of the state,family and private property”,which is criticized by us human beings.
Only an Atheist can be a true Christian in Order to overcome this Situation of fighting classes.
Class,is the individual collectiveness that saparates demihumans and gods and so on.
There was an Overlaunch of people with autism During this decades,let’s Just say that “messias” is comming to salve us once again.
This is worth a lot. There are almost no videos about these topics and even less with this higher level of quality.
Thank you a lot!
Appreciate this comment an absolute ton, my friend.
@@epochphilosophydo you know any channels that have done a detailed explanation on the philosophy/politics of liberalism.
criminally underrated channel. great stuff
Political science prof here, very nice work mate. It has always perplexed me how folks working more or less within the Marxist tradition largely seem to ignore Rousseau, especially given how consistent his theories of the general will are with vanguard leftism.
Great video! Thoroughly informative and amazing editing. Looking forward to the completion of the whole series.
Great video, looking forward to the others
I have to say, this is probably the best and most accessible video I have seen showing the link between the Enlightenment and Marx (only competitor being Philosophy Tube). Amazing content and very important work as I could not agree more that we need more people to understand materialism and in general be more philosophically literate to understand how our politics got where they are and where they need to go.
I also wanted to say that I particularly enjoyed this because reading political philosophy from the Enlightenment is what started my move toward the Left and I love that you contextualized my own experience better than I could have. Keep up the great work!
I'm very excited for this series!
This is a fantastic idea for a Series.
Thanks So Much!
Really big project you are undertaking, you have my full attention.
EDIT: You got me so interested in Rousseau that I ordered *another* book today -_-
This is a GREAT video, I still watch it from time to time
this is incredible. Exactly what I wanted to know after reading Rousseau, Locke, and Hobbes in political theory class.
Amazing work dude! Keep it up 💪💪
Man this was such a great vid, definitely deserves more views.
woah you are killing it, dude.
You deserve way more views and subs. I think this is a really interesting perspective. (And necessary)
I'm looking forward to the subsequent parts.
Excellent production and presentation!
hells yeah, im loving your content
Hey buddy, I just wanted to let you know i really liked this video. Keep it up bro you’re getting lots of subs !! Well deserved.
Great work as always! Shared
great video!! as always
Can’t just ignore the historicist influence that PLATO set into motion, Aristotle brought to earth (gave empirical grounding) then sat dormant until Hegel. Locke was the big break. Plato was the strongest influence on Hegelian phenomenology and therefore Marxian
How did Plato influence historicism? There are swathes of various kinds of scholarship that would view this claim as erroneous.
Thank You Ian, very cool!
Happy to provide!
I absolute love all the shots of Belgrade!
Actually cool someone recognized it was Belgrade! Congrats, you win the internet today!
@@epochphilosophy haha well I grew up there. The preschool I went to is like a 30 minute walk from where some of those clips are lol. Where did you find them??
Exceptional video.
*prepares popcorn*
This will be a good one!
Smh. Last time you post your capitalist realism video was the middle of me reading it again. Now you’re posting this the same week I read Discourse on Inequality and then Arts and Sciences. Not enough Rousseau videos on philosophy channels, I’m excited as always
I'm excited for this one tbh.
@@epochphilosophy same here, I’m so happy (and shocked) this won the poll. My mind was blown reading A Discourse on Inequality. I’m really excited to hear your take on it.
@@fuzzydunlop4513 Awesome. I like The Social Contract. But, It's not over the political theory as an entire whole, rather Book 1 and his theory that creates the first revolutionary theory. I tie it in with Marx and materialism, and to contemporary activism.
More Marxism please, your video is very good in explaining such complex theories. But what got me hook is on Marxism
what an awesome video!!! Finally some justice to my boy Rousseau
Thank you my friend. Rousseau kind of feels like the enlightenments last breath.
very nice! are you gonna make any hegel videos?
Ohhh man. I think I will, but with a little twist. Will be some time tho!
Hey, great video. Could you explain more in depth or do a whole new video on how liberalism, Idealism are expressed in those movements and is the basis in general of our western society?
Meaning no disrespect, I really love your videos and this one is not an exception. Excellent work, very well though and amazing editing on top.
BUT
I think the way you use the word "West" is a bit dismissive. In Europe there has been many movements that went beyond idealist though and deep into Marxism. Movements talking about class struggle and imperialism. Hell, in so many countries there have been (successful or unsuccessful) socialist revolutions and civil wars fought. Italy, Germany, Greece, Spain only to name a few from the top of my head.
I really appreciate your work and sorry if I come across as aggressive. I am not a native English speaker and my tone may not be exactly how I intended.
Keep up the amazing work!
I mean, I can only think of one in American History, the Black Panther party (Maoists).
Nailed it man, thanks a lot. Just a question: is there any reason to avoid the anarchist pals in the series?
This is the coolest channel seriously great theory, great pedagogy, great politics!!
Rousseau and idealism laying the foundation for the left (even self-proclaimed marxists, as you point out) in the west is something that the Swedish Marxist Alexander Bard has pointed out earlier. I highly advice to check out his works. He has done some interesting pieces on dialectical materialism + psychoanalysis applied to the internet and contemporary technology.
This is a very good explanation of these protests that are going on. In Russia a lot of marxists are arguing on this topic and it is hard to tell who is right and who is wrong.
discord pings in the audio?
...... You didn't hear anything.
omg i thought it was just me
Good but I think you need to adjust your audio background levels just a bit lower. Have felt that for a few videos.
To add for context: My hearing is not 100% with voices so I listen a bit louder.
Super
What does taking a dialectical approach to something mean? Also, the video says that the current protests are in the vein of idealism, why and what would protests look like in a materilist vein? Thanks in advance, great video, as always!
Love this video! Might I suggest linking to sources other than Amazon for the books, though? Amazon is actively working to dismantle all the gains made by Marx and Rousseau
I think it is fair to argue that materialism and idealism are mutually incompatible with each other.
It’s probably super cheeky of me to ask, but where do you get all your archive footage from? I’m creating an audio/visual project all about the recent history that led us to our current world. Much love and thank you for your work ❤
Totally okay! I usually get most of my stuff from Archive.org! Lots of old footage on there that’s super solid!
Thanks immensely for this excellent video! It really covers the origins of revolutionary theory in depth, and gives an insight on the dialectical influence between idealist theory and materialism. Just a question, since you announced that you will cover this topic in the materialist Marxist line of theory, from Marx through Lenin to Maoism, would you consider shedding light on the anti-authoritarian branch of materialist revolutionary thought, namely springing at the 2nd Internationale with Bakunin? I mean, at least until WWI this tradition shaped the largest part of revolutionary movements on the ground around the world. Would you find it interesting to cover?
I appreciate this! But, that's a wonderful idea.
Hi. Do you have links to any good videos in English explaining Bakunin? Thanks
You can’t properly understand Rousseau’s Social Contract without understanding his Second Discourse on Inequality. Social contract is more a lamentable “best case scenario” or “lesser evil” than it is his ideal way of living. It’s a recognition that man cannot go back to paradise that was his nature but that the insensible institution of property and it’s extreme unlikelihood of eradication necessitates humans to unite and surrender everyone’s natural freedom in favour of civil freedom.
But even this comes from Rousseau’s opinion that our innovative creativity, coupled with higher cognitive abilities and our mirroring behaviour caused us to form societies centred around agriculture and industry. The moment inequality posed itself as a problem, to Rousseau links to the historically contingent accidents that led humans to control fire and develop language.
Take one look at Rousseau’s actual life and you see a man allergic to dependence, and vehemently bitter toward the rich. His whole existence was to moralize his selfish deeds into Rights and to see his failures of a man into the nature of society. The rest was pure imagination.
And your quotes were misleading.
Quote 1: comes from Rousseau’s critique of property in the “right of first occupant.” Rousseau is skeptical that people will only take as much land as they need, and can work on, so he suggests everyone to surrender their property to all in the social contract for everyone to enjoy its benefits without inequality. Right before you quoted him, he says “Can one really avoid setting limits on the right?” Which gives a different sense of his critique than you lead on. Namely that his view on property was not tilted toward revolution but a problem that he claims to solve in the social contract.
Quote 2: given his view that man left to his natural state, in the absence of property, is best for his happiness Rousseau is seeking to establish the basis for legitimate Rights. He maintains that Force or Strength is illegitimate and illogical, as well as slavery. Because of this he maintains that legitimate rule is only based on convenants, and this produces legitimate rights. It’s a refinement of Hobbes idea, not him ripping it to shreds. It’s saying that in order to escape from force, slavery, and inequality one surrenders entirely to the community to enjoy a new kind of liberty. Because one is left unable to enslave another, all must be enslaved to all, but since all are mutually dependent, our slavery is not to any one in particular, nullifying it. As a result we gain back all the rights we surrender only if we agree unanimously.
Quote 3: is a reaction to Grotius’s acknowledgment of the ability of a people to sell their freedom to a king for protection in the same way a slave sells himself to a master to avoid death. Rousseau is not confounding monarchs with despots, but addressing a specific opinion that subjection of a people is illegitimate by saying one can not alienate ones freedom without being a lunatic.
Also his opinion of war in his book only states that because war is between states, it does not give the right of one person to kill another person but a soldier to kill another soldier in combat. As soon as one drops his weapon one becomes a citizen and the right to kill evaporates; or as soon as a state is conquered killing ought to stop. He was trying to argue against another one of Grotius’s opinions that slavery can result from a kind of pact between the conquered submitting to the conqueror to avoid death. Rousseau isn’t criticizing the way in which wars are declared or their relation to its subjects but denying that the right of slavery is derived from the right to kill ones enemy in a war between states.
These are all brilliant lines of reasoning from false assumptions of a deeply troubled man. But I think you read in too many modern sentiments and ended up misrepresenting Rousseau.
Rousseau’s is the idea that man, unconsciously too innovative for his own good, is a slave to his creation; and that the only way to regain his freedom is to consciously enslave himself to his fellow man to slacken his chains. Nullifying the slavery of inequality with the equality of the general will.
The only real connection I see to Marxism is Rousseau left enough nuance and ambiguity in his books to inspire in Marx, just as, if not more annoyed at society, the moral guff to justify his own resentment, and in countless others the justification for their own resentful behaviour.
Under rated comment.
comment for the algorithm :D
Thank you, mr crabs.
Marx tried to be a liberal, but he saw that "egalite, liberte, and fraternite" lacked "substance."
Could you state the chapters of your Rousseau-quotes?
"Sheep are born carnivorous, and everywhere they nibble grass."
@12:16 💯💯💯
I agree that contemporary activism is rooted in the enlightenment tradition. However, notice that modern activism rooted in critical race and postcolonial theory sometimes outright attack fundamental concepts of empiricism, logic/rationality and liberalism strongly from a racial perspective. Many of you probably won't agree, but in my opinion this borders the counter enlightenment and in some cases does result in reactionary thought. That's not to discredit the activist movements themselves, many of the concerns they note are justified.
I think immediately after the enlightenment we see many movements that follow in its footsteps but at the same (attempt) to reject certain aspects. Or more specifically, they point out where enlightenment fails to uphold its promise of liberating humanity. For example, the 20th century thinkers, e.g. Ardorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse were very specific in their view that certain enlightenment doctrines such as "rationality" turned into dogmas and so were many postmodernists with their criticism of grand narratives. But they weren't the first. The 'modernists' (I would place Marx there) already had their own criticism of enlightenment certainties, while also being a product of it. Ultimately I think this all starts with Nietzsche.
Great video I much wish to listen to, but the background noise/music is unbearable. Tried to endure it, but gave up after 8 min!
I still would consider anarchism to be radical, if only because it aims for a society drastically different from what we have now.
germinal makes me feel the same way as mucus membranes
I find it strange that an idealist metaphysics requires a physicalist analysis, while a physicalist metaphysics requires a idealist analysis.
In many ways, it's as if the whole idealist, materialist dichotomy might not totally be necessary. Or atleast through time portions of it disintegrates.
@@epochphilosophy haha Hegel and Advaita Vedanta says Hi
7:00
This was an ambitious and important synthesis of concepts, and I'm grateful you do not underestimate the intelligence of your viewers by avoiding discussing these ideas dialectically and holistically. I've been thinking a lot lately about how binaries such as left/right, liberal/conservative obfuscate the more foundational philosophical differences between people. This presentation made me ponder the idea of a potential underlying 'split' being Rousseau-ish vs Hobbesian views on the fundamental nature of human beings and the way in which the 'social contract' should be wrought. The frightening thing about US social contract is the insidiousness of capitalism, its ability to present its chains as "freedom" ("There is peace in dungeons, but is that enough to make dungeons desirable?"). I appreciated your explanation of idealism and materialism and that you point out that the current ~revolution~ (if you can even call it that) is in no way radical. More radical tactics would need to involve actions which directly interrupt means of production, ie labor strike. I look forward to the next video!
Where do we learn about Democratic centralism
Luke Skywalker voice: "Wow. Everything you said was wrong."
wow
I confess that much of this was still pretty abstract to me. I have a hard time taking the ideas you're explaining and applying them practically. You want to explain revolution, I think, but you need to get foundational. I can get that, but I don't really understand the foundation. You talk about how the US especially is really politically ignorant. I wish you could have gone into depth about that and why. I'm getting an idea of what I don't know, but when I come across the explanations, I still often don't' understand them. Is there anyone explaining this stuff even more basically? It makes me feel extremely stupid asking that, though I'm used to feeling stupid. I really want to get this stuff, though. I just find most of it so distant and opaque.
Rousseau was a progenitor of classical libertarian/libertarian-socialist/minarchist political theory, in my opinion, however obviously such terminology did not exist until the proceeding century.
idealism and materialism
nothing more than a two way street
look both ways
before crossing
and yes, the strategy has been written! welcome to Project Integrity International: Philosophy and Plan for a New Economy
If this shits so rad, why hasn’t it ever happened. Why has it always failed and killed millions to attempt it. Why is it people become less free…don’t a single person ever say bc it’s never truly been tried. Bc those same reasons are EXACTLY why it’ll continue to do the same if tried again, and then again. People aren’t built to do this on a large scale. Seriously why’s this never worked
Exactly. He says the right is ignorant of philosophy. But the hard left is intentionally ignorant of history.
What about Neo-marxism?
What I didn't get about this channel is that they use scenes of china when they mention contemporary marxism rather than Soviet, Cuba, or others. As far as I know, practically, China hasn't been following the traditional way of socialist state Lenin and Stalin showed us. Are they are maoist?
I think it's mostly an aesthetic choice. A lot of the footage he uses is from 60's/70's era china which was more ideologically bent to the idea of marxism and mao's own idea of what that should look like instead of the more bland and hyper utilitarianized china of today.
Any plans to do a video on Trotsky at any point? Particularly his theory of permanent revolution (based on the dialectical analysis of uneven and combined development) which is generally misconstrued and misrepresented by both capitalists and MLs.
حد هنا من اسكندريه ؟
comment for the algorithm
Your voice sounds like a fusion of Sam Harris and Peter Joseph
… but, Rousseau was not the first to seriously critique private property. Even if we just go back to the English Civil War, the critiques are rampant.
No more pinging in the background
Sniff, pure ideology
Maybe ol’ Marx didn’t stand Georg upright as much as he claims he did. 🤔
Actually, there is very little revolutionary discourse in Rousseau
Sir, you keep saying there is no radical thought or action in today's protest, as it is still ideal and not so material, so can you give a precise example when you would actually consider a 'left' protest as radical and material.
Now I’m not against understanding political thinkers like Marx, Lenin, and mao. But in the greeater context of the current protest movements going on, (and this may be because of my CIA/liberal brainwashing) but I’m not really comfortable with the idea of how Lenin and mao saw revolution. I mean I’m very interested in this series but at least for me personally, I don’t see it as a good model for revolution.
You and me both to say the least. It isn't CIA propoganda to see huge issues with Marxism-Leninism in regards to revolution. On Twitter it may be, but you know.
I agree that their are plenty of issues. I'm not an expert on either Mao or Lenin, but both offer plenty of insight, in regards to both their achievements and failures. Lenin is misunderstood, but his realpolitik approach offers us practical tools to use. What isn't consider is usually the context and the vicissitudes faced during the Russian Revolution, including the mess they inherited. There are a lot of lessons to be learned. I recommend Althusser's Lenin and Philosophy.
mute your phone >:(
Idealism is absolutely moronic.
ayo, wus theory?
I had to stop watching. The background audio is very weird.
Bro are you unemployed
Condescending and dogmatic.