You may discuss Unit 3 of POLSC201 here.
Rousseau’s strong opinions on the inequality of man in the state of civil society. He states that inequality began when the very first human marked off a bit of land and called it his. Claiming that anything belongs to any one person, rather than all humanity, is what is wrong with society and why we need government. He talks of all of this though, as if it were unfortunate because man was most likely happier in his original state, not caring about what was “his” or not his. This consumerism and belief in right to property are the things which America is built on. If Rousseau were alive today I think he would dislike America greatly. However he might perhaps appreciate the democratic ways of the nation, like he respected Geneva’s system of letting the majority have power.
His opinion of political education and political interest are the foundations of a free society. If he still lived today, he would be happy on this point.
The bourgeoisie understands Marx and Engels in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” as the class of modern capitalists. The bourgeoisie developed from the stake citizenship of the Middle Ages. As a proletariat, the two authors refer to the class of modern wage laborers. Since they do not have their own means of production, they depend on selling their labor.
If he were living today, Jean Jacques Rousseau would see the United States as a somewhat failed attempt at social equality and true democracy.
I mean is there any fruit of labor that the male produced that does my belong to everyone? How is it that we do not accept men as the builder of houses which he has the right inhabit? How is it that we don’t notice the true horizon this men’s are working for, and on our behalf perhaps more clearly than many making great for a small price? How is it that we don’t care about them at all? To get them the most out of their careers we probably don’t affiliate with them because it is easiest to discriminate them and called Russia Males, but is is this precise naming which conveys into what we call the true hope of life on earth and the charisma that a politician has, I as an individual on my free will have to accept Russia is the big country here, they accept that even they being Russia and that’s what makes them stronger, than us. I think Russia will always be a step ahead of what we do even if we don’t care of what they do. Is a pretty independent way of accepting life and no one ha ever complained about it.z
The proletariat is comprised of the working class while the bourgeois is comprised of the middle class. The conflict within the two classes, according to Marx and Engels, is materialism. These philosophers believe that the division of the classes could be dissolved if everyone was given the same amount of money and materials.
I quite agree with you, Camille.Pope. You stated it all well as Rousseau actually put it and I think if Rousseau were here today, he will first of all beat his chest for being more right and but he will agree with introduction of democracy but will disagree with the way democracy is practiced in the US and many other countries. Rousseau will push for true democracy through political education that everyone understands when it goes against the meaning. Rousseau believed that man in the state of nature was peaceful and wanted nothing than tranquility and then something triggered the aggressive side of man to become greedy, fighting, grabbing and making wars. Locke believes in the right of man to property, which includes his life and he added that anything can belong to someone , for example a piece of land if he has labored on it for as long as he can remember and so long as he leaves some for others. I think this could be part of Rousseau’s examination of where inequality came from and I don’t think he will disagrees with Locke on this. But you can see he disagrees with Hobbes categorically for wanting humans to give up their rights and give it to Monarch absolutely so that the monarch controls man like zombies. If Rousseau lives today, he will only appreciate the idea of “equality of conditions” which is one thing that amazes Tocqueville in American politics.
What would Rousseau say about US Political system if he were alive today? I understand Rousseau was very concerned about the psychological and moral issues of individuals as a result of them living in civil society. The idea of esteem or respect was very important to him and born out of civil society and has caused a great inequality. Rousseau would not like what is going on with regarding esteeming of individual beliefs within America nor would he like the inequality within our political system. However I also believe Rousseau was wise enough to understand that if he were alive today, and people from so many backgrounds live in America it would be impossible for everyone to accept or esteem each others beliefs and it is not up to our government or our political system to ensure that all ‘beliefs’ are esteemed or approved of. In the US Democracy it is only the Governments role to protect our property liberty and freedom, it is not the government’s responsibility to protect or dictate what we belief or do not believe. It is also not the governments responsibility to ensure equality only equal opportunity.
The Proletariats are the working class in society, those people who need to work for wages in order to learn a living, while the bourgeois are the middle class, also called the capitalists by Marx and Engles. The conflict within these two classes according to Marx and Engles is a result of materialism, which arises out of the Capitalists use of the workers to produce their products for profit and Marx believes the workers are not getting their fair share of their wages for their work. He believes the laborer should receive all profit for his labor. He believes the proletariats working class are being exploited by the capitalist bourgeois.
The issue of equality is still as relevant today as it was back then, if not more so. The fact that here in America certain freedoms were given to certain groups of people and not al people even while documents were being signed “creating all men equal” was proof of that. Every day more freedoms are being granted to small groups rather than the whole. It would appear that each group has to fight for every right individually, but even then certain groups aren’t granted even the most basic of freedoms here in “the land of the free”. I believe that Rousseau would be saddened by the growth in inequality and progression of society’s decomposition.
Rousseau advocated for a direct democracy because he believed it was the closest form of government to the freedom we had in the state of nature. Because of this, I don’t think he would be satisfied with the representative government we have in America, but he would appreciate the fact that America was founded on his concept of rule by the people. Also, since he warned against tyranny and believed that the right to rule comes from a contract with the people and is taken away when rulers abuse that contract, I think he would approve of America’s separation of power into three branches, preventing any one person or group from consolidating too much power.
He would be saddened, however, at the many inequalities that exist in our country today - not everyone has an equal voice in our government. The more wealthy and influential have the power to shape the laws according to their own interests, and certain groups of people are marginalized and not given the same privileges as others.
Direct democracy cannot be very practical in today’s world. Could be it was necessary at times of Rousseau for a reason. Obviously, this kind of decision was neccesited by the dictates of time, and it was only a transition period from the statelness period when many of the states were forming in the world and the population was far less than what we see today. considering the many changes that has taken place in the world since his time, and considering the ever changing political dynamics around the world, hence the need for a more innovation approach began to service. Remember , necessities is always the mother of inversions. Indirect democracy political begined as a result of the political demand in today’s politics necesities.
Maybe if was alive , he could have agreed with us and not only recognize but agreed to submit his political will behind the indirect democracy as deliverable political progress in today world.