Reading Summary Q2–2018
I feel a bit of shame writing this quarters book review. Not only because it is a full three weeks late, but also because one of the books that I have planned on reading remains unread. This means that, for the first time in a year and a half, I have not met my goal for reading a book a month.
I have, however, in a search for some redemption, substituted Karl Marx’s Grundrisse, which I will now read for the next quarter, with another essay from Jean-Jacques Rousseau on The Origins Of Inequality.
I’m not sure why it is that my tenacity for reading seems to be slipping away from me. I believe that, partly, its because the books I am selecting aren’t exactly challenging anymore and don’t necessarily poses anything new for me to process. That is not to say that they are not interesting, but the feeling I get reading them is that they are more filler, considering my familiarity of the topics they tackle, than page turning texts of enlightenment. That and they tend to be larger and older books which just makes them a bit less readable.
Nevertheless, here’s this quarter’s line up.
Book 1: A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality — Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I wanted to read this essay as it was referenced in another book I read, Man, the State, and War by Kenneth Waltz, which I have reviewed here.
I wasn’t sure what to expect when I started the essay aside that it would heavily lean on the ‘state of nature’ philosophy, a philosophy used extensively by liberal philosophers that I wanted to better familiarize myself with. But I was surprised with how radical the 84 page, two part discourse was.
In the first part, Rousseau starts by delineating two types of inequality. The first, he calls natural inequality, which results from differences in mental and physical ability. The second, moral or political inequality, which is a result of the way we choose to organize society and creates “the different privileges which some men enjoy to the prejudiced of others; such as that of being more rich, more honored, more powerful, or even in a position to exact obedience.”
He highlights the differences in these injustices by relying on the philosophy of a state of nature. The philosophy assumes that, mankind, before organized into society due to increased populations, lived rather solitary lives at one with nature where access to resources was plentiful meaning an absence of confrontation. Rousseau emphasizes that Justice, then, must be determined in accordance to this ‘state of nature’. His admiration of this state goes so far that he claims that humans, just like animals, lose their fervor and strength when they become domesticated i.e. when they join society.
In exploring the difference between man and beast, Rousseau leans on the concept of perfectibility, that man, unlike beast, has, through reason, the ability for self-improvement. He locates the drive of this self-improvement, however, in the passions saying: “For we desire knowledge only because we wish to enjoy; and it is impossible to conceive any reason why a person who has neither fears nor desires should give himself the trouble of reasoning.”
In a continuation of this exploration, Rousseau speaks of ‘amour-propre’ a sort of self-love that revolves around seeing one’s self as part of a community — a social compassion. He claims that this self love is found in nature and that it is philosophy that divides a man and isolates him from others to the extent that he would shrug “at the misfortunes of others” and say “Perish if you will, I am secure”. As such, he attacks civilization for tearing the individual from his natural, and reason driven, self-love which contributes to the preservation of the whole species.
The second part of the discourse is an unrelenting attack on the concept of private property. Which he opens with this powerful statement:
The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows, “Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."
Rousseau then discusses how private property came to be, and how the reliance of one man on the other lead to subjugation and cheating. In this, he discusses how the idea of property not just subjugates the weak, but also the strong as “if rich, they [men] stood in the need of services of others; if poor, of their [the rich’s] assistance.”
In the most radical statement of the essay, Rousseau justifies the reclamation of private property by stating that taking by force what was acquired by force should give no rise to complaints.
From property, argues Rousseau, rise a large number of vanities, including concepts of pride, honor, and luxury. Something not too dissimilar from elaborations made by David Graeber in his book Debt: the first 5000 years (reviewed here.) These concepts lead to hatred and competition which again, act against the state of nature.
Verdict: This is an absolute powerhouse of an essay that must be read. You can find a copy of this essay online here.
Book 2: Two Treatises of Government — John Locke
The Two Treatises of Government is a mainstay of Liberal philosophy. At 287 pages, it’s also one of the most incompletely read books (probably along with Marx’s Capital which is often only read in its first volume) as most readers suffice themselves with reading the second of the two treatises. After reading them both, I can see why.
The First Treatise is written in its entirety as a rebuttal to Robert Filmers book Patriarcha. A book written in support of monarchy and the hereditary nature of the throne by leaning on excerpts from the Bible. Through the first treatise, Locke seeks to prove, also by leaning on the bible, that there is no religious justification to monarchy as hereditary sovereignty over a people cannot be traced; and that even if it could it remains disproved as both the sons of Adam and Noah were given equal rule as opposed to rule over one another as per the patriarchal power that Filmers presents. He further argues that dominion over land and resources cannot belong to one person as the bible has made it clear that God created the land and its resources (including animals) for the sustenance of mankind and not just the patriarchal sovereign (Adam).
Locke goes to link the two by saying that even if someone were to be sole proprietor of all land it would not give power to him over another. This can only be achieved through a compact in which, in lieu of starving, someone may agree to. Yet this is simply power a proprietor simply pretends to have over the person. This extends to a father and their child. Where, since God is the sole giver of life, the relationship between father and son is not that of subjugation, but that of a caretaker role until children become capable of reason.
Interestingly, Locke also argues for equality between the sexes — kind of. Just as he argues that Adam had no sovereignty over anyone else, then there is no reason why women should be subjected to any authority. This is later undone in the Second Treatise where he claims that since women and men are in union (which he argues is natural because of the rate of female conception and child dependency) and have different wills, then it is natural that the will of one be differed to the other and in this case it should naturally go to the male being the abler and fitter — so much for the role of reason.
The Second Treatise, simply refereed to as Book II, begins with an exploration of a state of nature which he defines by a state of perfect freedom for individual to order their actions and dispose of their persons and possessions; and, a state of perfect equality where justice and power is reciprocal. Locke claims that this state of nature also has an accompanying law, the law of nature. Here, since we are all created equal, free, and with equal access to resources there is no reason why one individual should transgress against the other and the only form of violence that is justified by right is that of punishment for a crime or that which creates restraint against crime. From this rises the need for systems of justice as “self-love will make men partial to themselves and their friends. And … Ill nature, Passion and Revenge will carry them too far in punishing others.”
One of the most interesting sections to political philosophers and those who write on political economy is a section on property. Locke’s writing here is referenced by both Robert Nozick and Murray Rothbard who’s books I review here. Interestingly, Nozick and Rothbard use Locke’s argument to justify the supremacy of private property over policies of redistribution. Here Locke states that man has “property in his own person” and therefore is entitled to his labour and all with which he mixed his labour with (which is how property becomes private). Nozick and Rothbard use this to then say that taxation represents theft as it removes the output of a persons labour which only he is entitled to. However, Locke goes on to say that since one is only entitled to the produce of his labour then it is only rational that he would use this labour to meet his needs, anything beyond that is beyond reason and therefore theft from someone else — an act of greed. Use of materials beyond his need then must be subject to the consent of all mankind! Locke goes on to say that in a state of nature, labour is in collecting fruits or hunting. In these cases, nature continuously replenishes itself to meet our needs and no conflict arises.
Interestingly, Locke places the invention of money in this vain, where in order to ensure that surpluses under private property do not go to waste, can be exchanged for money that can be used to purchase other goods, thus creating specialization.
The final point discussed in the chapter on property deals with utility. In this section, Locke argues that appropriation of land is just as long as it is unused or can be used in a more productive way as not doing so is as if to be robbing individuals of the lands produce. One can see how this thinking however, applied in a greater context can lead to justifications of expansionism and colonialism. Locke goes so far as to encourage this type of behaviour for the sake of creating “conveniences”.
Finally, Locke explains that the only way that society can be formed is if individuals come together through a compact in which all rules of management are determined. Monarchy then, was a result of such a compact as it is the simplest and most reflective of nature (family). However, as individuals were unaware of the tyrannical nature of it or the “inconveniences of absolute power” did not think to create methods of controlling power and soon found themselves subjects to the system they created.
When it comes to the idea of giving up personal liberties and consent to joining society, Locke explains that although in a state of nature an individual’s liberty is unlimited, it remains uncertain and constantly exposed to the invasion of others. Thus, individuals give up this freedom in order to join other for the mutual benefit of their preservation, liberties, and estates.
Locke also has some interesting views on slavery and what he calls a state of war. Here, Locke argues that anyone who breaks with the socially agreed rules or causes violence to others forfeits their right to life, as they were willing to die in pursuit of violence. Thus, being in a state of war, individuals may be subject to slavery or put to death.
Verdict: This is a classic in liberal thought so I would recommend having a copy in your library
Book 3: The Social Contract — Jean-Jacques Rousseau
I decided to read this book as it too is a classical liberal text. Although Rousseau makes similar arguments to Locke about a social compact and freedom, he proves to be a significantly more radical and rejects notions of slavery and expansionism. Unfortunately, the later sections of the book (there are four) get a bit drawn out in historical references of government, especially roman structures of governance. At 129 pages though, it remains a pretty easy read.
It’s worth noting that The Social Contract is actually a result of an abandoned attempt from Rousseau to write a much rather book on politics. The chapters that now create The Social Contract are the sections from the book that Rousseau chose to keep, the rest have been destroyed.
The book begins with the powerful opening statement “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they.”
Rousseau explains that strength and ruling by power cannot be naturally maintained unless it is transformed into systems that create concepts of “right” and “duty” which rob the individual of their reason and freedom. It is these systems that create war between people and thus a state of war is between “things” i.e. structures and not individuals, therefore as soon as those structures are destroyed through war, there is no way that one may have a right over the other. Therefore, slavery cannot be justified.
When it comes to the system of voting by majority, Rousseau speaks that it is determined by compact which requires unanimity at least once.
As for property. Rousseau marks three conditions that need to be met to justify the appropriation of land.
“ First, the land must not yet be inhabited; secondly, a man must occupy only the amount he needs for his subsistence; and, in the third place, possession must be taken, not by an empty ceremony, but by labour and cultivation, the only sign of proprietorship that should be respected by others, in default of a legal title.”
This, of course, is bound by the natural law of equality, which, if broken, only serves to maintain power balances in the benefit of some over others. This is both in line with Locke’s conception of property yet also opposed to his expansionist explanation.
Section two of the book and onward do present a bit of a perplexing view from Rousseau. It seems that Rousseau believes that forms any form of government, including monarchy can be legitimate as long as they respect the Sovereign, which he defines as the will of the people who have entered into compact. The important thing is that the general will is given latitude to oppose the rulers that have been appointed, otherwise, a lack of opposition will be taken as tacit consent. This is rather curious as he also goes on to describe how the general will can be deceived making his position sound rather contradictory, especially when compared to the more hard-line and democratic approach of Locke. This later rears its head in a more elitist way when Rousseau discusses the difficulty that “wise men” will have in breaking down ideas to the level of common discourse and “popular language”.
This is further confused by Rousseau’s discussion of equality in which he says that although equality can never be truly achieved, it should never tip the balance of power in favour of one section of society. Thus, Rousseau seems to be both an elitist, and at the same time a champion of equality, failing to see that the two are contradictory, being overly optimistic about the benevolence of power.
Starting at section three, the book seems to lose any sort of coherence with railing about how problematic democracy on a large scale may be and thought on how an increased number of magistrates creates for worse government. Rousseau goes so far as to try to create a formula between the size of a nation and the type of government it should have; monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy, while also discussing the weaknesses in each form. He also strongly attacks representative democracy stating that law makes should only meet when laws need to be made otherwise they are to be executors not legislators. He reinforces this stance with this quote “ The people of England regards itself as free; but it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the election of members of parliament. As soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing. The use it makes of the short moments of liberty it enjoys shows indeed that it deserves to lose them.” Rousseau also discusses how voting can lead to long debates and paralyze a nation.
Verdict: This is a bit of a mixed bag, worth having in the library but it would be enough to read the first two sections of the book. You can find a copy of the book in its entirety here.
Bonus: Marxism Versus Existentialism — George Novack
I stumbled across this essay by chance. As someone interested in both existential philosophy as well as Marxism This proved to be an excellent read.
The essay actually appears as a chapter (12) in George Novack’s book titled Understanding History which is a collection of Novack’s essays.
As the essay is short and easy enough to read I won’t go into too much detail, but will say that Novack expertly presents both sides of the different philosophies as they pertain to individualism, nature, morality, alienation, and even the meaning of life/death.
On ambiguity, Novack explains “Marxists do not regard ambiguity as an impenetrable and unalterable property of things or thoughts but as a provisional state which further development will overcome. Any unsettled situation can give way to greater determination. Reality and our understanding of it need not be forever ambiguous, any more than water must remain fluid under all circumstances.”
Novack best explains the difference between the Existential conception of the individual and the Marxist conception on a section of morality where he states:
“The Marxist theory of morality does not rest upon an inborn capacity of the individual to make unconditioned and unmotivated choices but upon historical and social considerations. Its position can be summarised as follows: 1. Morality has an objectivebasis in the conditions, relations, needs, and development of society. Its rational character is derived from a correspondence with given historical realities and an understanding of specific social necessities. 2. Morality has a variable content and a relative character, depending upon changes, in social circumstances. 3. Under civilisation to date, morality inescapably takes on a class character. 4. There are no absolute standards of moral behaviour and judgment. Human acts are not good or had, praiseworthy or iniquitous, in themselves. All moral codes and conduct must be evaluated by reference to the prevailing conditions and the concrete social needs, class interests, and historical aims they serve.”
Verdict: This is definitely a must read and I’m ecstatic that I came across it by chance. You can find the essay, and the entirety of the book here.
Bonus 2: A Discourse on Political Economy — Jean-Jacques Rousseau
This is yet another essay by Rousseau that I have in my collection of his works. At 42 pages it’s a short exploration into politics more so than economy. Rousseau discusses the importance of patriotism, and instruction of citizenship, and elevates the voice of the people to the voice of God (not too dissimilar from Hegel).
Rousseau also emphasizes the need to involve citizens in the running of the country claiming that “If you have but a single ruler, you lie at the discretion of a master who has no reason to love you: and if you have several, you must bear at once their tyranny and their divisions.”. Therefore, involving citizens in government is the best way to build patriotism and love for the nation.
His emphasis on citizenship is encapsulated when he says “From the first moment of life, men ought to begin learning to deserve to live; and, as at the instant of birth we partake of the rights of citizenship, that instant ought to be the beginning of the exercise of our duty.”
Rousseau also explains that property is the foundation of civil society, saying: “It is certain that the right of property is the most sacred of all the rights of citizenship, and even more important in some respects than liberty itself; either because it more nearly affects the preservation of life, or because, property being more easily usurped and more difficult to defend than life, the law ought to pay a greater attention to what is most easily taken away; or finally, because property is the true foundation of civil society, and the real guarantee of the undertakings of citizens: for if property were not answerable for personal actions, nothing would be easier than to evade duties and laugh at the laws.” However, he also berates the stratification of society into rich and poor as an aberration to the social contract saying: “The terms of the social compact between these two estates of men may be summed up in a few words. “You have need of me, because I am rich and you are poor. We will therefore come to an agreement. I will permit you to have the honour of serving me, on condition that you bestow on me the little you have left, in return for the pains I shall take to command you.””
Finally, Rousseau warns of the expanding state as a means to tyranny by also attacking the superfluousness of life: “If we ask how the needs of a State grow, we shall find they generally arise, like the wants of individuals, less from any real necessity than from the increase of useless desires, and that expenses are often augmented only to give a pretext for raising receipts: so that the State would sometimes gain by not being rich, and apparent wealth is in reality more burdensome than poverty itself would be. Rulers may indeed hope to keep the peoples in stricter dependence, by thus giving them with one hand what they take from them with the other.”
Verdict: This isn’t really a necessary read although contains some interesting thoughts. You can find the discourse online here.
Next on my list:
- Grundrisse — Karl Marx
- The Politics of Switzerland — Hanspeter Kriesi and Alexander H. Trechsel
- The Dictatorship of the Proletariat — Karl Kautsky
If you want to read more book reviews and summaries click here.
