Political Philosophy

[Anonymous No.7346511]

So this election season has really got me thinking about what I feel the role and purpose of government should be. I want to read some political philosophy to get an idea of what the great thinkers had to say on the subject. I already have a copy of The Republic, but what other political philosophy works are recommended to be read before next November?

[Anonymous No.7346524]

Politics - Aristotle
Leviathan
The Prince
Two Treatises of Government
The Constitution of Liberty

[Anonymous No.7346624]

>>7346511
Utilitarianism/ On Liberty- John Stuart Mill
Civil Disobedience - Henry David Thoreau
Anything by Chomsky
The Federalist Papers

[Anonymous No.7346635]

>>7346624
>Chomsky

[Anonymous No.7346652]

>>7346635
>Not bowing down to Chomsky

[Anonymous No.7346653]

Read anything by Trump ya looser! I mean if you like winning!

[Anonymous No.7346661]

>>7346511
the anti-Duhring

>>7346624
>putting Utilitarianism alongside a Communist
Marx is rolling in his grave

[Anonymous No.7346685]

>>7346661
>Not realizing Mill became a socialist
Utilitarianism pretty much leads to socialism if you do it right

[Anonymous No.7346757]

>>7346685
This. When the entire basis of your philosophy is just "do whatever is best for humans" you'll end up with some form of socialism.

[Anonymous No.7346771]

>>7346757
>>7346685
But if socialism always ends up failing and making everyone worse off for it, then it doesn't seem very utilitarian.

[Anonymous No.7346778]

>>7346771
Socialism does not always fail, in fact, many countries that are socialist are prospering. Finland is a great example of this.

This could be incredibly wrong, though. I'm not very knowledgeable in this area of thought.

[Anonymous No.7346794]

>>7346771
When an actual socialist state is propped up, then we'll see where it goes from there. As far as we know, state capitalism fails. Utilitarianism rationally endorses socialism because it is aimed at the happiness of all people. You also have to remember when Mill was writing this stuff.

But even today, fighting to move towards socialism is highly utilitarian.

[Anonymous No.7346801]

>>7346794
Quick question, if Mill was anti-paternalist then why would he endorse socialism since it seemingly provides a lot to the people?

[Anonymous No.7346828]

>>7346801
I think you confuse the role of the state in socialism. In Mill's own words:

"The form of association, however, which if mankind continue to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and work-people without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations, and working under managers elected and removable by themselves."

Which basically means he wants things to move from private capitalism, not to state capitalism, but to worker cooperative socialism.

[Anonymous No.7346842]

>>7346828
Ah, I see now. Thanks.

[Anonymous No.7346865]

>>7346511

[Anonymous No.7346872]

>>7346511
2/?

[Anonymous No.7346874]

>>7346511
3/?

[Anonymous No.7346881]

>>7346511
>tfw your combined book sales are less then Barack's

[Anonymous No.7346910]

>>7346511
Leo Strauss's commentary on Xenophon's short dialogue Hiero, "On Tyranny." It offers a critique of the then (40s?) dominant positivistic treatment of political science, somewhat still relevant, as well as an interesting running debate on historicism's effect on political science between Strauss and his friend Kojeve (included in most editions of "On Tyranny" printed now is Kojeve's thorough review, Strauss's response, and then the correspondences between the two, which contains a lot of interesting arguments about what politics is supposed to achieve, and how philosophy and political science are related to those goals).

And maybe a reading of De Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" combined with Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil"; they both agree in their critiques of democracy, but they each respond to it differently, with De Tocqueville sensing a fairly long future for it, and Nietzsche trying to figure out how to stem the tide by moderating it (with elements of reactionism and radicalism).

[Anonymous No.7347430]

>>7346661
>>7346685
"Socialism" in the sense most Europeans use it? Sure. "Socialism" as Marx used it? No.

Utilitarianism recognizes that some people contribute more to the greater good than others.

[Anonymous No.7347509]

>>7346685
This. Capitalism has the same disgusting end-game as Socialist, the Last Man.

[Anonymous No.7347944]

>>7346511
Anyone else feel politics is a totally flawed subject?

Every ideology appeals to one subset of society, and then screws over another. It just seems to me like petty egoistic squabling, no matter how justified the thought, when put into practise.

I guess realism is my only political view, but I'm not well studied outside from the basic philosophers. I just don't feel any political system can rule anyone well.

[Anonymous No.7348064]

>>7347944
>Anyone else feel politics is a totally flawed subject?Every ideology appeals to one subset of society, and then screws over another. It just seems to me like petty egoistic squabling, no matter how justified the thought, when put into practise.
Are you talking about politics as a subject of political philosophy, or politics more broadly?

I'm not sure that political philosophy needs to be reduced to ideology, though that's certainly not to say that there are no instances of political philosophy that are ideological, but does it seem right that one can speak of political phenomena (the constitution, broadly understood as structure, of a city or nation; the relation of families that constitute a society; the rule of a household as distinct from the rule of many households; the practice of war; the relation of individuals to trade, etc.), without having to thereby subscribe to an ideology?

>I just don't feel any political system can rule anyone well.
Anyone, or everyone? I think I might subscribe to the latter, but are there not kinds of government that perhaps rule even one class well, even if at the expense of some or all other classes? How do you understand ruling well?

[Anonymous No.7348988]

>>7347944
Somebody will always lose in the short term. Politics is flawed because humanity is flawed, and politics is just the natural course of humanity. It is simply us.

[Anonymous No.7349131]

For a New Liberty
Democracy: The God That Failed

A B O L I S H
T H E
S T A T E

[Anonymous No.7349162]

proudhon - general idea of the revolution in the nineteenth century
marx - the eighteenth brumaire of louis bonaparte
max weber - politics as a vocation
carl schmitt - political romanticism
robert michels - political parties

[Anonymous No.7350565]

>>7349131
Are you clueless anarchist fedora faggot or you can offer something?

[Anonymous No.7350821]

>>7350565
I offered two books that I feel are very eye opening and they fall under "political philosophy". I am not clueless, I am sure I am more well read than you friend. If you are OP I suggest reading most of everything everyone else put and then mine, I would have said a few but I wasn't going to repeat what others said.

[Anonymous No.7350884]

Political philosophy makes philosophy look bad.