At the moment, I’m reading sections 3-4 of Book II of Rousseau’s ‘The Social Contract’. In section 3, he seems to be saying that the formation of political parties is wrong, and that there should be no attempt to lead citizens away from their own individual thoughts on different matters:
“It is therefore essential, if the general will is to be able to express itself, that there should be no partial society within the State, and that each citizen should think only his own thoughts…”
?? surely this can’t be right. Having a voting choice between different political parties is surely one of the bastions of democracy. Ideas anyone??
I have only 7 books of Homer’s The Iliad to go, and am completely caught up by the story, as well as bewildered by the speed with which Jove changes his mind as to whom he will lend his support! I found myself involuntarily grimacing as I read the many descriptions of heroes having spears thrust through their bellies spilling their entrails, or through their skulls smashing their brains up in their helmets..! Gruesome and gory stuff, and yet it’s stirring to read of their heroic bravery (which I suppose is the intended effect).
I have only just started Book 1 of the ten books of The Republic (432 BC) by the worthy Plato; so far this old chap called Cephalus is talking to Socrates about old age, and whether some old people are unhappy because of their old age or because of their general character and disposition.
I think, though, that I’m going to move The Republic into the next list, and read The History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides first instead, as when I was reading a study guide to Plato’s book I noticed that the Peloponnesian War had already happened by his time. So it might be helpful to read things in chronological order, as it were.
Ps. Going back to Rousseau: I wonder if it is possible to have a state without different political parties, and if so how it would be run? Perhaps with a council made up of representatives from each area division of the country, who each take their voice from the people in their area.. this way of doing things would surely involve a lot of community consultation and voting, on all issues continually as they appeared.
The community would be much more involved in the running of the country, and their will would form part of Rousseau’s ‘general will’ or Sovereignty—but is this what most people would want?? or are most people (myself probably included) quite happy to let elected councillors take decisions for them, during the councillor’s term of office?