This is the Gospel of the French Revolution, and thus it is a tiring revolution.

The French Revolution was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France that had a profound impact on the country and the world. It was a time of great change and turmoil, with the people rising up against the monarchy and the aristocracy.

The revolution brought about many significant reforms, such as the abolition of feudalism, the establishment of a republic, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. However, it also led to a great deal of violence and bloodshed, as different factions fought for power and control.

Despite its many challenges and difficulties, the French Revolution remains an important event in history, as it inspired other revolutionary movements around the world and helped to shape the modern era.

هذا هو إنجيل الثورة الفرنسية، ولذلك هي ثورة تعبانة

Filósofos contratualistas

Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), John Locke (1632–1704), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) are the three contractualist philosophers who gave rise to what we now call the democratic state. These men theorized that, for the good of society, men have to "sign a social contract" that regulates life in community, but there are some differences among them.

Thomas Hobbes argued that a strong concentration of state power was necessary to enable a tolerable coexistence. For this author, the individual, in his natural state, has impulses of violence and is regulated by distrust, chaos, and fear. Man is his own wolf, a terrible animal, the wildest of animals. Therefore, a "social contract" is needed to establish the principles of relations between men to avoid devouring each other and to ensure that all recognize and accept the decreed and strive to maintain a lasting peace linked by certain principles emanating from the state.

For John Locke, the father of political liberalism, the natural law should govern all people and guarantee possession of any property and goods without restrictions. However, by guaranteeing unrestricted equality, such a law generated conflicts when several individuals desired the same goods. To resolve the conflict, Locke defended the regulation of the possession of goods and their owners, and the state would obey and make its subjects obey these principles.
The difference between Hobbes and Locke lay in the exercise of state power regarding goods and property. For Hobbes, the state was sovereign, and all men remained with equal rights and duties before the law and all submitted to its regulations. For Locke, the state could not exercise force over individuals, and these were free to make the contracts they approved. Of course, this implies differences between individuals as a result of social position, wealth, strength, and cunning, etc.
Rousseau, a fervent advocate of the Enlightenment ideals, defended that the human being is naturally good. According to him, the human being would be a "good savage". In his natural state, human beings would live in harmony with each other and with nature, as do other animals. However, the emergence of private property generated an inequality among individuals and, consequently, an environment of tension between the owners and non-owners of land. To solve this problem, the social contract is signed so that the state can guarantee the maintenance of the right to property and the regulation of the entire society. Thus, the state emerges as a tool at the service of the citizens with the objective that the general will is respected and the action by particular interests is prohibited.
Rousseau intelligently proves that man in his natural state will never be able to assume a social contract because his selfish nature is contrary to the common good. From this thought arises the fundamental pact that states that “…instead of destroying natural equality, it substitutes a moral and legitimate equality, which nature had placed with physical inequality among men who, although they may be naturally unequal in strength or in genius, become all equal by convention and by right. From this arises the idea of sovereignty and the notion of the state. The sovereign is the moral person who represents the people, legislates and executes the wills emanating from the citizens and to whom they must submit.
From the will of the people result "false notions of the social bond", which have to be regulated. In this chapter, the author tells us that "There are a thousand ways of joining men, there is only one way of uniting them." From this idea arise the primary social bonds among men; the concept of family. In this concept, the parental authority of the man, as the head and responsible for the family, has the obligation to take care of the continuity of the species, strengthening the filial bonds of gratitude, health, and protection. The children will have to obey and submit to the will of the father. As a husband, in his conjugal life, he must inspect the conduct of his wife since it is in his interest that the children he is forced to recognize as his are not of others.
From the recognition of the family proximity bonds among men arose the need to reflect and institute norms, the social pact, which regulated the social structures among the different families. From this arises the question: "What can lead men to voluntarily unite in society, if not the common utility?" The common utility is then the foundation of civil society, it is the difference between legitimate states and forced gatherings that no one authorizes. From this arise the notions of "state", "sovereignty", and "citizen". From chapter VI, the rights of the sovereign and the citizen are formulated, the establishment of laws, how to institute them for the people, etc.
For us citizens of the 21st century, all this is perfectly understandable because we were already born in democracy, born full of rights and with duties that we must fulfill and make others fulfill from our emancipation. But thinking that this "Social Contract" was written in the 18th century when the abuses of the aristocratic power and the clergy submitted millions of people to slavery, pain, and violence is something that leaves me eternally grateful because it was the spark that the people needed to free themselves from the yoke of the oppressor.
Rousseau did not have an easy life. Orphaned at an early age, he had to make his way in life early on. He was helped by a great aristocratic woman. Love overcame obstacles, opened and closed doors, but Dª Teresa remained faithful to his side until his last breath. A fugitive, condemned, faithful to his principles, he saw his books being burned and was prohibited from writing. He dedicated himself to gardening and music. It is worth reading his life story. A genius whose dreams made the world jump and advance. There are such men.

Rousseau's "The Social Contract" is a profound exploration of his ideal social compact. Divided into four books, it presents a comprehensive view. The first book situates the social contract historically and advocates for it. The second book outlines its principles without delving into the details of a specific government, while the third book does the opposite, explaining different forms of government, their distinctions, and common properties. The fourth book, though mainly about the development of a proper government, reads like a survey of the political life of the Roman Republic.

After reading some Platonic dialogues, I notice the contrast between Rousseau's polemic and Socrates' debates. "The Social Contract" reinforces my belief that political essays, unlike scientific and philosophic works, don't initiate or halt a movement. They can at best shape it or merely represent it. Rousseau, whom I expected to challenge this, unfortunately, falls into the latter category. Although I lack historical context, I still think little in this book is revolutionary or novel to the political theorists of the eighteenth century.

On the positive side, this book challenged my bias against political philosophy. I used to criticize ethical and political philosophy but have gradually become more influenced by underappreciated thinkers. Besides its historical significance, "The Social Contract" is useful as an excellent expository work on political philosophy. However, it's more of an introduction, and readers might remain biased or misinformed unless they read more up-to-date works, which is what I plan to do.

"It would take gods to give men laws."

Through the social contract, individuals can ensure that their basic rights and needs are protected. This is of utmost importance as it provides a framework for a just and fair society. Moreover, when individuals' rights are safeguarded, the community can thrive in a harmonious manner. People can live together peacefully, cooperate with one another, and pursue common goals.

This book, which presents the concept of the social contract, remains an important work in the field of political philosophy. It has had a profound impact on the way we think about government, society, and individual rights. Its ideas continue to influence modern political thought, inspiring new generations of scholars and thinkers to explore and expand upon its themes.

However, it is important to note that though Rousseau was a great thinker, he was not a great writer. His writing style may not have been as polished or engaging as some other authors. But this does not diminish the significance of his ideas. The power of his thoughts lies in their originality and depth, rather than in the elegance of his prose.

My first encounter with the Social Contract took place during those dull days of my teenage years. It was a profound, moving, and enlightening experience. Naturally, I had no one to discuss this book with as no one else seemed to be pondering the bigger things in life. My classmates and peers were of no use when it came to my desire to talk about this work, and the elders I knew were equally ignorant of the importance of this timeless masterpiece.

On the rare occasions when I had the opportunity to mention the name of this classic, most people thought I was spouting nonsense and had lost my mind. Of course, these were usually drunken instances, like the time I went crazy on a hotel pool deck. These days, I usually keep discussions about this book to a minimum, only shouting "This is a breach of Social Contract!" when my life or livelihood is threatened. However, this fails to convey the true importance of Rousseau's legacy.

This great, conceptual book is also one of the last things of value to come out of France. While most scholars will quickly note that the thoughts within it were crucial to the French Revolution, no one seems to mention its impact on turning a dozen kids into lifelong socialists every year. This is a remarkable feat in a society like 1990s America, which was diseased, gluttonous, and avaricious. All I can say about the book is that most people, the masses of simpletons who hinder the progress of the world, are simply not ready for it.

Luckily, Rousseau and his Social Contract don't play that weak game. This book was written because Jean-Jacques had the foresight to recognize that something was perverting the ties that bind men and that something had to be done before everyone was sucked into a cataclysmic societal vacuum. The book succeeds because it debates the subject of social structure and the proper rule of the people while still maintaining some semblance of individual nature. It attempts the unthinkable task of creating an ideal government. Although the book isn't perfect, its foundation is solid and worthy of respect. It fully deserves to be included in Penguin's heralded "Great Ideas" series. As a sidenote, not only is the odd-sized paperback packaging a fitting home for such a phenomenal work, but the edition itself is absolutely gorgeous, with its bold blue and white contrast and incredible debossed styling.

"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." This profound statement by Rousseau highlights the paradoxical nature of human existence. We are born with the inherent right to freedom, yet often find ourselves restricted and bound by various social, political, and economic forces.

"Freedom is not a fruit that grows in every climate, and for that reason not every nation can attain it." This further emphasizes the idea that the achievement of freedom is not a universal given. It depends on a multitude of factors, including the cultural, historical, and social context of a particular society.

"In all the governments of the world, the state consumes and does not produce." This observation points to the role of the government in society. While the government is responsible for providing certain essential services and maintaining law and order, it is not directly involved in the production of goods and services. This division of labor between the state and the private sector is an important aspect of a functioning economy.

In the past, I had come into contact with Rousseau's work mainly through references from other writers. The time had come for the "real thing," and I must admit that the result pleasantly surprised me. I truly found the text and the presentation of arguments enjoyable, especially considering that part or all of it has been carelessly quoted, copied, plagiarized, etc.!

I don't know to what extent the concepts under discussion, such as the General Will, the distinction between natural and political law, the general and particular interest, law, power, etc., refer to a globalized environment, fragmented, with citizens who bear only the honorary title, and to whom I am obviously included. In any case, I am too small to make predictions, but too big to be an optimist.

In short, the "Social Contract" belongs to the must-reads, if not as a "navigation guide" (the modern situation scares drivers and guides), at least as basic knowledge of the establishment of the Western modus operandi.

I am an ardent admirer of Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality and had high hopes of equally valuing this book. Interestingly, in the former text, Rousseau views civilization as beyond repair and the root cause of most inequality issues related to wealth and politics. Private property is abhorrent to him and should not exist.

As he aged, Rousseau似乎有所改变，缓和了他的无政府原始主义。在《社会契约论》中，我们看到他给自己设定了一个曾经认为不可能的任务：为了主权者的利益，建立一个合法的国家，这个国家要不断朝着平等发展，而不是背离平等。然而，不幸的是，在制定这个宏伟的社会契约时，我们对于如何克服腐败国家和腐朽文明的旧意识形态毫无头绪；这是一个严重的实践问题，可能直到葛兰西才得到充分解决。

值得指出的是，卢梭的契约比洛克、黑格尔或霍布斯所提出的任何东西都要激进得多，或者说更偏左。卢梭确实认为过多的财产是一个问题（与黑格尔不同），而且与洛克不同，他认为财产的起源是腐败的，而不是有益的。此外，卢梭断然拒绝奴隶制和雇佣奴隶制的观念。洛克没有涉及前者，而且在他的整个《政府论》中只用了一行字就说雇佣奴隶制是可以的。考虑到《政府论》的总体倾向，这是一段令人费解的文字。卢梭主张劳动应该为自身创造产品，并为社会创造一些剩余（只要社会也在这样做），而不是为了私人所有者的利益而被利用。

卢梭认为政府应该为了主权者的公意而工作，主权者应该只开会并制定符合公意利益的法律。公意应该与个别意志区分开来，以医疗保健为例就足够了。我们每个人都应该有医疗保险，这是公意，因为我们每个人都有个别和普遍的愿望，而且我们的愿望应该是朝着平等的。个别意志可能会渴望医疗保健，但如果这对普通民众造成了代价，它就不再是公意的产物。也就是说，我创办了一家医疗保健公司，这样我和我的家人就可以得到免费的福利，但我的所有客户都要支付过高的保费和共同支付费用。这就是我们现在所生活的制度，在这个制度中，我们“自由”地在“自由市场”中“购买”。卢梭如果知道了一定会在坟墓里打滚，并指出将社会原子化为相互竞争的个别意志是多么的疯狂，这是对公意的真正亵渎。

尽管所有这些观点都是正确的，或者至少我很欣赏其中的大部分，但这本书仍然因为一些原因而只值得三星。卢梭确实有支持死刑的专制倾向，并且要求人们通过“强制”和“处决”来获得“自由”。此外，卢梭和大多数社会契约理论家一样，没有考虑到少数人的后果，这些少数人一开始接受政府的方向，即使政府不断投票反对他们，但在未来的某个时候，由于逐渐的变化，他们可能会退出一个他们不再认同的政府。苏格拉底在我认为是《克里托篇》中也提出了同样荒谬的观点。

此外，卢梭有时极其矛盾，在一页上反对暴政，在另一页上却赋予个人极大的权力；或者在一页上要求我们都自由，而在另一页上却说我们被奴役（同时）。他的民主观念没有得到充分的阐述，他认为应该有一个单一的立法者为了社区的利益而赋予契约。但同时他又认为没有人能够制定出一个持久的宪法。他在一页上恳求我们建立一个具有永恒和持久公意的政府；而在另一页上却说任何政府都不可避免地会退化为暴政和专制。

他的逻辑常常很糟糕，而且完全是情绪化的。这本身并不是坏事，情感在引导理性方面有其作用，但当逻辑公式实际上完全是情绪化的时候，不要把它们当作逻辑来呈现。要坦诚。此外，他经常依赖于诉诸权威——格劳秀斯——只要他引用格劳秀斯的话，就认为一定是正确的。

不过，如果有人发现自己在阅读洛克、黑格尔、霍布斯，或者兰德和哈耶克，甚至诺瓦克，他们应该用适量的卢梭来调和自己。

**"Rousseau's The Social Contract: A Complex and Thought-Provoking Work"**

The concept of the "social contract" is widely discussed in our society. People often casually mention the idea that individuals willingly sacrifice the theoretical total freedom of the state of nature for the benefits of civilized life. However, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau presents in his classic work The Social Contract (1762), the meaning is far more complex and nuanced.

Rousseau begins with the paradoxical statement, "Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains." He reflects on slavery as the ultimate violation of the social contract between the individual and the government, a century before Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. He points out the flaws in earlier thinkers and emphasizes that all legitimate authority must be based on covenants or contracts.

Rousseau traces the idea of the social contract back to the family, highlighting what occurs when children grow up. He carefully differentiates between the executive and legislative functions of government, stating that the legislative power belongs only to the people, while the executive power is exercised in particular acts outside the realm of law. This is reflected in the structure of the United States Constitution, where the legislative branch is prioritized in Article I and the executive branch in Article II.

Rousseau also distinguishes between "the sovereign" and "the government." The sovereign represents the general will of the people, while the government is an intermediary body responsible for executing the laws and maintaining freedom. These concepts, with their inherent paradoxes, make reading Rousseau both challenging and enjoyable.

His assertion that small countries are best suited for republican government, as seen in his description of Switzerland, is an interesting point. It makes one wonder how he would have viewed the United States as an experiment in building a large republic. Although there are times when one may disagree with Rousseau, such as his preference for Sparta over Athens and his treatment of dictatorship, his work still offers valuable insights into the relationship between the individual and society.

Returning to Rousseau's work years after first reading it in Switzerland is even more thought-provoking. His warning about what can happen when the social tie weakens is particularly relevant today, as seen in the political divisions in the United States. In a time when a global pandemic has failed to unite the nation, it is essential to consider Rousseau's ideas and reflect on how each of us can better relate to and participate in society.

It is well-known to us the situation that Europe was experiencing during the Middle Ages and the wrong practices that the Church carried out in the name of religion, spreading injustice and the absence of social justice, the emergence of the power of the lords and nobles, and the ease of turning the general public into slaves.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was not far from being affected by this. He was the fatherless child who was born in poverty and endured the hardships of life throughout his upbringing. He was indeed one of the victims of that spreading darkness at that time.

In his book "The Social Contract," Rousseau exceeded the permissible and available boundaries of that time and talked in this book about the global framework that should govern the relationship between the ruler and the ruled. Rousseau believes that people are social and that they are all free, and that you can give up part of your freedom in the name of establishing a law that no one can violate, thus ensuring your rights and that no one can exceed it. This was Rousseau's vision of the civilized and enlightened society where the general will (the people) makes the laws and the governments work to implement them in a way that ensures the application of the law to everyone. Rousseau had established what can be called a constitution according to modern concepts.

Rousseau links the concept of freedom to humanity. He believes that the more you give up your freedom, the more you give up part of your humanity. This book was the spark that ignited the flame of the French Revolution, and the book was indeed titled "The Gospel of the French Revolution."

On the margin: Before reading this book, I recommend that you familiarize yourself with European history, especially in France during the Middle Ages in particular, so that you know why this book was an important turning point in political history. Because today, after all this time that has passed between the time of the book's publication and the systems we live in, you may wonder (where is the innovation in this book? What is written is obvious?). Read the book according to its time, not yours.

What after reading?

How I really wished that what is written in some books would be impossible to become a reality that we actually live.

#abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 4/5

Giving this book a single star is in itself an excessively large compliment to its author.

Jean Jacques Rousseau, in some strange way, managed to pen a book where every chapter seemingly forgot what had been stated in the previous one. As a result, contradictions run rampant and free throughout the text.

It描绘了一个反乌托邦社会，在这个社会中宗教没有立足之地，并且将基督徒作为目标，因为他们与国家没有任何联系。（在此我推荐路德的“两个国度”论点。）

I do not suggest that one does not read this book. Indeed, it offers good and necessary insights into the origins of the dumpster fire that is modern society. However, it is by far one of the worst books ever written. It lacks coherence and logical flow, making it a challenging read at best. Despite its flaws, it still has some value in understanding the roots of certain social and political ideas that have influenced our modern world.

Nevertheless, one must approach this book with a critical eye and not take everything it says at face value.

On trouve beaucoup de très bonnes choses dans ce petit livre de philosophie politique paru à la fin du dix-huitième siècle.

First of all, there is a research on the means of founding a kind of social contract that can both constrain everyone while obtaining the adhesion of all. The solution proposed by Rousseau to resolve this contradiction is to have in view not the particular interest but the general interest, and to apply the laws universally. He is in the direct line of the writings of Hobbes, Locke, and Montesquieu. He takes up so well the points established by his predecessors that it is not always easy to clearly distinguish his personal contribution. Fortunately, he has looked at antiquity, and especially Roman history, to find the arguments from which to found and test his theories: where to find a better material to think about these questions? Finally, how can one not pay homage to one of those who can be recognized as one of the inspirers of the modern French political system?

But if I dared to express some reservations, it would first be about the comparison with Hobbes, because the latter seems to me to have produced a work of such magnitude in his Leviathan that Rousseau's social contract seems almost modest beside it. Also, I am cautious about the judgment that Rousseau passes on Hobbes, a judgment or prejudice inherited from an older author. It would be very regrettable to deprive oneself of a text as rich as the Leviathan based only on the opinion of this Swiss philosopher, however respectable he may be.

I also regret the little effort the author makes to analyze or define the concepts he manipulates so easily. Many of these are parachuted in, so either the reader has formed an idea that agrees with that of the author, or not: too little is done to prevent this risk. Of course, as Rousseau recalls, he lacked the means to realize the more extensive work he had initially in mind, and it was necessary to limit the scope of his study. But one of the consequences of this weakness is that anyone can easily adhere to the author's ideas as long as they are established vaguely enough: who will dare to rise up against freedom, peace, security, happiness? Yes, but try to define more precisely the things designated by these words, and the beautiful unanimity could well be broken. Why do I have the painful impression that when, for example, he admires Sparta, the type of freedom or equality he professes suddenly takes on a somewhat disagreeable aspect? He begins thus: "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Nice formula, but the more I think about it, the less I understand it, and there are many such enigmas that are pleasing at first sight but then plunge into perplexity.

Also, like Montesquieu, Rousseau has studied Livy well and has drawn all the useful reflections that this picture of Roman political history could inspire. Sometimes, he goes a little too far in his admiration of the author of The Spirit of the Laws. The principles, in matters of politics and history, must be handled with prudence and circumspection, especially if they struggle to agree with the real, and I am sorry to see this citizen of Geneva take up rather lightly such a weak principle as the theory of climates. On the other hand, in contrast to Montesquieu, and in agreement with his somewhat wild ideas that he had sketched in his Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts, he does not see in commerce this gentle means of ensuring peace among men, as he concluded from his considerations on the Romans, but rather sees it as a means of corrupting morals. However, it would be a bit harsh to conclude, as Voltaire did, that he feels like walking on all fours when reading this work, which is also full of very good passages.

Finally, reason is invoked everywhere by the author, but I believe that it is of very little help when it comes to morality or politics, and that our passions prevail much more in these matters than the rigor of calculation. It is quite the contrary through his powerful sensitivity that Rousseau convinces, and he manages to do so quite remarkably. He is finally well in this role, since it is not so much a matter of describing reality as of imagining it better. If it is useful to try to define the relationships of cause and effect in politics, above all one must choose the good in which one wants to remain or towards which one should go, and the evil that one wants to flee or from which one wishes to protect oneself. And it is there that the merits of this work appear: concision, height of view, virile determination and power of conviction, the reader will come out edified from his reading.