I've come to a point where I feel my grasp of political

You've read Leviathan, right?

>>6114415
>by should be my
>/ppl/ should be /pol/
Sorry for my phones autocorrect

File: image.jpg (25KB, 268x401px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 268x401px

you know what to do next, friend

>>6114418
I have it in my philosophy collection haven't read it yet, although I know Locke is an extremely important theorists.

>>6114431
Hobbes, not Locke, wrote Leviathan.

Yes it is an extremely important piece of political philosophy. It justifies the state, and therefore law, using quite a few natural laws derived from our natural states as humans.

Read Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Machiavelli etc.

Marx is also an important political theorist but I would advise against becoming a hardcore Marxist and trying to see everything in the framework of class warfare

>>6114443
Oh yeah, forgot that was Hobbes. Ive have a brief overview of theory on the state. I guess i just need to read more of his stuff.
>>6114444
Yeah I have friends who are all crazy about Marxist class struggle. I get the appeal, but I feel like Marxist theory's time came and went.

>>6114443
>Yes it is an extremely important piece of political philosophy. It justifies the state, and therefore law, using quite a few natural laws derived from our natural states as humans.
He forgets that the society comes first, not the individual.

>>6114461

>I get the appeal, but I feel like Marxist theory's time came and went.

How would you know? You admittedly know fuck all about politics

>>6114494

Neither comes first, they develop alongside each other.

>>6114494
He does no such thing.

>>6114444
>I would advise against becoming a hardcore Marxist and trying to see everything in the framework of class warfare

why?

>>6114431
Leviathan is Hobbes', not Locke's. You should read both, they complement each other.
When it comes to an understanding of the actual working of a party system (as the one in the US), check:
-Who governs, Robert Dahl
-Two faces of power, Bachrach and Baratz (journal article)
-Political parties, Robert Michels (if you only read one from this list, read this)
-The power elite, C. Wright Mills (I don't agree with this one -its methods are too sociological for me-, but people say it's a classic so)
Source: Second semester Econ student who took two optional courses on Political Science and Party Politics.

>>6114517
Any theory that reduces every-fucking-thing as a consequence of just one thing does more disservice than service to your understanding of the world.

>>6114545

Just read the article, very interesting. Thanks for sharing

>>6114566
that sounds like what you're doing by treating marxism so reductively

why is the lens of class struggle less relevant than any other lens

>>6114461
>Yeah I have friends who are all crazy about Marxist class struggle. I get the appeal, but I feel like Marxist theory's time came and went.

You said you wanted to learn more about political theory, right? That means leaving your ignorance at the doorstep. Approach it neutrally and make your own opinion that hasn't been spoonfed to you previously.

>>6114415
I did a pretty rigorous political theory session with a professor who was mentoring me. Here's what we read in order:
>rousseau's 2nd discourse
>montesquieu's spirt of law
>adam smith's theory of moral sentiments
>kant's groundwork to the metaphysics of morals
>kant's political essays
>hegel's philosophy of right
>marx's critique of hegel's philosophy of right

i feel like there may have been one or two others as well, but this is a solid start

>>6114658
I didn't say I completely disregarded Marx, nor that class struggle isn't a thing (and an important thing), just that ignoring cross-class interests and other societal dynamics, as hardcore Marxist theory does is a reductionism as bad as any other. Read Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation, read Barrington Moore's Social origins, and, yes, read The Capital, and understand class dynamics beyond >muh proletariats vs capitalists

>>6114443
so much implying in one thread, holy fuck

>>6114721
Meant one one post, not thread.

>>6114499
>>6114663
I'll admit my understanding of politics isn't the best, but I kind of stand by my statement. I'm not against it by any means, like I said I understand the appeal, but the negative associations with Marxist ideology, correct or not, are there. A proletarian uprising is called for to overthrow the bourgeois power structure, yet the only people who are real Marxists these days are mostly intellectuals and college leftist. The proletariat are completely against communism, thanks in part to western propaganda, and they are the most necessary part of the movement.

>>6114721
>>6114726
And would implications would that be anon?

>>6114428
gay and outdated. Read State and Revolution by Lenin instead.

Plato - Republic
Aristotle - The Nicomachean Ethics and The Politics
Machiavelli - The Prince
Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan
John Locke - Second Treatise on Government
Montesquieu - The Spirit of the Laws
Adam Smith - The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations (esp. Book III)
Immanuel Kant - 'Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose', 'An Answer o the Question: What is Enlightenment?', and 'On the Common Saying: That May be Correct in Theory...'
Edmund Burke - Reflections on the Revolution in France
G. W. F. Hegel - Elements of the Philosophy of Right
Carl Schmitt - The Concept of the Political
Michael Oakeshott - 'Rationalism in Politics' and 'The Tower of Babel'
John Rawls - A Theory of Justice
Robert Nozick - Anarchy, State, and Utopia
F. A. Hayek - Law, Legislation, and Liberty

Read these in order. And then seek out intellectual historical works on them or their authors. Don't just read political theory to be told how you should think: read it to understand how others have constructed arguments to answer historically particular questions, and learn to do your own thinking.

>>6116535
I've read some of the stuff on your list, like The Republic. I guess I should read some of the rest of those.

>giving OP political philosophy

First he should be learning about the mainstream left-right divine and then dig in deeper.

This thread has loads of good recommendations.
But I'd add few, that I add in almost every political philosophy /whatever rec. thread.
All three books by Michel Foucault: Society must be Defended, Security Territory Population and Birth of Biopolitcs.

Also to get a different look at Machiavelli, check Discourses on first ten books by Livy.