Any books on a fascist interpretation of Rousseau? Someone mentioned it in a thread recently which made me curious.
>>23814862Rousseau is quite obviously totalitarian.
>>23814862I forget which chapter of the Discourses but he basically endorses the Roman Dictatorship as the means to deal with emergencies, must has Schmitt later argues. Rousseau does caveat that the Romans had the virtue to not want to hold onto the office of Dictator beyond what was needed usually.
Fascism didn't even exist in the 18th Century. If you hate Rousseau at least use a real argument to criticize his works. He was thermonuclearly based.
>>23814907That's not the point, and I don't hate Rousseau, if you think fascist is a criticism lurk more.
>>23815004*is a criticism by itself
>>23814862Costin Alamariu - Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy
>>23815004Fascism is dumb.Rousseau doesn't fit into fascism.u r teh dumb
>>23814862idk maybe read thishttps://ihr.org/journal/v06p-67_hoggan-html
>>23815023You're Indian.
>>23814862There's a "fascist" reading of Rousseau only insofar as there’s a lens by which to view him as one (among several) sources for "fascism" where "fascism" is understood in a loose sense indistinguishable from "totalitarian" or "authoritarian." The anon at >>23814903 points to something liberals are iffy about in the Discpurses, and I'd also point (maybe even primarily point) to the General Will in the Social Contract, which is sometimes viewed as responsible for both fascism (in seeming to promote volkism) and communism (in seeming to promote the voice of the many over the few). Otherwise, you really won't find too many especially focused studies, just a vague sense of his responsibility from liberals and libertarians. He's really more of a very oddball conservative.
Where to start?
>>23815901Thank you
