/lit/ - Literature

>In his classification of political systems, Montesquieu defines three main kinds: republican, monarchical, and despotic. Driving each classification of political system, according to Montesquieu, must be what he calls a "principle". This principle acts as a spring or motor to motivate behavior on the part of the citizens in ways that will tend to support that regime and make it function smoothly.

>For democratic republics (and to a somewhat lesser extent for aristocratic republics), this spring is the love of virtue—the willingness to put the interests of the community ahead of private interests.
>For monarchies, the spring is the love of honor—the desire to attain greater rank and privilege.
>Finally, for despotisms, the spring is the fear of the ruler—the fear of consequences to authority.

>A political system cannot last long if its appropriate principle is lacking. Montesquieu claims, for example, that the English failed to establish a republic after the Civil War (1642–1651) because the society lacked the requisite love of virtue.


Is he fucking retarded? Humanists have to have been the most out of touch people in history.

I am so sick of this nigger I swear do god why does he go on a rant about the Gallic Germans for so long. Literally more than half the book is just about the greater part of the most obscured history about the Germans, a history we barely have an eye into because the fucking Germans didn't write shit down. What the fuck is he doing trying to make sense of this shit, its shit and it sucks. HE WOULD HAVE PROBABLY FINISHED HIS FUCKING BOOKK IN FIVE YEARS if it wasnt for that atrocious exploration of ancient SALIC law. Thanks for letting me vent I will now read the countless examples of the ancients coining the three branches system of government way before even his great great grandparent was a sperm in some guys sack.

Overall I'de say good book 10/10 woulld recommend

> and my race of people from a temperate climate.

>1. Of Luxury. Luxury is ever in proportion to the inequality of fortunes. If the riches of a state are equally divided there will be no luxury; for it is founded merely on the conveniences acquired by the labour of others.
>In order to have this equal distribution of riches, the law ought to give to each man only what is necessary for nature. If they exceed these bounds, some will spend, and others will acquire, by which means an inequality will be established.
>In proportion to the populousness of towns, the inhabitants are filled with notions of vanity, and actuated by an ambition of distinguishing themselves by trifles. If they are very numerous, and most of them strangers to one another, their vanity redoubles, because there are greater hopes of success. As luxury inspires these hopes, each man assumes the marks of a superior condition. But by endeavouring thus at distinction, every one becomes equal, and distinction ceases; as all are desirous of respect, nobody is regarded.

Uhhhh.. so was Montesquieu actually marxpilled before Marx? This is from The Spirit of the Laws, by the way.