Spinoza's quote does not seem to imply that revolution is never justified. He seems to point out quite rightly that state's will attempt to preserve their own powers and attempts to overthrow them are fraught with dangers. From this it does not follow that such attempts are always wrong but as plans revolution will always be wrong for Hobbes.
. Hobbes' position seems to be that one should side with the sovereign right up until the time when it is clear that he or she will lose (no longer be able to protect you) and then you should go over to the other side! Actually when Cromwell took power Hobbes went into exile and supported the Monarchist cause. He acted contrary to his own theory since there is no evidence that he was in personal danger from Cromwell.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> >For Hobbes, revolution is always wrong in the planning and always right if
> >it is successful.
>
> So did Kant. Now, what of Spinoza? "[E]very state must necessarily
> preserve its own form, and cannot be changed without incurring the danger
> of utter ruin (Spinoza, _Theological-Political Treatise_, Chapter 18). Oh,
> well.... Nonetheless, in the case of Kant, an argument against revolution
> is inherent in his notion of the right, whereas in the cases of Hobbes &
> Spinoza it doesn't seem to follow naturally from their respective
> philosophical premises. For both Hobbes & Spinoza, the question boils down
> to power & utility, whereas Kant is not prepared to say that.
>
> Yoshie