Final answer:
Hobbes saw the need for an absolute ruler to prevent the chaos of a natural state, while Rousseau believed in the inherent good of humans and advocated for a government that represented the collective will of the people.
Step-by-step explanation:
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau had differing views regarding politics in 'primitive' society. Hobbes believed that in a state of nature individuals are inherently at odds, and in the absence of government, life would be 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.' Therefore, Hobbes advocated for a social contract where people would surrender their freedom to an authoritarian ruler, or Leviathan, to maintain order and security. The sovereign's power was to be absolute to prevent the return to a state of anarchy.
Contrastingly, Rousseau regarded the state of nature as a more peaceful time before private property caused conflicts. Rousseau believed that humans were basically good and that societies corrupted them. Therefore, he proposed a social contract where citizens collectively held sovereignty. Government, in Rousseau's perspective, was an expression of the general will, aimed at the common good, rather than the preservation of order through fear. Rousseau preferred a form of government that embodied direct democracy and actively involved citizens, ensuring governments submitted to the general will of the population.