GAETANO MOSCA: LA CLASE POLÍTICA

PREDOMINIO DE UNA CLASE DIRIGENTE SOBRE TODA LA SOCIEDAD

Entre las tendencias y hechos constantes que se encuentran en todos los organismos políticos, uno es tan obvio que es obvio a toda manifestación: en todas las sociedades, comenzando desde aquellas mediocremente desarrolladas y que apenas han arribado a lo primordial de la civilización, terminando por las más numerosas y más cultas, existen dos clases de personas, una de los gobernantes y la otra de los gobernados. La primera, que es siempre la menos numerosa, realiza todas las funciones políticas, monopoliza el poder y goza de las ventajas que ello trae consigo; mientras que la segunda, más numerosa, es dirigida y regulada por la primera, de un modo más o menos legal, ya más o menos arbitrario y violento, y ella la provee, al menos aparentemente, de los medios materiales de subsistencia y de aquellos que para la vitalidad del organismo político son necesarios. En la vida práctica todos reconocemos la existencia de esta clase dirigente o clase política como en otra parte decidimos definirla.

Continue reading

YUVAL HARARI: THE WORSHIP OF MAN

The last 300 years are often depicted as an age of growing secularism, in which religions have increasingly lost their importance. If we are talking about theist religions, this is largely correct. But if we take into consideration natural-law religions, then modernity turns out to be an age of intense religious fervour, unparalleled missionary efforts, and the bloodiest wars of religion in history. The modern age has witnessed the rise of a number of new natural-law religions, such as liberalism, Communism, capitalism, nationalism and Nazism. These creeds do not like to be called religions, and refer to themselves as ideologies. But this is just a semantic exercise. If a religion is a system of human norms and values that is founded on belief in a superhuman order, then Soviet Communism was no less a religion than Islam.

Continue reading

WENDY BROWN: POLITICAL IDEALIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS

Ritual recognizes the potency of disorder. —Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger

Everything that the [love] object does and asks for is right and blameless[.] —Sigmund Freud, Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego

WHAT is political love and what is the relationship of political love and political loyalty? If one loves a political community, does such love require uncritical solidarity with certain elements of that community, and if so, with which elements—its laws, its principles, its state institutions, its leaders, or actions taken in its name? What kind of loyalty does political love engender and require, to what extent is love compatible with critique, and to what extent is critique compatible with loyalty? What counterintuitive compatibility might be discerned between critique and fealty, between critique and attachment, even between critique and love? This essay explores these questions about civic or political love, fealty, and critique through a consideration of the relationship of love and idealization. It considers this relationship as it emerges both in conservative expressions of national patriotism and in radical dissent from state policy. It asks about the productivity as well as the costs of political idealization, and considers how we might successfully navigate some of its perils as we think about, and practice, democratic citizenship.

Continue reading