1st course

Definition of Ideology, History

IDEOLOGY: gives you orientation/ meaning
- "No one sees the world as it is..." = there is no reality as such, even the
most basic things are interpreted, we interpret things around us (ex.: table),
depends on the society, culture how we interpret it -> we cannot entirely
skip ideology
- We are social beings and when we are born we are thrown in a world which
already has some sort of ideological structure, we acquire the beliefs of our
family, from friends, TV, etc.
- Ideology is ... illusion concept..."
Definitions: Ideology is
a political belief system.
action oriented set of ideas.
ideas of a dominant class.
the world-view of a particular social class or social group.
political ideas that articulate class interest.
ideas that propagate false consciousness amongst the exploited ones.
ideas that situate the individual within a social context and generate a
sense of social belonging.
8. settle ideas used to legitimize a political system
9. a political adoption which claims to have monopoly of truth.
10. an abstract and highly systematic set of ideas.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

- there are two major ways of looking at ideology (Terry Eagleton)

1. neutral understanding: when you try to analyze, you are not interested
whether it is true/false or good/bad
2. negative: tries to distinguish between true and false or good and bad ->
this is usually associated with the idea of false consciousness
- according to Eagleton there are 6 other definitions of ideology:
(neutral)
1. Ideology is a material process of generating "ideas, beliefs and values
in social life": ideology->culture
2. Ideology is about the conditions and life experiences of a specific
socially significant group or class: ideology -> world-view

3. the promotion and legitimation of the interests of such social groups in

the face of opposing interest: ideology -> discursive field
4. retains this emphasis on the promotion and legitimation of sectorial
interest, but confine it to the activities of a dominant power: ideology
-> hegemony
(negative)
5. Ideology is false consciousness that is ideas, beliefs meant to
legitimize a social class, in Marx's sense bourgeois is this social class
6. Ideology is still false consciousness, but its falsehood comes not from a
social group that manipulates, but from the material structure of
society as a whole
History of the concept:
- it was first used by Antoine Destutt de Tracy (1754-1836): for him
ideology is a science of ideas meant to purify the human mind from the old
irrational prejudices by showing that the real source or origin of our ideas is
in our senses
- in 1812 Napoleon Bonaparte has a speech after being defeated by the
Russians, he tries to legitimize his defeat, he blames the ideologists, they
undermined France through abstract metaphysics, instead of adopting the
laws to "the knowledge of the human heart"-> ideology becomes a bad
word, he becomes the first critique
Karl Marx (1818-1883)
- criticizes de Tracy for believing in the possibility of a neutral education,
immune to material economic factors; education cannot be neutral, it is
determined by the economic situation of the society, it is not enough to
change the education system, you have to change the material structure of
society
- the critical theory (German Marxist branch) -Max Horkheimer, Theodor
Adorno, Herbert Marcuse: they are still Marxist, but they
instrumental reason; ideology for them is rooted in the very (?)
- Karl Popper, Hannah Arondt: for them ideology is a closed system of
ideas specific to totalitarian dogmatism, ideology is a secular religion that
has the monopoly of truth
- Michael Oalneshott: ideologies are abstract systems of thought, which
simplify social reality

- Antonio Gramsci: tried to make sense of a communist failure, lack of

revolution in the west because of a strong civil society, Russia laced this civil
society; ideas can determine the shape of society; hegemony - he creates a
new common sense(all ideas that are taken granted), ideology is not false
consciousness, all you can do is to offer a new ideology
- Karl Mannheim: is the one who defines ideology as a world-view, every
ideology is the reflection of a social group
- Andrew Heywood: an ideology is a more or less coherent set of ideas that
provides the basis for organized political action, whether this is intended to
preserve, modify or overthrow the existing system of power; 3 main features
- to offer an account of the existing order
- to advance a model of a desired future
- to explain how political change can and should be brought above

2nd course (2015.10.14.)

Classical liberalism
- in middleage teh word liberal meant:
-a person having a complex education;
- the education of a gentlean, a freeman
- in larger sense, liberal meant a person who is rational, open-minded
- negative connotation, a person who does nott follow the accepted religious
norms
- only in the 19th century is associated with a political ideology
Features, basic values:
1. Freedom:
- negative liberty (defined by the absence of an external interference into
your private life) - 17,18th century, first half of 19th century - reemerges at
the end of the 20th with neoliberalism
- positive liberty (defined as what you can do)- second half of 19th and
20th century
- it is strongly connected to equality, everyone has the chance to become
sth, pluralism

2. Individualism: societies composed of individuals

- society: social contract between free individuals
- 17-18th century: possesive ineividualism: an individual is seen as an owner
of his body, capacities
- 19th century: optimistic individualism, evlolutionary individuals; the basic
chnange in is meaning - accepting that society shapes individuals
3. Rationalism:
- there is a profound connection between liberalism and Enlightenmnet ->
believes in the rational capacity of the individuals to have access to the
rational structure of reality
4. Reformism:
- progressivly intervine in reality and make in better; we can have change as
individuals
5. Constitutionalism:
- political power must be limited, checked
- separation of powers: legislative, executive, judicial
Classical liberalism:
- Context:
- the first liberal thinkers are born in 17 century England (in England: the
first signs of capitalist economy, first signs of riding capitalist economy)
- Civil waar in England between Charles I from and the Parliament (it wins
at the end)
- Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) talks about a social contract who wants of get
out of the state of nature in which "men are wolves for the others"; insecurity
- in order to end ths we need a central authority (the state), in the sake of
our security, we give up our freedom; ( the context had an impact on his
view)
- Jonh Locke (1632-1704): state of nature in which there are individuals, but
they are not like wolves, individuals are reasonable, tolerant, these
individuals are born with natural rights (such as life, health, liberty and
property); these individuals nedd to sign a social contract in order to
preserve all their natural rights, it is possible by limiting the executive power,
it should be by the ligislative power, the Parliament; when a politicalm power

becomes abusive, people can rebel against it, they have the moral
legitimacy to do that
- Montesquieu (1689-1755): he lived in an absolute monarchy; people are
born in the state of nature, having 2 universal rights:
-> self-preservation and liberty
-> the mutual obligations which connect the members of a family
separation of powers, admires British system (have liberty as its basic
principle); is interested in limiting the central power, he wants a balance
between common people and aristocracy
- Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778): against Hobbes, Rousseau believes
that in the state of nature are compassionate and self-sufficient; selfishness
is about society (society creates selfishness, because people tend to
compare), basic goal is to secure human freedom, according to him we are
not free, because we are
to particular powers/ authorities, in oder to be
free, we have to sign a social contract by which we obey an impersonal
power, a general will, he supported diret democracy (you can have this only
in a small community), he was the main philosofical figure of the French
Revolution; he is liberal but also iliberal ( those who does not obey should be
punished)
- Adam Smith (1723-1790): The Wealth of Ntions (1776); he criticizes the
merchantalist ideas, economy is a market, like in the market there is a
demand and offer, there are free individuals who try to satisfy their need, teh
relationship between buyers and producers are free, because of their
slfishness, you can secure the wealth of everyone, because this selfishness is
compensated by the impersonal laws of the market, such as: no producer
can impose the price, the market does not need external interventions, it is
self-regulating, it acts like an invisible hand
- James Madison (1751-1832): the father of the Constitution of America, and
also presidetn; author of the federalist papers, those papers managed to
convience the other part in the American revolution; separation of powers,
legislative power is the dominant one; bicameralism -> to limit the possible
tirany of the majority, he opts for a federalist system, because only it can
secure that inorities have a voice, the principle of check and balances
Impact:
- the American and French Revolutions: absorb in their own language the
liberal ideas; French Revolution: naturalism => creates tension, they forget
women, black people - only men with property

- Adam Smith had a huge influence of th 19th century, because he said the
market regulates itself-> creates many crisis and a lot of inequality
- social darwinism: the survival of the fittest, the others should just
diasppear, the ida of self-help
Main ideas:
- the standard for politics is no longer God, but the state of nature
- the instinct for self-preservation as an expression of individual freedom, it is
no lon ger about human soul, but physical survival
- social contract: it implies free individual voluntarily signing that contract
and the equality of those who sign that contract
- there is a difference between the Brithis, American liberalism (focused in
negativ liberalism) and the French one (is influence by the optimism of
Enlightenment, we have the rational capacity to rebuild the political system)
- negative freedom
- possesive individualism
- minimal state
- laissez-faire in economy
Modern Liberalism and Neoliberalism
Context:
Industrial revolution starting in England, spreading all over Europe +
bourgeois searching not only for economic power, but also political one
-

American and French revolutions -> freedom, equality, human rights,

nationalism
-

Precursors:
Alexis de Tocquoville (1805-1859): instead of going from the state of
nature, he analyzes the American democracy using social and historical
arguments; he wants to talk about the need of balance in the modern
society; America in comparison to Europe is much more equalitarian and also
individualistic ->American society is an expression of the modern world
problems: It paves the way for new types of tyranny; people might choose
to give up their freedom; modernity creates selfishness, but as such they in
the same time do not get involved so much in public matters, they tend to
restrict themselves to the private sphere => new types of tyranny: people
might easily choose to stay in their private zone in order to secure
-

themselves economically ; the solution for this problem: not to escape

modernity, but to accept it, but making them aware that it is in their own
interest to sacrifice some of their time for public matters he also advocates
as solution informal bonds between individuals, allowing them to resist
social conformism or the pressure of a central authority; America is much
more decentralized than Europe, in America local communities decide public
matters; he offers a middle-way between America and Europe, because both
models have virtues and problems
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832): criticizes the idea of national rights, by
proposing instead a more scientific idea: individuals are mobilized by their
self-interest and this self-interest can be defined as a desire for pleasure or
happiness ; he formulates the principle of utility; an action is good or bad if it
promotes/ inhibits the happiness of large number of people
-

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873): he is a utilitarian like Bentham; he

criticizes Bentham for not distinguishing between pleasures, for Bentham
pleasure are homogenous, but for Mill there are qualitative difference
between them (ex. Human need for creativity is higher than the need for
eating.), he offers both a positive and a negative understanding of individual
freedom, negative freedom means the absence of an external interference
into private sphere, while the positive one is trying to offer an ideal for
human freedom; the lack of interference in 2 things : individuals body and
mind both are the possession of the individual, those action that refer to
body and mind: self-regarding actions; harm principle: an action can be
forbidden only if it causes harm to an individual, these action are called
other regarding actions, because such action concern not only yourself, but
others; the positive understanding comes from the fact that the individual is
a creator and should enhance its own individual; individuality is the idea of a
free society; is very much aware like Tocqueville of the negative impact of
industrialization, for him the worst thing is social c
; he believes in
progress; representative democracy is the peak of human evolution;
according to him representative democracy should face two dangers:
tyranny of a minority or the tyranny of majority, in order to do that you need
a balance between powers, but also a balance between the major social
forces (working class and the middle class), in the name of this balance the
state should not intervene in local matters, or should intervene when
necessary , he rejects the idea that the sate intervenes economic production
-

Modern liberalism
Context:
Emerges at the end of 19th century and will become dominant between
1940s and 1970s welfare state
-

19th century: the level of inequality is very high, because the century is
dominated by the idea that the state should not intervene in economy, many
economic crisis during 19th century; at the end of the century people began
to realize that the minimal state is not able to cope with these problems,
from a political point of view what you have a combination of colonialism and
nationalism ( no longer free commerce, no longer popes that want peace)
-

T. H. Green (1836-1882): like John Stuart Mill, Green believes that

individuals are not driven sorely by their self-interest, he offers a much more
optimistic view of human nature, this human nature is capable of compassion
and (not as selfish as in classical liberalism0 , being influence by socialists
Green question the principles of negative liberty, because this principle can
mask exploitation for abuses, do not intervene I my private business, I can
do whatever I want in my private zone (children exploitation), he proposes a
full fledge positive freedom as the ability of an individual to develop and
reach his individuality, this + freedom is aware of the fact that freedom as
such can be put at risk by social disadvantages or economic inequality (you
cannot be free in you do not have the same economic background), human
nature is shaped by society, institution should allow for the development of
human personality , goes again a very powerful state
-

John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946): he rejects Adam Smiths idea of

an invisible hand of the market (the market regulates itself), became famous
in the time of the Great depression, because he offered a solution, in the face
of such economic depression states should intervene by large projects and
tax reduction on order to shape but equals the aggregate demand (= the
total demand of goods and services in an economy), does not depend
entirely on the private sector, the state can stimulate economy
-

John Rawls (1921-2002): in the context of the spread of welfare state,

Rawls tries to offer a liberal view with a social touch, in his book A Theory of
Justice he tries to harmonize freedom and equality under the formula of
justice as fairness, he proposes an interesting mental experiment, called the
veil of ignorance (you are not aware of you economic background,), if
people are rational, they would go for a fair society (because they could be in
any of the groups), you can access any group, if you are good enough; a fair
society is also about redistribution of the economy that would compensate
those less talented and less rich, economical inequality can harm individual
freedom; in Political Liberalism he tries to answer the question how can a
democratic system legitimize itself in the context of deep religious and
philosophical differences, solution: to accept the idea of a public reason, this
means to draw a distinction between private matters (religious and
philosophical matter) and public matters should apply a more neutral
approach
-

Central ideas:
Does not talk about natural rights, instead he uses social and historical
arguments
-

Is not so interested in limiting the central power or moderation, but in

progress
-

Are interested in positive freedom

Prefers development of individualism, rather a possessive individuals

Of The state is not a minimal state, but rather a powerful one

redistributing the wealth
-

Is also based on social responsibility, we should take care of the

vulnerable part of the society
-

Neoliberalism:
Context:
Emerged in 1970s -> Oil crisis (1973-74), Margaret Thatcher and Ronald
Reagan came to power in Britain and America
-

Neoliberalism would be classical liberalism in an economical level,

combined with conservatism
-

Friedrich von Hayeln (1899-1992): he was the main adversary of John

Keynes; criticizes the socialist type of economy, trying to plan everything,
the problem in such an economy is tht you cannot plan everything because
economy is too complex; an economy should be free from political
interventions and should be guided by the price established by the offer and
demand; road to serfdom
-

Milton Friedman (1912-20): he criticizes Keynes because his measures

of stimulating economy by state intervention would generate inflation, but
also the lack of more structural reform
-

Central ideas:
-

Emphasis on economy, not on politics

Negative liberty

Minimal state and large privatization of state competence

Belief in the invisible hand

These liberal ideas are combined with conservative ideas

The neoliberal state becomes weaker in social areas (education, health),

but becomes very powerful in army, police, secret services
-

4th course
Conservatism:
- second major political ideology after liberalism
- it is about preserving- the meaning of the word in the middle ages indicated
those who protected the city
- only in the 19th century became an ideological position, indicating a
moderate attitude towards a certain situation
- liberals and socialist were seen as radical by the conservatists
- in France the term was first coined by Chateaubriand (1820s), while in
Britain the term first occured in the jurnal Quarterly reviwed - 1830, by 1835
it became the official designation for the Thory party (conservatives)
- the conservatists tend to reject the idea that they represent an ideology
- anti-political philospohy: usually conservatives go against theories, against
abstractions, they support common-sense against intelectuals, theories
- for them abstract ideas oversimplify social reality
- the conservatists do not reject change in itself, because they accept the
fact that we need to adapt in time, but this change should in the first place
try to preserve what we already have
- It is not necesarry to change something, is neccesary not to change
everything. (conservative motto)
Features:
- tradition (for Edmund Burke and for Chrsitian democrats tradition has a
divined source, but already in 19th century there another interpretation of
tradition, a Darwinist one - accordint to which traditionn is the result of
selecting those institutions and customs that are best adapted to human
needs)
- > for conservatists tradition offers a feeling of belonging, it gives you an
identity, so if you don't preserve tradition, you lose identity
-> tradition changed its maning, ex. for Edmund Burke it meant
aristocratic order, while in contemporany conservatism tradition implies
preserving economic and political liberalism

- human imperfection: at first they are heavily influenced by christianity and

the idea of original sin, they usually have a pessimist view of human nature,
market by several limits (psichological limits - fear of the unknown,
unfamiliar, moral limits - we tend to be selfish or intelectual ones - we know
reality only to certain limits)
-. for conservatists human nature does not change in a radical way,
despite te fact that human nature is influenced by society
- early conservatism was heavily influenced by christianity and religion,
while contemporany conservatism might use religion, but it also understands
individuals as following their own interests in economic competition
- organic society: hierarchy, mutual dependence, division of labour - each
organ has its function, harmony, change is very slow
- we found ourselves in a certain environment and that environmnet takes
care of us and become part of them, we become individuals only after we
grow up in society
- contemporany conservatists no longer use it
- hierarchy and authorithy: according to them there is a natural inequality
between men, physical, intelectual, social, according to this society needs
elites, that should govern from above, should take care of the people, its an
paternalistic attitude, many conservatist had this kind of nostalgia
- not every type of conservatism supports this idea (ex. christian
democrats would not agree with it)
- contmporany conservtism: the leads are meritocratic
- property: is a source of stability and psichological and social motivation, it is
an expression of identity, it is not all about mony, it is abot self-respect,
social status
- this idea changes its meaning, christian democrts tried to find a certain
balance between private property and scial redestribution
- the neo-conservatists reject social redistribution, private property is
based thorolly on meritocracy
Branches:
1. traditionalist conservatism:
- Context: 2 events:
- economis one: capitalism thatc reated a new social class, burgeoise and
tis class tries to replace the old aristocracy

- French Revolution - reaction to this revolution

- Edmund Burke (1729-1797): Reflections on the Revolution in France
- he makes a comparison between Frencg revoluton and the Glorious
revolution (1688, Britain) - in 1688 constitutional monarchy replaces absolute
monarchy, this glorious revolution had as its basic principle moderation and
pragmatism, the idea of "to change in order to preserve", in cnstast to the
glorious revolution, the French on is about radically changing reality, change
becomes an end in itself, the change is made in the name of abstract ideas/
theories (ex. univrsal humsn rights)
- this revolution set free unlimited human passions, tried to destroy the
continuity with the past
- be;ieves in an organic society
- for him: local authorities should be preserved
- also criticizes the liberal idea of a social contract, he redefines social
contract, this social contract is no longer signed by individuals, rather it is a
social contract between generations
2. modern conservatism:
- Context:
- economic factors: industrialization, urbanization and clear economic
inequalities
- political factors: revolutions from 1830s and 1840s, the political unrest
- Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881): british jewish who managed to become the
prime-minister
- GB in divided in two nations: the rich and the poor; his idea was that GB
should become one nation
- he was aware of the threat of a revolution in GB
- according to him in this modern world we should find the organis
relationship between individuals, because otherwise evything goes apart
- the wealthy people have not only rights, but also obligations towards the
poor, it's a paternalistic attitude -> 1867, as a prime minister he gives the
right to vote for teh working class, in the same time he introduces social
reformsn order to inhence the living coditions
- he tries to think about conservatism as a middle way between liberaism
and socialism

3. the new right:

- Context:
- economic factor: oil crisis in 1973, which undermines the belief in
wellfare state and allow Margaret Tatcher and Ronald Raegen to reach power
- social protests from 1968, it created a panic in western countries, the
feared that this protes would lead to communism or social chaos
- neo-conservatism or neo-liberalism combine classical economic liberalism
( economy regulates itself) with conservatism - we nned order, law, justice
tat preserves the basic values of the society
a. new liberalism: return to classical liberalism, but with one change, while
classical liberals were much more interested in politcs, the new liberals are
interested in economy rather than politics
- Robert Nozich (1938- 2002): Anerchy, State and Utopia
- intended to give a reply ot Rawls; he wanst t defend the idea of a
minimal state, interested only in aitaining social peace
- in hi view social redestribution is unjust, because goes against one
fundamental natural right, the rifgt of having a private property
- Murray Rothbard (1926-1995):
- we should neutralize everything, in order to have competition
b. new conservatism: to preserve American liberalims
- Irving Kristol
- Daniel Bell
- they both critcize the American president, Johnson (democrat), because
of his programs of social assistance/services
- are not for a liberal min imal state, they want to save American culture,
however, in the 80s conservatism mixes with liberalism
- the state should not regulate economy, should privatie health care, but
powerful intervention i npolice and secret services
Central ideas:
1. traditional conservatism:
- pragmatism
- paternalism

- traditionalism, they tried to preseve the old aristocracy

- organis society
- hierarchy
- social responcibility
- middle- way in economy
2. modern conservatism:
- pragmatism and paternalism
- sintesis between tradition and modernity
- the need for organic ties in a selfish, competitive world
- hierarchy, but also openness towards the working class
- social responsibility
- middle-way in economy
3. the new right: tentions
- individualism, but also organisism
- meritocracy, but also social hierarchy
- minimal state in the state that the state no longe rintervenes in econom,
health and education, but also a maximal state (police, army, secret
services)
- internationalism, but also nationalism and anti-globalization
- radical modernism, but also traditionalism

5th course
Christian democracy:
- branch on conservatism
Context:
- economic: the emergence of the bourgeoise
- French Revolution: strng rection against the church, it also generated a
reaction from the CAtholic Church -> they wanted restoration
- 2 branches:

- political catholicism: at first it was a reaction against French revolution

and against liberalism -> later this catholicism accepted representative
demcocracy
anti-liberal --------> accepts representative democracy
- social catholicism: confronts capitalism, tries to absorb a part of this
proletariat, tries to address the problem of powerty
Anti-liberal catholicism:
- Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821): "of course the French revolution is the
source of a social
because it undermined two basic institutions: monarchy
and the church; Enlightenment and French Revolution pleased the individual
and reasoned at the very centre of the universe, by doing this French
Revolution unreached unlimited passions; the Jacobin terror is the
consequrnce of it
- political systems are not the result of human reason, actually they have
a divined source; politics in an extention of religion
- he wants a total restoration of the old order
- the highest political authority is the pope himself
- some consider him as a recursor of totalitarians
Social catholicism:
- Context: urbanization, inequality, industrialization + spread of socialism
and nationalism (in 1871 the newly born italian state conquered Vatican, the
pope becomes a prisoner, only in 1929 Vatican became independent)
- because of these events the Catholic church lost its political influence, all
he had was the social one, it wanted to preserve its influence on scoail level
against the interference of the national state and against the spread of the
socialist movement among the working class
- Wilhelm Emmanuel von Kettler (1811-1877): catholic bishop, who is
considered to be the founding father of social catholic thinking
- he is a political liberal, he is againt the christian absolutism, but he also
criticizes liberalism, his aguement is that liberty cannot be achieved, if it is
an absolute value
- in contrast with the liberals Kettler rejects the idea of an indefinite
progress, he believes in some sort of progress, but only in contextual
development

- we cannot change humans, we are limited beings, so we should give up

utopian projects
- the state should intervene at the local level only when necessary => we
need a balance between central authority and local communities; in order to
stop that the society needs the existence of strong intermediary groups
(families, associations)
- he was influenced by a socialist, Ferdinand Lassale; under his influence
Kettler wrote the Labour power and Christianity, in which he says that te
church should protect human dignity and the poor
-he supprted teh rights of the working class against employers
- Leo XIIIth (1810-1903): reunovarum (= abut the new things), he is heavily
infleunced by Kettler; he also tries to invision a political alternative to
liberalism and socialism
- accordind to Leo human nature has a dimined sources, but alos private
property is legitimate from a theological point of view, because humans need
to have a permanent access to resources
- there are natural differences between individuals, concerning their social
status, talents -> there is a natural hierarch among people, but this is fine,
because society is like an organism and each individual fills a function in this
organism
- the imbalance should be prevented => economic inequalities can
damage soical organism, he talks about the possibility of having catholic
sindicats
- against socialists, who believed there is a calss struggle, the pope
advocates a harmonious relationship between workers and employers ("
neither capital can do ithout labour, nor labour without capital")
- the individulal and family are older than the state -> he wants to
legitimize what later is called the principle of subsidiarity, the function of the
state is to intervene only when necessary
- Pius XIth (1857-1939): Quadragesimo Anno (40 years after): wants to
connect social thinking to the present; an attent to offer a middle-way
between socialism and liberalism, despite the fact that private property is
legitimate, individuals in the same time should pay attention to public
matters and to those vulnerabels
- the problem of property becomes much more important

- he advocates teh need for social redistribution, workers should become

stakeholders, he also advocates a minimum wage, we should allow an
individual to support his family
- he criticizes the economic abuses on children
- he supports charity
- catholic sindicats
- in order to avoid social antagonism, we need intermediary groups, by
following a medieval model
- these intermediary groups manage to secure the welfare of its members
but also the need for social recognition
- this pope explicitely mentions the principle of subsidiarity
Personalism:
- Context:
- economic crisis from 1929, rising of fascism, nazism, communism,
atheism
- Emmanuel Mounier (1905-1950): in 1936 writes A Personalist Manifesto, in
which he denounces the bourgeoi character of society in different towards
powerty and ideals
- he criticizes liberalism for generating selfishness, desire from profit, the
marginialization of real human needs in the name of production and
consumption
- liberalism and collectivism are connected, because both of them cut off
the connection with God, nature, humanity
- tries to offer a new vision, called personalism, we should transform the
human being into an absolute vallue, the centre of the universe distinction
between colectivity and community, only in the latter individuals are treated
as persons
- family is the most basic social form
- like the other ones, he believes that we nedd a balance between local
community and central authority, ex. education should be a mixture between
state intervention adn private efforts
- he criticizes in harsh terms capitalism and believes that we should
subordonate economy to the needs of persons, subordonate capital to
labour; labour is anatural feature of our humanity, if you work, yous should

be able to ha a decent life; those who do not work, do not have the right to
survive, he rejects all the modern version of the state (fascist, liberal and
communist states), he advocates a pluralist state, basod on interpersonal,
regional or national communities; the state has enough space to intervene at
the social level, in order to make sure that the rights of human persons are
respected
- another version of subsidiarity: the state should intervene at local level
when necdcesary, but after fixing the problem the state should retriet,
decentralized state
- Jacques Maritam (1882-2973): he says that there is a great
misunderstanding in modernity, modernity tends to associate personality
with the individual, but individual and the person are separate, the individual
designates only the material side, which makes individuals be different from
the others, individuals are not only human beings, individuals are also
animals, plants, only persons are human beings, because personality ponts
to the spiritual side of human beings
- he was seduced at first by action frencise, but later on he rejected it, and
became the supporter of a pluralist democracy, he coins the term intigro
humanism, against an antropocentric humanism
- he criticizes the modern fact that the individual is sovereign,
autonomous, because according to him we reduce human beings to biology,
we deny the spiritual side
- he rejects both liberal individualsm and socialist collectivism, he wants a
civilization based on christianity, based on two fundamental principles, the
principle of common good and the principle of the spirital value of th
individual
Christian democracy:
- is rooted in the catholic thining
- adapting to 2 realities: FRench revolution + modern society
- after WWII it adapted itself to representative democracy
- subsidiarity
- the idea of social market
- supporters of some sort of
- Schuman: had in mind a political federation
- Christian democratic parties are no longer reated to catholicism

Central ideas:
- the idea of person, dignity is the highest value of a human person
- emphasis put on intermediary groups, they say that moernirty creates a
gap between the sate and the individual, the tendency of the state is to
erase the mediation between the state and the individuals
- social market economy
- subsidiarity and fedralism

5th course
Socialism:
- comes from teh latin word sociare, means to share, to combine -> societas:
in one hand it implies feternity, comorodity, emotional dimension; feternity
becomes later collectivitism, implies an equality based on state planification;
on the other hand it implies a concentual contract between free men, society
is about formal equality - this meaning goes against the idea that the state
should intervene, root for civil society
- the terms socialism and communism appear in 1827 in a British newspaper
-> those who supported the second option were called communionists and
sociolists
General features:
1. equality, ex. Marxist communism wants a society without classes and
state, they want absolute equality; in the 20th century the societ
communism will have to accept the existence of the state, this communis
support economic equality accepting however certain differences; in the 19th
century and the first part of 20th century the social democrats wanted to
abolish capitalism and to have total equality between people, they were
basically Mrxists; in the second half of 20th century the social democrats will
change their position, they will accepts capitalism and loberal democracy,
trying however to secure a large redistribution of the national wealth
2. utopianism: the belief in the possibility of construcing an alternative
egalitarian system based on solidarity and cooperation
3. cooperation: a rather optimistic view on human nature, in the sense that
human nature is lastic, can be shaped by society and society thus can make
them cooperative beings, rather than competitive ones, individuals are
fundamentally social; the communist bbelieved in a radical change of human
nature, while the social democrats from the second half of the 20th century

believed that we can make people more coopeative in thecontext of a

competitive capitalism
4. social change: sociolists usuall believe in the possibility of producing
radical changes in the world through human intervention
Marxism:
- Context: capitalism creates high inequalities in the 19th century, there is a
clear division between classes as never before, in 19th century 2 important
olitical events: the revolution from 1848 spreading all over Europe and
charging monarchies and the commun from Paris (1871)-> communist,
anarchist experiment where the workers are trying to organize themselves
against the authority
- Karl Marx (1818-1883): in 1848 Marx and his friend, Fridrich Engels made a
clear distinction between sociolists and cmmunists, the former are reformist,
while the latter radicalist, only the latter want to abolish private property;
according to Marx the human being is a social animal transforming its
environmnet through labour, human beings are practical beings, rather than
rational, theoretical ones; the relationship between men and society is about
mutual deoendence, " society produces men, while men also generate/
produce society", we are histrical and social beings, hat implies a certain
vision about history and historical evolution, hw was very much infkuenced
by Hagel, for Marx history is about conflicts and these conflict allow history
to evolve and generate new societies, Marx offers an evolutionary
perspective on history, in which one society entirily replaces another one;
- society: 2 levels: economis base and ideological superstructure
- economic
technologies)

base:

forces

of

production

(ex.

raw

materials

and

relations of production (the division of labour and class division)

- ideological superstructure covers morality, law, religion, phylosophy, etc.
- the values of a certain society, these ideas are the ruling ideology, they are
the xpression of a dominant class, an ideology is need in norder to
universalize qand naturalize the position of a dominant class
- according to Marx the basic tension which allows for radical change ->
forces of production
- in 1867 he writes the Capital, the very secret of capitalist syste is yhe fact
that in order for the caitalist system to reproduce itself you need the
labourforce of the worker, selling your labourforce -> commodity, however
there is a difference between other commodities and labourfoce, because it

is the only commodity caable to generate surplus value,( ex. according to

Marx the worker sells his labourforce to make a product...)
- Marx observes the irrationality of the system, th system has the capacity to
produce much more, while in the same time it creates powerty as never
before; money is needed to make more money, capital accumulation, not for
fulfilling human needs
- creates an ideological distortion which masks/ hidesl production of
commodities, commodity fettishism
- in his early texts like Communist Manifesto and German Ideology ideology
is only way of distorting social reality by a dominant class, but in The Capital
ideology is the result of the capitalist system itself
- commodity fettishm -> commodities are in a sense are natural and not the
products of a certain society; the ilklusion is that commodities are valueable
in itselves, but they are dependent on social production and this has another
ideological effect, because of commodity fettishism capitalism becoms a
natral system, capitalism itself manages to hide its social and historical
background
- for MArx passing one social system another, from capitalism to communism
would mean probably a violent change (strike, civil war); after the first
moment when you change the system, you will have the dictatorship of the
proletariat and this dictatorship should secure the takeover of the
politicalpwer by the workers ( dictatorship - Marx took this word from
antichity, only for a short period to stabilize, for hik this dictatorship was
democratic), in the same time this dictatorship should make the transition
from old to new, a transition where you woul have elements of old society
and when you manage to dissolve the old elements then you enter
communism
- he does not offer an extented definition of commnism, the gasp are filled
with other, who come later -> problem: interpretations prbably would have
been rejected byMArx
Real communism:
- context: the European imperialism and collonialism from the end of the
29th century, at the end of 19th century large state intervention in the
economy, monopolist capitalism; WWI which shatters the internationalist
illusion; Russian revolution from1917, Lenin clearly distinguished between
communiss on the one hand and social democrats on the other hand
- Marx did not imagine a revolution in Russia, according to him a revolution
should take place in the west (workers)

- this communism is about an effort to reinterpret Marx, in order to legitimize

a revolution outside the western world
- Engels after the death of Marx takes over his works

6th course
- Leon Trotsky (1879-1940): majr revolutionary figure, we was believed to be
the leader after Lenin, but Stalin won, he wen t in exile, and was killed in
Mexico
- reinterpreting Marx, justifying a revolution in other parts of the worlds (less
developed parts, because acording to Marx only in the west can have a
revoltuion)
- reinterprets Marx idea of permanent revolution
- envisioned of an alliance between the working clas and the pesants,
because the bourgeoise in Russia was weak, the working class should take
the lead, in a sense that it should for intance fight for bourgeoise ideals (ex.
political freedom) and to go on and fight for a more radical change for a
common society - permanent revolution
- Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924): Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism in
which he denounces the bribary of the western working class through igher
salaries in contrast with the working class from the periphery; introduces the
difference between centre (west, most developed capitalist countries) and
periphery ( Russia)
- what we witness at the beginning of the 20th century is another type of
capitalism than the one described by Marx, Marx described a capitalism
based on competititon, defined by anarchy in a sense, however, meanwhile
capitalism changed and what we have at the beginnig of the the 20th
century is monopoly capitalism - western collonial states intervene heavily in
economy, they make huge profits, because they have colonie
- there are two basic political imlications of Lenin's position:
1. the revolution would take place in a non-western part of the world, since
the western working class are enjoying a better life standard, is not
interested in a revolution
2. by this Lenin also justifies the idea of an avantgard party, that should lead
the masses; because the working class can be manipulated, what you need
is a highly organized party - otherwise no revolution

- revolution in Russia between menshevilns (revolution lead by masses) and

bolschevihs (highly organized party, that should organize the revolution)
- Lenin was very pragmatic and he tried to adapt to the Russian context, so
he changes the theory by taking into consideration this Russian context:
- while for the menscheviks the two main classes are the bourgeoise and
the working class, Lenin on the other hand pays attention to an ignored
social class, the peasants, representing 80% of the Russian population ->
you can talk about capitalist exploitation not only in the case of the working
class, but also in the rural areas, most of the Russian peasants became in a
sense proletarians, because they do not have landb and thus they have to
sell their labourforce to the richer peasants
- he also wanted to gain the support of the various nationalities living in
Russia, he promised national self-determnation, however he was an
internationalist, he believed in an international revolution
- Rosa Luxembourg (1871-1919): in 1915 because the ermna social
democrats voted for entering the war, she left them and created the
Spartacus league
- she criticizes both Karl Kautsky and Lenin, she criticizes Kautsky and social
democrats for indefinitely delaying the revolution, Lenin for his elitist position
- while she rejects a parliementary democracy, she also criticizes the
bolsevick revolution
- she forgot an essential ingredient of Marx's writings: the dictatorship is not
that of a party or of an elite, but a class dictatorship, acccording to her this
class dictatorship should imply "the unlimited participation of masses of
man, an unlimited democracy", the leaders are emanations of masses and
the revolution for Lenin must be organized by a party, for Rosa Luxembourg
the revolution in continous
- Joseph Stalin (1879-1953): he wrote many books; the idea of going beyond
the avantgard party, not only the working class can have a false
consciousness, but also the party, the party itself can be manipulated, that is
why you need a leader
- he tried to have socialism in one country, not all over the world as Marx
said
- Mao Zedong (1893-1976): chinese president, leader of the communist
movement in China
- we should reinterpret the idea of social contradiction by adapting it to
collonies, such as China; any society is defined by a series of contradictions,

however, some of them are dominant and other secondary, depending on

context
- the central contradiction of the west is that between bourgeoise and
working class, but in the case of semi-collonised countries, such as China the
dominant contradiction concers the anti-imperialist struggle of the entire
Chinese society against western powers
- it is not important to be part of the working class in order to have this
revolution, what is more important is he revolutionary consciousness, you
can be whatever, if you have the right political consciousness, by doing this
he also wanted to attract the peasants
Central ideas of communism:
1. they believed that Marxism is a science
2. the possibility to radically change human nature, the possibility of having
a new man
3. the goals is to abolish capitalism and to create a classless society
4. state intervention/ state planning, a state that is lead by an avantgard
party
- after the fall of USSR and the communist regimes, there was this kind of
euphoria, liberalism and capitalism won and all it is left is to spread
liberalism and capitalism all over the world, but this euphoria dis
-> ex.
economic crisis

7th course
Social democracy (socialism):
1. Utopian socialism:
- reaction against social inequalities generated by early capitalism
- it is attempt to take furhter / radicalize French Revolution and its idea of
equality
- Claude Henri de Saint Simon (1760-1825): believes that we can develop a
science capable to objectively describe society, moreover he believes that
the central cathegory of this science is social class - these two basic ideas
indluence later Marx
- he is a witness of French Revoluton and this makes him generalize this
historical experience, in a sense that looking at the French Rev. social

revolution means to replace non-productive classes, such as aristocracy with

productive ones -> "industrial scientific class" - emphasis put on
industrialization and science, that is why we believes that we can cope with/
manage modern caacity only by replacing liberal individulism or laissez-faire
(= the state should not regulate economy) qualities with a tecnoratic
socialism (experts who can plan human society), only this kind of socialism
can replaace the waste caused by laissez-faire
- Charles Fourier (1772-1837): basic assumption: society operates through
morality, a repression of our natural passions, " morality teaches man to be
at war with himself, to resist his passions, to repress them"; he also criticizes
the prejudice that liberty, equality and paternity can have a meaning in the
absence of some sort of financial security; he talks about kinimun wage, a
bsic financial security in order to be free, equal, etc.; he wants to design a
community in which to harmonize human passions and social construction,
he calls them phalanxes, small communities made out of 1600 people should not resemble other utopian projects from that age, because the other
projects were based on dis
, trying to dis passions, on the contrary these
phalenxes should encourage people to follow their passions in the absence of
any formal coartions (= coercitie)
-Robert Owen (1771-1857): individuals are almost totally determined by
external factors, for intance society, natural environment, he belueves that
religion and economic liberalism generate a superstitious ans selfish human
type, so what we need is to create another type of scoiety that should
transform human beings in rational ones; in 1800 he opens a factory in
Scotland in which the working conditions are far better that in other
factories, in 1824 he buys a land in US and ceates a socialist coommunity
called New harmony, but the experiment fails
- according to Marx these systems belong to 'infertile stage' of the final
bourgeoise class (?)
2. Social democracy:
a. the Marxist version: emerges after Marx's death and Engels was the one
taking care of his legacy, in the same times Engels had an heir, Karl Kautsky
(1854-1938) - pope of Marxism, he interpreted Marx through Engels eyes ->
pretty rigid view on communism; he believed that the revolution would take
place in the west only when the working class could be mature enough to
generate that; you should wait till capitalism will generate powerty and a
large unsatisfed working class; however, the bolsevich revolution
marginalizes Kautsky ( sommunist -><- social democrats -Lenin), because of
Lenin social democracy means accomodation with cpaitalism; despite the
fact that both of them wanted capitalism to be abolished, the only difference
is that bolsevicks did not want to wait, they want the revolution now, while

social democrats believe that we should wait till the economic conditions are
right beyond
- Eduard Bernstein (1850-1932): writes a book called Evolutionary Socialism
in 1899 in which he tries to revise Marxist theory; he basically crititicizes the
idea that capitalism neccesarily generates in its last phase an extreme social
division, few bourgeoise and large working class; you don't have this kind of
social division predected by MArx, because what you can see is the rise of
the living consitions of the working class, instead of becoming poorer, the
workers have a better life; according to him the Marxist theory generates
passivity because all we have to do is to wait that capitalism destroys itself;
howver, in his view the evolution from capitalism to socialism is about the
emergence of a "new type of social democracy", that would mean
transforming workers into citizens; h also criticizes MArxism for being utopian
and for not having a moral dimension, the end justifies any means according
to Bermstein; both Kautsky and Bermsteim criticized Lenin
- Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937): he was member of the communist party in
Italy, he was imprisoned during Mussolini and he managed to write his most
important text in prison without being allowd to do that; he tries to make
sense of the failure of communist revolution in the west; he says that the
revolution took place in Russia, because in the west you have a strong civil
society, that enabled bourgeoise to impose its cultural and political
hegemony over the woring class, you don't have this strong civil society in
Russia; that is why the workers and the peasant did not internalize the
values of the dominant class; he radically revises the mMarxist theory,
because the revolution is not generated by economic factors, but rather
political and cultural ones; you cannot have a revolution in the absence of a
hegemony (= to impose a new common sense); in the same tie, the role of
the Marxist intellectua is not to citicize ideology as such, but to construct a
counter ideology, replacing the dominant one; despite the fact that he was a
communist, his theory already prepares the new left
- the new left:
- context: WWII and the destruction brought by this; the ideological
competition of the west and the Soviet Union; WWII constrained the western
countries to reduce economic inequality: two factors: 1. the experience of the
war, in which they fought no matter of the social backgroud generated thia
kind of need to compensate fort his suffering; manage to create a sense of
equality between those who were fighting the war, there were no social
distinction when fighting the war - psychological factor; 2. political factor: the
ideological competition between western countries and Soviet Union, under
the pressure of Soviet Union the western countries tried to be sensitive about
topics such as economic inequality, the wes could not afford to have

economic inequalities, because that would have triggered a communist

revolution in their societies
- first important moment in the emergence is in 1959: the german social
democtratic party adopts a political programme ccepting liberal democracy
and capitalism, from now on social democrac no longer wants to abbolish
capitalism, but to domesticate it by large social security
- the seond important moment: in the end the european communists
emancipated themselves from Moscow, opting for a Euro-communist vision
and accepting for the first time parliamentary elections
- Herbert Marcuse (1898-2979): he becomes the most intellectual figure
during social protest from 1968; according to him emancipaton should not be
reduced to radicating/ eliminating economin inequality, but should also be
about a sexual revolution; according to him the most important agent of
social change is no longer the working class, because this working class has
been already absorbed by capitalism, the chage actually will be generated
by "marginals, such as ethnic minorities, etc."
- Jurgen Habermas (1929 - ): he tries to criitiqually reconstruct MArxism by
moving from class struggle to a tention between instrumental rationality (is
present in social systems; is a very narrow perspective of what reason is) and
communicative rationality (= when we talk with each other without trying to
manipulate each other; we are guided by the idea of the best argument); this
can offer us a better critque agaisnt the idea of profit, etc; the state is no
longer to replace capitalism, but to lomit the impact of this social system by
urbust (?) powerful public systems capable to
in public debates
b. non- Marxist version: fabionists (British socialists) comes from a roma
general, Fabius, who manged to win battles without bloodshed (?); according
to them socalism can impose itself by using parliamentary means; the labour
party was founded in 19 adopts this tactic of prliamentary election and
manages to come to....
- the third way: Churchill lost the election and the labour party came to
power; Britain was amonst the most socialist countries in the west till the
'70s, in the '70. Tatcer became prime-minister and that changed british
society; after her the labour party had to redefine itself, it became much
more progmatic by choosing what Anthony Giddens calls The Third Way;
acording to him social democracy should adaptto contemporany capitalist
globalization, globalization that is defined by individualization, reflexity, ;
the erosion of the traditinal distinction between right and left means that we
should replace collective emancipatory projects based on working class or
nations and animated by some sort of historical neccessity with much more
fragmentory social movements, interested in the expression of a certain

lifestyle, such as feminism; he advocates diological democracy as the only

sourse of generating some sort of social concensus in the contects of
contemporany....
Central ideas:
- there is a tendency to move from scientific socialism to an ethical socialism
- the tendancy to repplace the working class as the agent of social change
with other categories such as minorities
- tendancy to believe that cpaitalism cannot be simply abolished, but should
be domesticated by social reforms
- state intervention in economy in orde to redistribute common wealth (ex.
wellfare state)
- the tendancy to accept liberal democracy and political pluralism

8th course:
Anarchism:
- anarchy: "is compound of two greek words: an(without) and arkhe, which
means the absence of rulers
more commonly the term state
an
ambiguity creeps in here, which can be distructive of a clearer understanding
of the ideology, the ideaof being without a state and government can slip
into the notion of being "without authority or rules", which can become an
equivalent to disorder, chaos of cnfusion"
- the term itself points to an ideology only in the 19th century
- the fisrt use of the term to denote a political position is to be found in
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's work: What is property
- before that people usually associatd anarchism with chaos and disorder
Features:
1. liberty and equality (both of them in one)
- somewhere in between liberalism and socialism
- it might be interpreted as ultra liberalism on one hand and extreme
socialism on th other
- 1. collectivist anarchism - emphasizing freedom and equality at a collective
level; 2. individulist anarchism - they don't depend on their social
environmnent, emphasiz on individual freedom

2. the critique against an authority (state and religion); anarchism would be

"the negtion of the principle of an authority, for anarchists any form of
authority creates dependence and submission and thus goes against the
constitutive autonomy of individuals and their equality. Moreover, authority
tends to corrupt human nature by transforming it in a selfish competitive and
submissive one"
- anarchism criticizes the political authority of the state, because the state
wants to control, cenzur, exploit and homogenize individuals, but there is
also a critique of religiou authority, because of the idea of God implies
unconditional submission, the church does nothing else, but perpetuate that
by elaborating a moral code
3. utopianism: usually anarchist have this utopian human nature, for William
Godwin indviduals in the national state are rational and cooperative beings,
only society and state transform them in selfish beings, according to them
we need to abolishthis kind of machinery based on law and order and create
a new type of society, in which individuals can acticate their natural
tendency towards individual and social harmony
Origins of anarchism:
- context: early capitalism - this capitalism emancipated individividuals from
a rigid belonging to a social class; FRench revolution also gave a boost to
anarchist thinking
- William Godwin (1756-1836): in his work An inquery concercing political
justice and its influence on moral and happines he condams any for of
obedience to an authority other than our own reason; according to him
human nature is perfectable, we can progress, become better, individuals
have this capacity o becoming more rational and more capable to govern
themselves and thus transforming social institutions in useless (something
that we don't need anymore); he also rejects the liberal idea of a social
contract as a baisis of state authority, for him the state instead of fighting
injustice, it only perpetuates it, enerating class division; laws themselves are
arbitrory and pressivefor him (because they are external)
- Max Stirner (1806-1856): he rejects any form of abstract authority, such as
the state, society, humanity, God, etc., all we is actually our individual body,
other that that anything else is an abstract reality
- Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865): he is basically the fisrt who calls
himself an anarchist; in his work Whta is property he thinks that we should
replace the political organization based on authority with a social economic
organization based on consent; he says that property if theft, because he
thinks that the idea of private property is unjust; owever, he makes a

distinction between type of properties: the worker has the right to posses
what he produces, however, he doesn't have a right on te means of
production, because these means pf prodcutions are taken form nature and
in the same time they can only work in a collective manner; for Proudhon
property is incompatible with justice, because it excludes the majority of the
producers from having equal right on what they produce; he will actually
have contact with the civil society called mutuals, a societ formed excluisvely
by workers, without the interference of intellectuals; later on he will adopt
the mertm mutualism in order to define his own vision; according to him and
against Marx the working class should emancipate without the help of a
party or the state; accroding to him the French revolution remains
unfinished, concentrating only on political change and ignoring the economic
changes of society; in his later work he says once again that self-rganization
is the only way to be free, he advocates federalism, decetralized society,
made out of small communities, that sign a political contract (he had the
vision that Europe should become a federation of regions, not of nations)
- Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876): he is influenced by both Marx and Proudhon
and he advocates an absolute liberty, criticizes any form of authority; desbite
rejecting arbitrory violence,he still believes these
is a creative tendency; e
entered in a conflict with Marx and becaue of that there is a split within the
socialist movement; according to him the Marxist theory is nothig else than
an attempt of the intellectuals to exploit the working class; for him
communism does not come from theory, but "popular instinct", in the same
time individual liberty can be relaized in the context of a perfect equality; he
as this vision about a revolution in the eastern part of Europe generated by
the Slaves and would spread in the world, while in Russia there are still the
rural communities, which can become a model
Collectivist anarchism:
- context: the of 19th centry, the beginning of the 20th century; the growing
of the wotking class and the spread of sindicalization of the working class;
the strength, maturity of the national state
1. anarcho-communism:
- Piotr Kropotkin (1842-1921): he is the one one of those who wanted to give
a scietific base to anarchism; work: Mutual Aid, A Factor of Evolution, he
suggests that the more involved species survive not because of competition,
but through mutual aid and sociability (he goes against Drawinism and scial
Darwinism); according to him cooperation is part of human nature,
institutions and the state are the major obstacle in this tendency to
cooperate, in the same frame he believes that a free and equal society would
be formed by network of voluntary associations, something like a federation;
"anarchy leads to communism and communism leads to anarchy"

2. anarcho-sindicalism: Italy, Spain, Latin America:

- Rudolf Rocker (1873-1958):securing better living standard, but also the
need to educate the workers, how to organize the production
- Georges Sorel (1847-1922): in Reflections of violence he tries
of a
revolution based on general strikwe; what the socialit movement does not
have is a political myth to mobilize people and the general strike could
become such a myth
- Noam Chomsky
Central ideas:
1. the individual is a social being having this tendency towards cooperation
and solidarity
2. we need a social revoltuion in order to abolish the state, but also the
economic system
3. common property
4. the belief that anarchism can be applied only within selforganizing small
communities
5. the idea of direct democracy
Individualist anarchism:
- Thoroeu might me considered as a main inspiration for this type of
anarchism
- Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939): he introduces a new thing in the discussion,
the market, the idea that the individuals can work and cooperate eith the
help of the a market; he criticizes economic exploitation, because every
individual should have the right to owe whta he produces, but the same
individual needs other products, produced by other individuals and he
proposes a sustem called Labour for labour, it says that I will work for you
now in order to produce sth yoy need and you will work for me later on in
orderto produce sth that I need; he tries to radicalize the liberal idea of a free
commerce
Anarcho capitalism:
- Murray Rothbard (1926-1995): he tries to combine political liberalism and
the idea of free market, ha advocates an almost total privatization of society,
the market will select the best
- Ayn Rand: Atlas shrunked (?) indistrialist, scientists and artists enter into a
general strike to denounce the interference of the state in their affairs, but

also to show that society could not woek in the absence of creative
individuals
Central ideas:
1. the individual is sovereign, he is not defined by his social environment
2. the value of private property, everything should become private
3. the importance of the market to solve the tensions between individuals

9th course
Fascism
- fasces: bonds of rodes (?), bound together simbolizing unity, which were
traditionally carried before consults in the Roman Republic indicating their
authority
- in the first phase the word fascism had more sentimental or socialist
connotations
- the term retained this socialist connotation up to 1913, when fasco groups
called for intervention in WWI, when they chose to go to war give up in
asense their socialist identity and focused on nationalism
Features:
- anti-rationalism: facist go against of Enlightenment and the optimism of
Enlightenment, defining individuals as ratonal beings, capable of progress
- they reject intellectualism in the name of action, and also in the name of
emotional dimension
- elitism: against Enlightenment, they believe that individuals are unequal,
socity needs leaders and leads (it is not the same type of elitism as in
conservative ideology, fo ex. the leader in the fascism case extracts his
authority from carisma and not from tradition like for conservatisms; for
fascist there is a total fusion between leader and his people)
- race: fascism is in a sense the radicalization of nationlism, according to
nationalism people have souls, nazist: leap from the souls of eople to the
race of people; the Italian fascsm is a sort of hyper-nationalism, which tries
to emphasize the belnging of the individual to an organiz community;
nazism, on the other hand, passes from hyper nationalism to racism, from
nation to a biological unity

- statism: according to Hagel the state is the culminating point of the society,
in fascism statism is related to two other concepts: totalitarianism and
corporatism, Mussolini adopted the term totalitarian, understandting by the
term the concentration of all social forces around the state; corporatism: the
state is an organism, it tries to present itself as a third way between
liberalism and socialism, intervenes in econom, but allows some sort of
freedom
- fascism can be turned in a conservative revolution, Walter Benjamin called
fascism as a conservative revolution; unlike conservatists, fascist offer a
mixture between modernism and a revival of the past; in the fascist case it is
not about preserving the past, but more about using new technological,
scientific, even artistic discoveries in order to recuperate a past considered
to be glorious
Precursors:
- Context: it is defined by the reaction against laisse fare liberalism
considered to undermine social bonds or collectivities; second reaction is
against rationaliast individualism and agaisnt egalitarianism promoted by the
Enlightenmnet
- J. G. Herder (1744-1803): he is the fisrt who uses the term nationalism, he
believes that the Germans constitute/ have a natural unity because of their
origin, kanguage and common culture; he was in the sae time a
cosmopolitan, he believed that all nations have the right for selfdetermination (that's why he criticized European collonialism)
- J. G. Fichte: he is the first one who states clearly that the Germans are
superior to other nations, Germany has some special mission in the world
- Arthur de Gobineau (1816-1882): famous book: Essay on inequality
between human races, in whic he distinguishes between a white, black and
yellow race, the white one is superion to the others, because it has indoEuropean/ arian origins, later he ssociates germans with arians; he believes
that the ratial mixture weakens the white race and this also undermines the
western civilization, since civilizations are the product of certain race; he was
not an anti-semant
- Herbert Spencer (1820-1903): he adopt Darwin's idea of natural selection
and applies it to society; social darwinism; according to Spencer individuals
are engaged in a blind competition for survival, only the fittest will survive,
he was even suggesting to prohibit the procreation unworthy individuals; he
was also a supporter of laisse-fare capitaism, criticizing any kind of state
intervention in the society, because by doing that we interven in the natura
selection

- Friedrich Nietzche: criticizes the rationalism and egalitarianism promoted by

the French revolution, he also criticizes modern massification, against all this
phenomena he advocates for a society that would stimulate the immergence
of created individuals; he has a vision about a new kind of aristocracy, a
spiritual one, however he was very critical about anti-semiats; he criticizes
anti-semiats, but alos Germna people for not being able to digest the Jewish
element/ population
Italian fascism:
- at the beginnig of the 20th century Italy was a country with big economic
discrepencies ( ex. between rural areas and indistrial areas, south and east)
- WWI: Antanta - among the winners, but they were not satisfied with what
they got after the war - mutilated victory
- Giovanni Gentile (1875-1944): consider himself as the philosopher of
fascism; he is influenced by Hegel and he uses Hegelian dialectics; tension
between individual and society - this tension could be overcome by a new
sinthesis(?), the state, it invlves both the piblic and individual spheres he
admires Marx, but in contrast with Marx the central struggle generating
progress in not class syruggle, but the struggle between weak and strong
nations
- Benito Mussolini (1883-1945): takes power in 1922, after the famous march
to Rome; initially he is a socialist and then a nationalist; he belives that class
division is not international, but a spark(?) of a nation; like for Gentile, the
central conflict is between nations, he is influenced by Plato or Nietzsche,
believing that masses are manipulable by strong, carismatic leaders; the
individual is from the very beginning part of a collectivity; Italian fascism is a
third way between liberalism and socialism, "Liberalism denies the state in
the intersst of the individual, socialism on the other hand does not
acknowledge the possibility of harmonizing social classes in the national
state"; Mussolini adopted racism only in 1938, in 1938 he adopted the first
anti-semiant laws; he was racist only because he was trying to have HItler
as an allien; for him the central task is not ratial domination, but the
extention of the Italian state,folowng the glory of Roman empire; according
to him the state is like an organism, its vitality is proven only through
extention, coservation is a sign of decadence
National socialism:
- Context: after WWI Germany, the most important European power launced
into economic crisis and in the same time the treaty of Versailles from 1918
placed the entire moral and economic responsability on Germany's shoulders

- Alfred Rosenberg (1895-1946): in his book THe myth of 20th century

Rosenberg is influenced by Govino and H.S.Chamberlain; there are
qualitative differences between races, some sort of hierarchy, some sort of
scale, at the bottom are black and jews and at the top arian and/or the
nordic race; each race has a soul; the greatest danger is mixing the races
- Adolf Hitler (1889-194 ): Mein Kampf (My Struggle); he also talks about free
categories: 1. creators of culture - arian race, 2. bearers of culture - chinese
and japanes, 3. destroyers of culture - jews; being arians, the Germans are
theratened by two things: Jews and Communists/ Slavs; he tried to put in
practice measures concerning not only jews, but also Handicaps and Romas;
ideologically speaking and in contrast of MUssolini, Hitler wanted a pure
arian race; future of Europe that is about a nordic aristocracy (?); Hitler is
less socialist than Mussolini; the only socialism experienced by Hitler is
during WWI, when he expressed the solidiarity between soldiers; if for
Mussolini the state is an end (?) in itself, for Hitler the state is only an
instrument for ratial supremact, the state is like a vassel, while the race i the
content of the vassels; he justifies a new type of imperialism based on ratial
differences; Germans need a Lebensraum/ a vital space in order to evolve in
eastern Europe

10th course
Feminism
Unlike certain ideologies (coservatism.liberalism) the word feminism causes
few ethimological problems. At its simplest the word means the investigation
and understanding of the discrimination against and oppressionand of
women and a subsequent attempt to abolish such domination. However, this
simplicity might be debatable, because there are various ways of
understanding the domination of women and their emancipation. In fact
feminism has been related to other ideologies.
Features:
1. Political: redefining the political: traditionally politics is associated with
public space. Feminism, however, has proved that this space is usually seen
as the monopoly of men, while the private space is usually associated with
women
- In the first wave: women should fight for having the same political rights as
men, while the distinction between public and private remains unquestioned.
In the 2nd wave of feminism, however, the private sphere what is personal
becomes political.

2. Patriarchy: designates the power relation between mena nd women (the

term literally means the rule by the father). The liberal femininsm usually
wants to eliminate the political inequality from the public space, while the
socialist one wants to eliminate the economic inequalities between men and
women, radical feminism: operates on the domestic level, too.
3. Sex and genger: sex -> biological features of men and women. For
conservatists these differences are natural, however feminists introduced the
distinction between sex and gender. Gender is a social, cultural cathegory
meaning the different roles that society attributes to men and women, that is
that we are taught of our very early socialization what can we do. By
introducing gender feminism tried to show that: not biological, men can
also do it.
4. Equality and difference: the liberal feminism promotes political and
juridical equality, while the socialist one goes for economic one. These two
feminisms are part of the feminism equality. For this type the difference
between men and women is actually the expression f patriarchy and
hierarchy within society. For feminists of difference the ideal of equality is
actually the expression of domination, by wanting to get equality women
give up their identity.
Waves:
First wave (19th century - 1920s):
- Context: capitalism genrates a relative economic emancipation of women;
French Reolution: its values of liberty&equality.
-> The liberal wave:
- Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797): Vindiation of the rights of women:
advocates the right of women to choose freely their social roes, since these
roles are not natural, they are social. Women and men have the same rights
simply because they are all human beings; among other things, she criticizes
the separate education between girls and boys. She wants to make French
Revolution coherent, women should be part.
- Elisabeth Stanton (1815-1902): the opression of women is not only about
depriving them of their rights as citizens, but also sexual exploitation since
women loose their authonomy, the right over their own body when they
marry. She also rejects the separate education, she also charges and
criticizes religion.
- John Stuart Mil (1806-1873): The Subjection of women: he thinks that the
subordination of women is not the result of some biologocal attributes, but of
a social pressure confirmed and reconfirmed by tradition in order to seem

natural. Replacing the domestic tyrany can be achieved only when women
will have the same political and legal rights or they will have access to
education and jobs.For him education is vital, because the subjection of
women is based on a more suffle psichological control, women believe at
some point that they are dependent on men and they end up inloving their
master.
-> The socialist wave:
- Owen, Saint., ...: they are revolutionary, they believed the relationship
between genders, including those within the family are an important
precondition in order to transform society, they criticize the distinction
between public and private, because they are aware of the relationship
between political and economic subordination of women, it is not enough to
have political righta, when you on the other hand preserve inequalities. What
you need is a radical change of society and this would mean to abolish
private property, because by this you can abolish the division of labour
between men and women.
- Friedrich Engels (1820-1895): The Origins of the Family, Private Property
and the State: he believes thatnthe opression of omen consides with the
emergence of private property and a class based society, with this women
become a property of men, capitalism creates an even harder opression of
women, women in bourgeoise families do not have the right to transmit on
material heritage. Engels says that this kind of absence of rights of women is
compensated and in the same time masked by the emergence of a cult of
feminity.
- Charlotte P. Gilman (1860-1935): influenced by Marx, believes that the goal
of society is to overcome individualism and economic exploitation. She tries
to translate in feminist terms the difference between cooperation and
individualism, in the sense that womens maternal instinct are better
adopted to a society based on cooperaton, while men like wars and
competition
2nd wave (1960s-1980s):
- in comparison to other times, women have managed and economic
authonomy by having access to jobs, in the same time they also managed to
secure the right to vote. We shouls look at the personal space, too, women
still have inferior place in the family, they are still opressed at this level an d
because of that the emphasize goes to the differences between men and
women, and not on equality.
-> Liberalism:

- Betty Freedam (1921-2006): The Feminism Mistique: she talks about the
prison in which women live, because they have to adopt themselves, to
reestablish social roles based on this cultural myth a feminin mistique. This
cultural myth implies .... women can fulfill is in the private space.
-> Socialism:
- Mariarosa della Costa: criticizes capitalism and economic exploitation, but
she ads sth extra by saying that wmen are pressured by having to fulfill
domestic duties, while they are also pressured to fulfill the tasks in the
workplace, double exploitation (by husbands and employers). In order to
emancipate women yet have to change the whole capitalist system.
- Juliet Mitchell: believes that we should try to take into consideration both
economic and ideological features, because only by doing this we can really
have emancipation. According to her in our current society women have to
fulfill several social functions (labourforce, they secure the biological
reproduction of species, responsible with raising children, sexual objects)
-> Radical feminism: Unlike the Marxist feminists, many radicals formulate
their ideas in a ahistorical manner, this was partly due to the fact that many
of their ideas were rooted in an emphasiz on either biologism or
psichlologism, they often contempted that they were essential universal
characteristics to all woman. Their focus was on all forms of patriarchy and
sexism (political lesbianism)
- Simone de Beauvoir (1906-1986): In the second sex she says that you are
not born a woman, you become one... women: misterious beings, as a way of
not trying to really upset and understand women -> men: standard, women:
exception
- Germaine Greer: The Female Eunuc: society does the same with women,
they are castrated and transformed in asexual beings according to the
stereotype of external feminity.
- Kate Millet: first one who actually uses the term of patriarchy in order to
define a society dominated by men, she believes that it atarts in the family
and expands in the whole society
3rd wave (1980s-2000): influenced by postmodernism, they do not go either
foe equality, or difference. They want to make this distinguishment much
more ambigous and unstable, as the only way to avoid hierarchy between
the parts. It managed to take into consideratio the experiences of other
women then the white (black, latin, asian)

- Judith Butler: Gender Trouble: proposes the concept of performitivity as a

way to criticize the idea that gender is a biological feature, in order to
become a men/ women you have to perform this social role

Seminar
1.

What

is,

according

to

George

Rud,

the

ideology

of

popular

protest?

2. How could we interpret the acceptance of being arrested in the tradition of civil disobedience?
3.

What

is

civic

disobedience

in

Thoreaus

view?

4. What is the novelty and importance of Russian Revolution from 1905 for Rosa Luxemburg?
5.

Why

is

Satyagraha

radical

method

to

6. What are the steps of a nonviolent campaign in Martin Luther Kings view?

fight

oppression?