Wednesday, 14th October 2015 2nd Lecture

Classical Liberalism
Features of Liberalism (these values changed in time):

Freedom and equality go together (everyone has the chance to become

someone); There is equality of chances and pluralism.

In the context of freedom, there is a basic distinction of negative and positive liberty.

- Negative liberty: Absence of an interference of someone (external factor) into

your private and individual life. This way of thinking was adopted in the 17 th
and 18th centuries and in the first half of 19th century.
- Positive Liberty: Defined as what you can do; how can you be a more
autonomous and creative individual; which are the conditions. The positive
liberty was developed in the second half of 19th century and 20th century, and is
influenced by the internal factors.
Individualism: Society is composed out of individuals and is originated by a
social contract between shaped individuals.

- In the 17th and 18th centuries appeared the concept of possessive individualism,
meaning an individual which is seen as an owner of its body and mind. He owns its
private fear, capacities and so on.

- In the 19th century, an optimistic individualism slowly replaced the possessive

individualism, meaning changes and evolution. According to this view, the optimistic
individualism is about accepting that society can change individual.

Rationalism: Liberalism is connected to the enlightenment (light), the source

of being rational and the capacity of the individuals to have access to the
rational structure of reality.
Reformism: We can have progress, we can change as individuals. The liberals
have in mind to change the world in a better place, while the conservatives try
to preserve it and the socialists which to change it radically.
Constitutionalism: The political power must be limited and balanced through a
written constitution that tries to have the separation of powers: legislative,
executive and judicial.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679): He engaged in the first talks about the Social Contract
who want to get out of the state of nature in which men are wholes for the others.
In the state of nature, we can expect to be aggressed/ threatened by the others, being
in a state of insecurity. In order to end that insecurity and to have a sense of self-
preservation, we need a central authority. In the name of our security, we give up on a
part of our rights and powers to the state. Hobbes was influenced by the English Civil
War.

John Locke (1652-1702): There is a state of nature in which we have individuals, but
they are not as wholes. Individuals are rather reasonable and tolerant and they are
born with natural rights such as life, health, liberty and property. These individuals
need to sign a social contract in order to preserve all their natural rights (not to give up
to the state as Hobbes said), by limiting the political power. The executive power (the
monarch) should be linked by the legislative power (The Parliament). When a political
power becomes abusive/ aggressive, people can rebel against it. They have the moral
legitimacy to do it.

Montesquieu (1689-1755): He was part of the monarchy in France in the 18th century.
People are born in a state of nature, having two universal rights:
1. The right to self-preservation and liberty of individuals and nations;
2. The mutual obligations that bind the members of a family.
He took Locke vision of separation of power (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) and
modernizes much more than Locke. He was impressed by the British system because,
according to him, it is the only system having liberty as its own basic principle. It tries
to limit the central power, by self retaining and moderating, establishing a balance
between aristocratic leaders and middle/poor people.

Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778): Against Hobbes, Rousseau believes that in a state
of nature, individuals are compassionate and self-sufficient. Selfishness is not about
human nature, it is about society. Selfishness comes only after as we are in society in
which we are competitive and tend to compare us with others. Nature is not fixed but
shaped by society (selfishness and competitiveness).
On the opposite, Hobbes assumed that selfishness and competitiveness is in our
nature and all we can do is to alleviate it.
He tries to secure human freedom but we are not free as we are enslaved to particular
powers or authorities, In order to be free, we have to sign the Social Contract by
which we obey an impersonal power, creating a general will and equality, obeying in
the same manner to the same authority.
He supports direct democracy, not representative democracy. In order to have direct
democracy, you need a very small and homogeneous community that believes in the
same values.
Rousseau was considered the main philosophical figure of the revolution, trying to
apply its ideas for the whole French Community (to a million people), what contradicts
himself.
He defends a direct democracy imposed in a small society in one side, but on the other
hand he applied his ideas to a whole French community (a million people) during the
revolution.
Adam Smith (1723-1790): He wrote an important book, The wealth of nations (1776)
in which he criticized the mercantilist ideas, which defend that a state is rich when it
has a lot of exports and low imports. Against this idea, he affirmed that economy is like
a market where there is demand and offer, free individuals trying to satisfy their
needs.
The relations between buyers and producers are free.
Individuals are selfish but you can secure the wealth of everyone given to this
selfishness, which is compensated by the impersonal laws of the market such as:
- No producers can impose the price, only the relationship between the demand
and offer can do that;
- The market is self regulated, it does not need external intervention such as is
the state. It acts as an invisible hand.

James Madison (1751-1836): He is the father of the Constitution in America and the
father of the federalist powers.
He defends the idea of separation of powers in order to limit the possible abuse of
power. However, the legislative power remains the dominant power in USA.
He agrees on the idea of Bicameralism to limit the power and the tyranny of the
majority as not only the rulers can be a danger but also the majority itself.
So that, he opts for a federalist system which can secure minority to have a voice in
that structure.
Madison supports the principle of checks and balances, what implies the organization
and division of the power.

Wednesday, 21st October 2015 3rd Lecture

Meritocracy
Three precursors of Neoliberalism:

1. Alexia de Tocqueville (1805-1859)

- Analysis the American democracy, invoking historical and social arguments.
- The need to balance in the modern society.
- Basically says that USA compared to Europe is much more egalitarian and
individualistic.
- According to Tocqueville, American Democracy is an expression of modernity.
However, the combination between equality ad individualism gives birth to a
new kind of tyranny.
- For the sake of modernity in the name of equality and well being, people may
give up on their freedom.
- Modernity creates individualism, selfishness, and that is why people do not get
so involved in the public actions and tend to restrict themselves to the private
sphere. That is why Tocqueville talks about tyranny I secure you economically,
but do not interfere in politics. We need to understand and accept
individualism and selfishness, but it is in their interest to reserve some time for
public space.
- He sustains informal associations between individuals, allowing them to resist
social conformism or the pressure of a central authority.
- Tocqueville offers an analysis of Europe and America, showing that America is
much decentralized compared to Europe.

2. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

- Criticized the idea of natural rights, by proposing instead a more scientific
idea, namely that individuals are mobilized by their interests which can be
defined as a desire for pleasure or happiness.
- Formulates the principle of utility.
- An action is good or bad if it promotes the happiness of a large number of
people. Both authors criticized the idea of people coming from a state of nature
(Classic Liberalism).
-
3. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
- He is a disciple of Bentham.
- He is utilitarian like Bentham.
- Stuart Mill criticized Bentham for not making a distinction between pleasures.
- For Mill there are qualitative differences between pleasures (marginal, at the
same level). He establishes a distinction between higher and lower pleasures.
For example, the human need for creativity is higher than the need for food.
- Formulates important harm principles such as the fact that an action can be
forbidden only if it harms someone. In this case, we are allowed to limit the
individual freedom.
- He offers a positive/negative understanding of freedom/liberty.
- An individual should be created and should affirm its own individualism (ideal
for free society).
- Stuart Mill is aware of industrialization and modernization, believing in
progress, but at the same time in all this process there is something worst such
as the social conformism created.
- He believes that representative democracy is the most advanced thing in the
human history, as it does not allow the tyranny of the minority or majority. But
in order to establish a representative democracy, you need a balance between
legislative, judicial and executive powers, and also a power between social
 major groups. In the name, of this balance, the state should not intervene in
these actions, only if it is necessary.
- Rejects the idea that the state should intervene in the industrial production.

*Modern Liberalism is mixed with Socialism.

Modern Liberalism
Context

Modern Liberalism emerged at the end of 19th century, becoming dominant in

time, namely during the 1940-1970 period.
The level of inequality is very high given to the free commerce principles which
created many economic crisis and discrepancies between wealth and people.
At the end of the 19th century, people realized that minimal state is not able to
cope with their problems.
From the political point of view, the 19th century can be described as a
combination between colonialism and liberalism. States became more
productive, beginning to preserve their national economy.

Thomas Hill Green (1836-1882): Like Mill, Green believes that individuals are not
driven by their own self interests.
He offers a much optimistic view on human nature, which is capable of compassion
and altruism.
Being influenced by Socialism, Green questions the principle of negative liberalism as
this principle can make abuses and exploitation.
He believes in the ability of an individual to develop and reach its individuality. Green is
aware of the fact that freedom can be put at risk by social disadvantages or economic
inequality.
According to him, in the positive liberalism, the human nature is shaped by
institutions. Institutions should allow the development of human personality. This
goes against the idea of a very strong and centralized state.

John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946): Rejects Adam Smith idea of an invisible hand of
the market and the fact that economy regulates itself.
John Maynard Keynes became famous after the Great Depression (1929-1933) as he
offered a solution: in a phase of such an economic depression, states should intervene
by large projects and by tax reduction in order to shape the aggregate demand without
the sale; otherwise, economy is not able to save itself.

John Rawls (1921-2002): In the context of the spread of the welfare state, he 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 and firms.
 He proposed a mental experiment: the veil of ignorance consisting in imagining
yourself aware of your social status and think what social people would choose. The
conclusion is that people will choose a fair society, meaning meritocracy and having
access to whatever you want and to be liberal; a society where there is distribution of
economy in such a way that compensates those without specific talents.
In the book Political Liberalism, he tries to assume the question of How can a
democratic system legitimize itself in the context of deep religious and philosophical
differences.
According to him, you cannot use such arguments as religion or personal conventions,
but you can talk about in a more general view such as the impact on children
(marriage).
Summary
Modern Liberalism does not use the arguments of natural rights, but uses the
social and historical fundaments.
Modern Liberalism is not interested in the moderation and limitation of central
power (as the classical one) but more in progress.
Modern liberalism is interested in positive liberalism
Modern liberals prefer developmental individualism rather than a possessive
individualism; individuals are not born with something, they should gain
everything by development.
The state is not a minimal one, but rather a powerful one, redistributing the
wealth.
Modern Liberalism is based on social responsibilities (taking care of vulnerable
parts of the society).
Neo Liberalism
Context
- Emerged in 1970s
- Oil Crisis 1973-1974- Margaret Thatcher and Reagan came to power
*Classical Liberal remains at the economic level (economy regulates itself)
*Conservatism supported the preservation of traditions, regulating the social
sphere.

Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992): Criticizes the socialist type of economy which tries to
plan everything. The problem in such economy is that you cannot plan everything
because the economy is too complex. Also, he supports that economy should be free
from any political intervention and should be guided by price regulated, by offer and
demand (as Adam Smith said).
He wrote the book A road to serfdom, in which warns of the danger of tyranny that
inevitably results from government control of economic decision-
making through central planning. He further argues that the abandonment of
individualism and classical liberalism inevitably leads to a loss of freedom, the creation
of an oppressive society, the tyranny of a dictator, and the serfdom of the individual.
Summary
Regarding Neo liberalism, the emphasis is on economy rather than politics.
While classical liberalism is much more preoccupied by politics, neo liberalism
is more focused on economy.
Negative liberty prevails
Minimal state
Large privatization of state companies (even health system and education)
Believe in invisible hand
Ideas taken from classical liberalism combined with conservatism (law, order,
tradition)
On one hand Neo liberalism Is strong in police, army and secret services, bu on
the other hand is weak in health system and education.

Wednesday, 28th October 2015 4th Lecture

Conservatism
The conservatives tent to reject the idea that they represent an ideology. They are
defined by an anti - political philosophy, meaning that conservatives usually go against
theories and obstructions. Conservatives support the common sense against
intellectuals and theories. According to them, ideas oversimplify social reality.
The conservatives do not reject change in itself, as we accept the fact that we need to
adapt in time. We change in order to preserve. It is not necessary to change
something, it is necessary not to change anything.

Features of conservatism (features changed in time their meaning):

Tradition: According to Edmund Burt or Christian Democrats, tradition has a
divine source. In 19thcentury, there is a new interpretation, a Darwinist
interpretation, in which God has no place.
On the Darwinist theory, there is a tradition of selecting those institutions and
customs that are best adapted to human needs. Tradition offers the feeling of
belonging (gives you an identity). We should preserve tradition because they
are tested by the time.
According to Edmund Burke tradition means an aristocratic order, while in neo-
conservatism, tradition implies preserving economic and political liberalism.

Human imperfection: Conservatives are influenced by Christianity and the

idea of Sin. They usually have a pessimist view on human nature, marked by
several limits, for instance, psychological limits, such as a fear of unknown,
 moral limits we tend to be selfish and excessive, or intellectual ones we
know reality only in certain limits. For conservatives human nature doesnt
change, despite the fact that human nature is influenced by society.
Earlier conservatism was influenced by Christianity and religion, while
contemporary conservatism might use religion, but it also understands
individuals as following their own interests in economic competition
Organic society:
A metaphor of organism
- Hierarchy organism
- Mutual dependence
- Division of labor (every part has its own function, which reflects on all other
parts)
- Harmony
- Change is very slow
For liberals the basic thing of society is individual, we are like atoms. While for
conservatives we are thrown in the social environment/society, and that
environment shapes us, educates us, and we become a part of society.

Contemporary conservatives try to avoid using the term organism or organic

society.

Hierarchy and authority: According to them there is a natural inequality

between men (physical, intellectual, social). Society needs elites that should
govern from above, should take care of the people paternalistic attitude
(father/parent means protection; has an authority, but gives love, support)
Relation: noble peasants. Peasants work for nobles, but nobles should protect
and take care of their people.
Contemporary conservative elites are not aristocratic, but meritocratic (based
on meritocracy).

Property: It is a source of stability and psychological and social motivation, an

expression of your identity; about your place in society, self-respect, your
meaning in society and your social status.

Private property and social redistribution neo-conservatives today reject

social redistribution. Private property is based solely on meritocracy.

Branches of Conservatism
1. Traditionalist conservatism
Context
Economic capitalism that created bourgeoisie. This class tries to replace the
aristocracy.
Political French revolution (was born as a reaction to this revolution)
 We see this clear in the book of Edmund Burke (1729 1797), Reflection of
the Revolution in France. In his book he makes a comparison between French
revolution and Glorious revolution (Britain 1688). This revolution (glorious) had
as basic principle moderation and pragmatism (this is a better one), the idea
to change in order to preserve.

They didnt break the monarchy, they saved it, but it wasnt now an absolute
one, but a constitutional, in contrast to French, were the monarchy was
replaced. In contrast of Glorious revolution, French one is about the radical
change of reality (according to Burke). Change began and end in itself.
French revolution set free unlimited human passions. It tries to destroy the
continuity with past.
Organic reality, social reality governed by aristocrats and monarchs, but this is
not an absolute, it is limited.
Burke also criticizes the liberal idea of the social contract. He redefines the
social contract in the sense that this social contract is not signed by individuals;
rather it is a social contract between generations (between the living people,
death and those who are not born yet).
2. Modern conservatism
Context
Economic: industrialization, modernization and economic inequalities.
Political: the revolutions (from 1830s 40s). the political arrests had an
impact.
According to Benjamin Disraeli (1804 1881) prime-minister of Great Britain
(Jewish origins), advocates that Great Britain is divided in two nations rich
and poor, the idea that Britain should become one nation. In this modern world
we should find again an organic relationship between individuals, because
otherwise everything goes apart. The wealthy people have not only rights but
also obligations towards the poor (again with comparison with father child).
In 1867 he gives the right to vote to workers. In the same time he introduces
social reforms in order to enhance the living conditions. He tries to think of
conservatism as being the middle way between liberalism (based on free
commerce, less affair, etc.) and socialism.
3. The New Right (end of 20th century)
Context
Economic: Oil crisis of1973, which undermines the belief in welfare state
and allows Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan to reach power.
Political and social: Social protest from 1960s, which created a panic in the
Western Countries. They feared that this protest will lead to communism or
social chaos.
Neo-conservatism or neo-liberalism combines classical economic liberalism
with conservatism (the idea of law order, justice)
4. Neo - liberalism
Neoliberalism means the return to the classical liberalism, but with one important
change: while classical liberals were preoccupied with politics and political rights,
the neo-liberals are interested in economic initiative.

Robert Nozick (1938 2002): In his book Anarchy, state and utopia, Nozick tries
to give a reply to John Rawls, emphasizing the idea of a minimal state, interested
only in preserving social peace (army, police).
Social redistribution is unjust, because goes against one fundamental natural right:
the right of having private property.

Murray Rothbard (1926 1995): He defends that we should privatize everything

(even tribunals) because of competition which creates fairness.

5. Neo conservatism
There is an important difference between conservatism in America and Europe.
Meanwhile in America, neo conservatism tries to preserve liberalism, which is part
of American identity; in Europe there is not preservation of traditions but rather
the preservation of aristocracy.

Irving Kristol and Daniel Bell

They both criticize L. Johnson (American president democrat), because in his
policy there is a strong social assistance. They are against this type of state
intervention and the minimal state. They want to save American culture and
traditions. Reagans and Bushs administration succeed to put in practice this idea.

Summary
1. Traditional conservatism
- Pragmatism
- Paternalism
- Traditionalism (preserve the old aristocratic world)
- Organic society
- Hierarchy
- Social responsibility
- Middle way in economy (between liberalism and socialism)
2. Modern conservatism
- Pragmatism
- Paternalism
- Synthesis between traditions 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. New Right (tensions)
 - Individualism, but also Organicism
- Radical modernism, but also traditionalism
- Meritocracy, but also social hierarchy
- Minimal state (state no longer intervenes in economy, or health, or
education), but also a maximal state (powerful state, heavily intervened in
policy, army, secret service)
- Internationalism (globalization), but also nationalism (ant globalization)

Wednesday, 4th November 2015 5th Lecture

Social Catholicism
Wilhelm Emmanuel Von Ketteler (1811-1877) founded further the social Catholic
thinking.
He was against the Christianism Absolutism, but also criticized liberalism.
According to him, liberty cannot be achieved if it is an absolute value. Liberty
should be balanced with anything else, too.
In contrast with liberalism, Ketteler rejects the idea of an indefinite progress, a
contextual circumstantial development. We cannot radically change humans. We
are limited beings so that we should give up utopian projects.
The state should intervene at the local level only when it is necessary, as we need a
balance between central authorities and local communities.
In order to stop the possible abuses of the central authorities, the society needs
the existence of strong intermediary groups, namely associations, church and
family.
Ketteler was influenced by a German socialist, Ferdinand Lassalle who wrote
about the labor problem and Christianity.
From his point of view, the Church should protect human dignity and the poor. He
supported the rights of the working class against employers.

Leo XIII (1810-1903)Rerum Novarum (in latin meaning revolutionary change) It

was an open letter, an encyclical issued by Leo XIII, passed to all Catholic bishops,
that addressed the condition of the working classes. He had an influence in
Ketteler. He also tries to envision a political alternative to liberalism and socialism.
According to Leo XIII, human nature and private property have a divine source
because humans need to have access to resources. What distinguish us from
animals is the capacity to work and the access to these resources.
There are natural differences between humans such as those related to social class,
capacities, abilities, intelligence, existing a hierarchy among people as society is like
an antagonism in which each individual fills a certain position, function in this
organism. However, the imbalance should be prevented, because otherwise,
economic inequalities cam damaged this social organism.
Leo XIII thought about the possibility of having syndicates in an attempt to win over
the social class. Against socialists who believe that there is a classification and
struggle in the society, the Pope advocates a harmonious relationship between
workers and employers. Neither capital can do without labor; nor labor without
capital
Individual and family are older than the state, so the function of the state is to
intervene only when it is necessary at the local level, according to the principle of
the subsidiary.

Pope Pius XI (1857-1939) issued an encyclical called Quadragesimo anno. The

Pope tries to connect the social thinking to the present and as the Pope Leo XIII
did, he attempts to offer a middle way between liberalism and socialism. Despite
the fact, that private property is legitimate, individuals should pay attention to
public matters and to those vulnerable from the social point of view. Pius XI gives a
great emphasis on social poverty.
He advocates the need for social redistribution, defending that workers should
become stakeholders. Also, he advocates a minimal age which should allow an
individual to support its family. He criticizes the economic abuses on children and
supports charity to reduce inequality, emphasizing the need for Catholic
Syndicates. In order to avoid social antagonism, we need intermediary groups such
as corporations, to manage and support not only the welfare of its members but
also the need for social recognition- the self respect of individuals as they are
integrated in a certain group.
The Pope mentions explicitly the principle of subsidiary (theoretical innovation of
this thinking).

Personalism
Emmanuel Mounier (1905-1950) In 1936, he wrote A Personalist Manifesto in
which he denounces the bourgeois character of society indifferent to poverty or
ideals.
Mounier, influenced by Marx, criticizes liberalism for generating desire for profit,
selfishness, the gap between real human needs in the name of production and
consumption, marginalization.
Collectivism and Liberalism are connected as both of them cut off the connection
with God, nature and humanity.
He tries to offer a new vision called Personalism, according to which we should
transform human being in an absolute value, the centre of the universe.
The distinction between collectivity and community is that only in the community,
individuals are treated as persons. Family and individual is the most basic social
form of community.
Also, he defended that there should be a balance between local community and
central authority. For instance, education should be a mixture between state
intervention and private efforts.
Mounier criticizes capitalism and believes that we should subordinate economy to
the needs of human person or capital to the labor. Labor should not be a
commodity as it is a natural feature of our humanity. If you work, you should have
the capacity to have a good life. Those who do not work do not have the right to
eat or survive.
Also, he rejects all modern versions of the state: fascist, communist, liberalist state,
proposing instead a pluralist state based on interpersonal, regional, national
communities. The state has enough space to intervene at the social level in order
to make sure that the rights of persons are respected.
Mounier defended the vision of subsidiary: the state intervene at the local level
when necessary. After solving the problem, the state should retreat, as it is a
decentralized state.
He influenced the European federal vision, after the II World War. Schuman, being
a Christian democrat, has in mind a European federation.

Jacques Maritain (1882-1973): According to him, there is a great misunderstanding

in modernity. Modernity tends to associate personality with the individual but
these two are separated.
The individual designates only the material sight which makes individual to be
different from the others.
Individuals are not only human beings, but also plants and animals. Only persons
are human beings because personality points to a spiritual dimension- laugh
freedom, etc.
Then, he was seduced by a French Fascist reaction (Actin Franaise) that later on
rejected and became a supporter of a pluralist democracy.
Maritain coins the term integral Humanism against an anthropocentric Humanism.
He criticizes the idea of an individual as being autonomous or sovereign, thus we
deny the spiritual side, limiting it to the biologic level.
Also, he rejects liberalism, individualism and socialist collectivism. He proposes a
civilization based on Christianity, in accordance with two fundamental principles:
-Balance between local communities and the central authority
-Plural Democracy and Federalism

Summary
- It is based on certain Christian values, such as the social market, the principle of
subsidiary and the distribution of wealth (liberalism and less affaire vs.
communism and socialism).
 - Social Catholicism supports federalism. Schuman had in mind a political
federation for the European Union. However, the parties are not anymore
based on Christian values, they are pretty secular. They do not relate to
Christianity as they used to do.
- Central Ideas:
* The idea of personhood or human person avoided the liberal individual and
the socialist collectivism.
*Dignity is the highest value of Christian Democracy.
*Emphasis put on intermediary groups
*The tendency of modernity is to erase the mediation between the state and
the individuals
* Social Market in economic terms
*Principle of subsidiary
*Federalism

Wednesday, 11th November 2015 6th Lecture

Marxism Socialism
Society implies fraternity and commodity.
Fraternity became later on collectivism, meaning equality based on the state
regulation. It stands for a consensual contract between free men, based on legality and
formal equality, according to the liberal understanding.
Features
1. Equality which depends on the social and economic factors.
Marxism Socialism wants a society without classes and without state (absolute
equality).
In the 20th century, soviet communism will have to accept the existence of the
state. This kind of communism supports economic equality, accepting certain
differences between people.
The social democrats wanted to abolish capitalism and to have a total equality
between people during the 19th/20th centuries. Later on, in the second half of the
20th century, the social democrats will change their mind and accept capitalism,
trying however, to secure a large distribution of the natural wealth in order to
avoid high inequality.

2. Utopianism: The belief in the possibility of constructing an alternative

egalitarian system based on solidarity and cooperation.

3. Cooperation: Rather optimistic view on human nature in the sense that human
nature is plastic and it can be shaped by society, making us competitive beings
rather than competitiveness itself.
 Communists believe in a radical change of human nature, while the social
democrats from the second half of 20th century, believe that we can make
people more competitive in the context of a competitive capitalism.

4. Social change: Socialists believe in a possibility of producing radical changes in

the world through human intervention. Both socialists and communists, believe
that we should abolish capitalism.

Marxism
Context
Capitalism creates high inequalities in the 19th century, being a clear division between
society, namely between the working class and the bourgeoisie.
Karl Marx (1818-1883): In 1848, Marx and his friend Engels made a clear
distinction between socialists and communists. The former are reformists,
while the latter are radicals. Only the radicals (communists) want to abolish
private property.
According to Marx, the human being is a social animal, transforming its
environment through labor. Human beings are defined by the ability to work
rather than be rational. They are practical beings rather than theoretical ones.
The relationship between men and society is about mutual dependence.
Society generates men, while men also produces or generates society. We are
historical and social beings. That implies a certain vision about history and
historical evolution.
For Marx, history is about conflicts and these conflicts allow to generate new
societies and social formations (slow accumulation of things).

There are several types of societies along history. He offers an evolutionary

view on history.
According to Marx, a society has two major levels:
1. Economic base which is made of two bases:
- One implies forces of production (raw materials such as coal, wood, oil) and
technologies.
- Implies the relations of production, having in mind the division of labor in
order to produce faster and the class divisions.
2. Ideological superstructure which covers morality, law, religion and
philosophy, believes and values of a certain society.
These ideas are the ruling ideology, the expression of a dominant class. An ideology is
needed in order to universalize and neutralize the position of a dominant class. In the
19th century, the universal values such as liberty, fraternity and equality were
implemented but this is the result of the bourgeoisie expression as they had the
sources to be free and equal.
A radical change comes from the forces and relations of production during the
Industrial Revolution, as it is possible to produce much more and cheaper than ever in
history.

In 1867, Marx wrote The Capital, defending that the secret of capitalism is in the
capacity of society to reproduce itself and the need of the labor force of the worker.
People are constrained to sell the labor force in order to get a wage, which can be
interpreted as a commodity, the only commodity capable to generate surplus value.

According to Marx, men sell labor force in order to produce a certain product during a
certain amount of time, but there is always some hours left in additional. You are not
paid for your work actually. The source of your profit is the surplus value, being this
the only way through which an employer can get its profit.

The system has the capacity to produce much more than before but at the same time
it creates much more poverty as never before too. Money is no longer to satisfy
concrete human needs, money is about capital accumulation.

The reproduction of the system takes place, producing an ideological distortion which
hides the social production of commodities (commodity fetishism) - commodities in a
sense are natural and not the product of a certain society. It is tried to be pointed out
that in capitalism, there is an illusion created by the system.
In Marx early text Manifesto of the Communist Party and German Ideology,
ideology is the only way of distorting reality by a dominant class (a dominant class
manipulates the rest).

In The Capital, ideology is the result of the capitalist system itself.

Commodities are not variables in themselves, as they are dependent in a certain social
and human production, having another ideology effect. Capitalism itself becomes a
natural system by trying to hide its social and historical background.

For Marx, passing from Capitalism to Communism would mean probably a violent
change, speculating a civil war or a revolution. It is made possible by the growing
poverty of the working class. After the change of the system, we will have the
dictatorship of the proletariat which should secure the take.

This dictatorship is a democratic dictatorship and it is for a short period, having the
scope to make the transition from socialism which still have elements of the old
society to Communism.
Communism
Context
Communism is about an effort to reinterpret Marx in order to legitimize a
Revolution outside the western world.
The communist regime in Romania, for instance, is much more about
reinterpreting communism than communism as an ideology itself.

Leo Trotsky (1879-1940): He reinterprets Marx and reinvents Revolution in

other parts of the world such as Russia and China, regions less developed.
He introduces a Formula of Permanent Revolution by the envision of an alliance
between the working class and the peasants, as the bourgeoisie in Russia is
very weak. The working class should take the lead, fighting for bourgeoisie
ideals such as freedom, private land, leading to a radical change- The
Communist Society.

Vladimir L. Lenin (1870-1924): The imperialism is the highest stage of

capitalism in which he denounces bribery of the western working class through
higher salaries, in contrary with the working class from periphery.
Lenin introduces the difference between centre (western and developed
countries) and periphery (Russia and the colonies).
However, according to Marx, working class should compete at the international
level, nevertheless, there is a distinction/ gap between working class.
From Lenin point of view, what we witness at the beginning of the 20 th
century, is another type of capitalism than that described by Marx.
Marx: Capitalism based on competition defined by anarchy.
Lenin: There is the monopoly of the Capitalism, once western colonial
states intervene heavily in economy in order to make huge profit.
There would be two basic political implications:
- The Communist Revolution would take place in Eastern part of the world such
as Russia, since the working class of the west enjoyed a better life standard and
is no longer interested in a Revolution.
- Lenin also justifies the idea of an avant-garde and organized party that should
lead the masses because otherwise, the working class can be manipulated.
There is a conflict, meanwhile, between the Mensheviks (more democratic group,
revolution is led by the masses and the people) and the Bolsheviks (party that
organizes the revolution and in the end wins the competition).

Lenin is very pragmatic and he changes the theories by taking into account or by
adapting to the Russian context:
- While for the Mensheviks, the two main classes are the bourgeoisie and the
working class, Lenin, on the other hand pays attention to an ignored social
class: the peasants, representing 80% of the Russian population.
Thus, we can talk about the capitalist exploitation not just in the case of the
working class but also in the rural areas.
Most of the Russian peasants became in a sense proletarians as they do not have
land, so they had to sell their labor force to the richer peasants.
Lenin and his Bolshevik party gains support in the rural areas.
Also, he wanted to gain support of the various nationalities living in Russia
(Ukrainians, Moldavians, etc), thus he promised to nations, the self determination
possibility. On the other hand, he was an internationalist, believing in an
international Revolution. By giving self determination to these nations, they would
split from Russia.

Rosa Luxembourg (1871-1919): In 1915, Rosa Luxembourg separated from the

social democrat party, creating instead the Spartacus party/league, the first
Communist party, a left wing party.
She criticizes both, Karl Kaustky and Lenin, for in definitively delaying the
Revolution. Also, she criticizes Lenin for his elitist position.
While she rejects a parliamentary democracy, at the same time she criticizes the
Bolshevik Revolution. But, she actually forgot an essential ingredient of Marx
writing, namely that the dictatorship is not of a party or of an elite, but a class
dictatorship. According to her this class dictatorship should imply the unlimited
participation of masses of men, an unlimited democracy.

While Lenin says that the leaders are only emanations of masses and the
Revolution must be organized by the party, for Rosa Luxembourg, the Revolution
should be spontaneous.

Joseph Stalin (1879-1976): imposed the theory / idea of going beyond the avant-
garde party as it is not only the working class that can have a false consciousness
but also the party itself can be mentioned. That is why we need a lead which is
beyond the false consciousness. According to Marx, we need to have socialism in
one country and not all over the world, in order to stabilize it.

Mao Zedong (1893-1976): was the leader of the Communist Movement in China
and later on the President. He was political theoretician.
Mao reinterprets Marx in order to justify a Revolution in China. He reinterprets the
idea of social contradiction by adopting it to colonies such as is China and to
Western Empirealism.
Every society is defined by a series of contradictions. However, some of them are
dominant and others are secondary, depending on the context.
The central contradiction of the West is that between bourgeoisie and the working
class, meanwhile in the case of semi colonial countries, such is China, the dominant
contradiction concerns the anti empirealistic fight/ struggle against of the entire
Chinese society against the Western powers.

To conclude, the main concern in China is to fight the colonial powers and not the
struggle between the working class and the bourgeoisie.

Mao advocates that it is not important to be a member of the working class in

order to take part in this Revolution, what is more important is the political
consciousness (idea which influenced the western students).
Like Lenin, Mao Zedong tried to attract the Chinese peasants, which were around
of 80% of the population.

*Communist parties all over the world, conducted by Moscow are the leftist
parties.
Central ideas of Marxism Communism:
Marxists Communists believed that the Marxist ideology is a science.
History have a necessary revolution, if you fight against it, you lose it.
The possibility of radically change human nature; the possibility of having a
new man. The goal was to abolish capitalism and to create a classless
society.
State intervention and planning: a state that is led by an avant-garde party.
However, there is a contradiction regarding this aspect, as Marx defended
that the state should be dissolved, having just communities and individuals.
After the fall of USSR and Communism regime in 1990s, there was a kind
euphoria: liberalism and capitalism won and all was left, was to globalize
these currents.
According to Fukuyamas book The end of History and the Last Man, the
ideological competition ended up with the victory of capitalism and
liberalism, the final form of human government for all nations, which
should be spread all over and reform it, not change it. There can be no
progression from liberal democracy to an alternative system.
However, this euphoria dissipated and the global economy was affected by the
crisis of 2008 caused by the collapse of Lemon Brothers, conflicts all over the
globe are taking place. Social inequality is the major consequence of these
ideological currents, going nowadays to the level of inequality of 19th century.
A solution to this crisis might be the return to Marx idea of communism.
Wednesday, 2nd December 2015 8th Lecture
Social Democracy/ Socialism
Claude Henri de Saint- Simon (1760-1825): believes we can develop a science capable
to objectively describe society. Moreover, the central category of this science is social
class. These basic ideas influenced Marx.
He is witnessed of French Revolution which makes him to generalize that historical
event. Social evolution means to replace non productive social classes, meaning the
aristocracy n French Revolution with the productive social classes, namely the
industrial scientific class. Human science changed human environment, since
industrialization and modernity takes place.
We can cope with modern complexity only by replacing liberal individualism and less
affaire (the state should not regulate economy) principle with the technocratic
socialism, once that what we need is experts who can plan human society and
economy.

Charles Fourier (1772-1837): His basic assumption is that society operates through
morality, a repression of our natural passions. Morality teaches men to be at war with
himself, to resist his passions, to repress them. Also, criticizes the prejudice that
liberty, equality and fraternity can have in the absence of some sort of financial
security.
Minimal wage which secure you financially is discussed in the contemporary period, in
order to be free and equal.
Fourier wants to design a utopian vision of creating a community to harmonize passion
and human constructions, called phalanxes. These communities should not resemble
other projects of communities, trying to discipline passions. The phalanxes should
encourage people to follow their interests and passions in the absence of any coercion.

Robert Owen (1771-1858): Individuals are almost total determined by external factors,
for instance, society and natural environment. Owen believes that religion and
economic liberalism generates superstition, thus there is the need to create another
type of society that transforms humans in rational ones.
He opened a factory in Scotland where the working conditions were far better than in
other factories in 1824. Later he bought a land in USA, however the Socialist
Community Experiment in New Harmony failed.
According to Marx, the Socialist system is an infantile stage between bourgeoisie and
working class, as it overcomes history.

Social Democracy (from 19th century is very different from nowadays)

Social democracy is divided in two categories:
-Marxist Version
- Non-Marxist Version
Marxist Version
Marxist Version emerged after Marx death (1883), Friedrich Engels being the one
taking care of his legacy. At the same time Engels had a heir, Karl Kaustky (1854-1938),
being named The Pope of Marxism. He interpreted Marx through Engels eyes, having
a pretty rigid view of Communism and the overcoming of Capitalism.
The Revolution would take place in the west only when the working class would
mature enough to generate that. We should wait till capitalism would generate
poverty and large unsatisfied working class.
However, the Bolshevik Revolution, in 1917, marginalized Kaustky, Lenin being the
source of this marginalization.
There is a split of two currents: the Bolsheviks and the social democrats.
Both wanted capitalism to be abolished. The only difference is that Bolsheviks did not
want to wait, they wanted the revolution at that specific moment, while, social
democrats believe that we should wait till the economic conditions are good enough.

Eduard Bernstein (1850-1932): The author of the book Evolutionary Socialism,

published in 1899, in which he tries to revise the Marxist theory. He criticizes the idea
that capitalism necessarily generates in its lost phase an extreme social division: the
bourgeoisie and large working class.
In Marx point of view, there is not this kind of division predicted. Instead of this
division, the working class has a better living standard than before.
The Marxist theory generates passivity as all we have to do is to wait that capitalism
destroys itself.
Nevertheless, in his view, the evolution from capitalism to socialism is about the
emergence of a new type of social democracy, meaning the transformation of workers
into citizens. There is an emphasis put on citizenship and on the political side.
Bernstein criticizes Marxism for being utopian and for not having a moral dimension,
taking into account the fact that communist society justifies any means, even violence.
Also, Bernstein criticizes the elitist vision of Kaustky.

Antonio Gramsci (1850-1937): He was imprisoned during Mussolini period in Italy,

where he wrote a text. He tries to make sense of the failure of the Communist
Revolution in the West. Revolution takes place in Russia and not in the West, where
there is a strong civil society that enable bourgeoisie to impose its cultural and social
hegemony over the working class. Society is dominated by the hegemony of a certain
class, so that there is common sense among people and its values are not questioned.
In the other hand, in Russia, that strong civil society is absent; hence the working class
and peasants did not internalize the values of the dominant class.
Gramsci radically revises the Marxist view, advocating that Revolution is not generated
by economic factors but by political and cultural factors.
 At the same time, he defends that the role of the Marxist intellectual is not to criticize
ideology, but to construct a counter ideology that would replace the dominant one.
According to him, ideology is not false consciousness.
His theory influenced and prepared later the New Left.

The New Left

Context
The consequences of the II World War which constrained the Western
countries to the reduced economic possibilities and poverty.
Ideological competition between the west and the Soviet Union.
- 1st factor: the experience of the war, in which millions fought no matter the
social background, however, war managed to create a sense of equality
between those fighting the war as there was no social distinction.
- 2nd psychological factor
- 3rd Political factor: competition between western countries and Soviet Union,
under which the western countries tried to be sensitive about topics such as
economic inequality. The West could not afford to have economic inequalities
once that, it would generate a communist revolution in the West.

2 moments of the emergence of the New Left:

- 1959: German Social Democratic Party adopts a political program, accepting
liberal democracy and capitalism. From now on, Social Democracy wants no
longer to abolish capitalism, but to domesticate it by taking large social
security.
- 1968: European Communists emancipated themselves from Moscow, opting
for a Euro Communist vision and accepting for the first time Parliamentary
elections.

Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979): He was the most important intellectual figure during
the protest from 1968. He advocates that emancipation should not be reduced to
eliminating economic inequality, but also to be about a section revolution (social
repression). Passions are repressed d by capitalism.
Marcuse defends that the most important agent of social change is no longer the
working class because it has already been absorbed by the capitalism. The change will
be generated by the marginal, meaning social minorities, revolutionary intellectuals,
etc.

Juqen Halverms (1929): He tries to quickly reconstruct Marxism by moving from class
struggle to a tension between instrumental rationality and communicative rationality.
 - Instrumental rationality: social, economic, political system, narrow manner that
tries to explain what reason means, rational manner to achieve goals, having
the proper means to achieve to achieve those goals.
- Communicative rationality advocates the principle of no trying to manipulate
others in the self interest through a discourse; ideal that the best argument
offers us a better critique against the idea of profit or political power.
The state is no longer abolishing capitalism but it has the goal of limiting the impact of
the system in the social sphere, capable of mobilizing individuals in the public space.

Non- Marxist Version

- It is related with the British Socialism which called themselves Fabianists, from
the British socialist organization, Fabianism, in honor of
the Roman general Fabius Maximus.
- Socialism can impose itself by using parliamentary means. The Labor Party
adopted in 1940, his tactic of parliamentary form and managed in 1924 to get
to the power.
3rd Way
Position akin to centrism that tries to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics
by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social
policies
Context
The Labor Party managed to have power for several decades in Britain; the
most socialist countries were in West till 1970s.
In the 70s Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister in England, changing
British society ad its political view.
After Margaret Thatcher, the British Labor party had to redefine itself, coming
Tony Blair to power.
Changes
It has became much more pragmatic by choosing Anthony Giddens book The
Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy which has made the most
significant contribution yet to laying the intellectual foundations of a
modernized centre-left position. Social Democracy should adopt contemporary
capitalism and globalization defined by individualism and reflexivity.
The erosion of the distinction between right and left means that should replace
collective emancipatory projects based on working class or nations by the
historical necessity.
The appearance of fragmentary and reflexive social movements interested in
the expression of a certain lifestyle (Feminism, Ecologist parties such as the
green party in EU Parliament).
 The idea of a ideological democracy as the only source of generating a social
consensus in the context of a contemporary fragmentation and
individualization.

Central Ideas
There is a shift between 19th century ideas and actual ideas of socialism with a
tendency to move from a scientific socialism to an ethical socialism.
The working class is replaced by tendency as the agent of social change with
other categories, minorities, citizens.
Capitalism cannot be simply abolished but should be domesticated by social
reforms.
Social democrats go for state intervention in economy in order to redistribute
the common wealth. Also, Welfare state is securing universal free education.
Acceptance of liberal democracy and political pluralism.

Wednesday, 9th December 2015 9th Lecture

Anarchism
The word anarchism is compound of two Greek words: An, without and archon,
meaning ruler or leader- in the absence of a governor.
The idea of being without a state or rulers can sleep into the notion of being without
authority or rulers which can become an equivalent to disorder, chaos or confusion.
The first use of the term to denote a political position is to be found in Pierre Joseph
Proudhon s book What is property?. Before that, people usually associated
anarchism with chaos and disorder.

Anarchism is somehow the expression of liberty and equality, being between

liberalism and socialism. It might be interpreted as an extreme liberalism or an
extreme socialism.
Two ramifications of Anarchism:
- Collectivist Anarchism: emphasizes individual freedom at the collective level.
- Individualist Anarchism: it is a kind of informal liberalism; Individuals are
sovereign so they do not depend on the social environment.
THE CRITIQUE AGAINST AUTHORITY HAS TWO IMPLICATIONS: THE STATE AND
RELIGION.

Anarchism is the negation of the principle of 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 and competitive one.
Anarchism criticizes the political authority of the state as it wants to control, sensor
and exploit individuals. But there is also a critique against religion authority. The idea
of a God itself implies unconditional submission. The church does nothing else than
perpetuating this idea. Countries like Spain, France, Italy, Latin America, anarchism was
pretty strong.
Utopianism: usually anarchists have an utopian view on human nature. For William
Godwin, individuals in the national state are rational and cooperative beings, only
society and the state transforms that. Collectivist Anarchism is more utopian.
According to anarchists, we need to abolish this kind of machinery based on law and
order and create a new type of society in which individuals can activate the natural
tendency towards individuals and social army.
There are differences in utopian anarchism.

1. William Godwin (1756-1836): He wrote An inquiry concerning political justice

where it is emphasized his influence on morals and ideals of happiness. He
condemns any form of obedience to an authority than our own reason
(influence from the enlightenment).
According to him human nature can progress, once that individuals have the
capacity of becoming more rational and capable of governing himself, and thus
transforming social institutions in useless rams of the past.
Godwin rejects the liberal idea of social contract as the basis of the state
authority. For him, the state, instead of fighting injustice, it only perpetuates it,
generating despotism, but also class division. Laws are arbitrary themselves and
oppressive, being the external authority.

According to anarchists, there should be an authority which has its own reason
and it is universal.

2. Max Stirner (1806-1856): Rejects any form of abstract authority such as the
state, society, humanity, God. All we have is our individual being / body. We
tend to move or submit towards humanity, without having a concrete mean.
Karl Marx criticizes Stirner ideas.

3. Pierre- Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865): He was the 1st who called himself an
anarchist. In his work What is property?, he believes that we should replace
the political organization based on voluntary contractual consent . Property is
theft as it is unjust and not legitimate.
The worker has the right to possess what he produces, however he does not have the
right on the means of production as these are taken from nature and they can work
only in a collective manner.

For Proudhon, property is incompatible with justice because it excludes the majority of
the producers, from having equal rights in what they produce.
He had contact with the secret society Mutualists, society exclusively for workers
without the interference of intellectuals. Later on, he will adopt the term Mutualism,
in order to define his own vision on the way society should work.
According to Proudhon and against Marx, the working class should emancipate
without the help of a party or a state.
The French Revolution remains unfinished, concentrating only on political change,
ignoring the economic ones on society.
He imposes the Federal Principle, meaning self-organization which is the only way to
be free, advocating Federalism. Federalism from his point of view is a decentralized
society made out of small communities that sign a political contact. He defends that
Europe should become a confederation of regions.

4. Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876): He is influenced by Marx and Proudhon. He

advocates an emphatic idea of liberty (absolute liberty).
He criticizes any form of authority.
Despite rejecting arbitrary violence, he still believes in the instinct of
destruction.
He is in conflict with Marx, having as a result the split of the socialist
movement.
According to him, the Marxist theory is nothing else than an attempt of the
intellectuals to exploit the working class; the try to replace the bourgeoisie with the
intellectuals.
Communism does not confront theory but popular instinct. Individual liberty can be
realized in the context of perfect equality.

Revolution in the Eastern world is made by Slavs, generating later on an international

revolution. There you have ruler communities, untouched by capitalism and those can
become a model.

Collectivist Anarchism
1. Anarcho Communism
2. Anarcho -Syndicalism

Collectivist Anarchism
1. Anarcho Communism
I. Piotr Kropotkin (1842-1921): He gave a scientific base for Anarchism. In his
work Mutual Aid: a factor of evolution, he suggests that the more evolved
species survive not over competition but through mutual aid and sociability.
This idea goes against Darwinism.
According to him, cooperation is part of human nature, being the institutions
the great obstacle of this cooperation.
 Like Proudhon, Kropotkin believes a free and equal society would be formed by
a network of voluntary associations, similar to a federation, meaning abolishing
the state and the property. Anarchy leads to Communism and Communism
leads to Anarchy.
2. Anarcho-Syndicalism (common in France, Italy, Spain, Latin America)
I. Rudolf Rocker (1873-1958): He advocates to secure a better living standard
for workers, but also the need to educate the workers, in order to know
how to organize the production.
II. Georges Sorel (1847-1922): In his work Reflections on violence, he tries
to envision a Revolution based on a general strike. The lack of the socialist
movement is a political myth, in order to mobilize masses and the general
strike used such myth.
III. Noam Chomsky (1928-till today): Established some basic principles:
a. The individual is a social being, having the tendency towards cooperation
and solidarity;
b. We need a social revolution in order to abolish the state and the
economic system;
c. Common Property: Anarchism can be applied only in self-organised small
communities;
d. Direct Democracy: you do not need external authorities, instead of you.

Individualist Anarchism
1. Anarcho-Capitalism

Thoreau is an inspiration for this kind of Anarchism.

Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939): He introduces a new idea- the market. The individuals
cam work and cooperate with the help of the market.
Like Proudhon, he criticizes economic exploitation, once that every individual should
have the right to own what he produces. At the same time, the same individuals need
products produced by other individuals. So, he proposed a system called Labor for
labor: I would work for someone need and he later on, would produce something
that I need.
He tries to radicalize the liberal idea of free commerce.

1. Anarcho-Capitalism
Murray Rothbard (1926-1995): He tries to combine political liberalism and the idea of
free market. Also, he advocates a fatal privatization of all institutions, such as jail,
tribunals, etc.

Ayn Rand (1905-1982): she imagines a dystopian future. Industrialists, scientists,

artists enter into a general strike to denounce the interference of the state in the
affairs, but also to demonstrate that society cannot work in the absence of creative
individuals.

Central Ideas
1. Individual is sovereign so, it is not defined by social environment.
2. The value of private property;
3. The importance of the market to solve the tensions between individuals;
4. Non-violence Anarchism.

Wednesday, 16th December 2015 10th Lecture

Fascism
Features
Anti-Rationalism: Fascism goes against the enlightenment and its optimism,
defining individuals as rational beings, capable of progress. They reject
intellectualism in the name of action or emotional dimension.
Deep connection between individual and society.
Elitism which is against Enlightenment ideas. Fascism believes that individuals
are born in unequal. Society needs leaders and elites. (not the same as in the
conservative ideology )
The leader extracts its authority from its charisma and not from tradition as
conservatives do.
For Fascists, there is a total fusion between the leader and its people.
Race: Fascism is the radicalization of nationalism. According to Nationalists,
people have souls, meanwhile, Nazism/Fascism pass from the souls of the
people to the race.
Italian Fascism is a kind of hyper fascism, which tries to emphasize the
belonging of the individual to an organic community or unity.
Nazism passes from hyper nationalism to racism, from nation to biological
unities. This idea goes beyond Germany to Sweden, Norway.
Statism: The state is the culminating point of a society. It is related to other two
concepts: totalitarism and Corporatism. For instance, Mussolini assumed to be
totalitarian, understanding by the term, the concentration of all social forces
around the state. However, In fascism there is a certain relative autonomy in
comparison with Nazism and Stalinism.
Corporatism means body or organism. It presents itself as a 3rd way between
liberalism (less affaire) and socialism (planification).

The origins of Fascism-Context

Defined by the reaction against less-affaire and liberalism, considered to
threatened and undermine social collectivities.
 The second reaction is against rationalist individualism and egalitarism
promoted by Enlightenment.
The father of Nationalism is Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744-1803), the first who
uses the term nationalism. He believes that the Germans constitute a natural unity
because of their origins, language and German culture. But, he was a cosmopolitan at
the same time, believing that all nations have the right to self-determination. This is
the reason for his criticism against the European Colonialism.

Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814): He was the first who believed that the Germans
are superior to other nations, as they have a kind of mission in the world.

Arthur Gobineau (1816-1882): In his work Essay on the Inequality of Human Races,
he distinguishes a white, black and yellow race. The white is the superior one as it has
indo European and Arian origins, associating later Arians to Germans. He believes that
the racial mixture weakens the white race and also undermines the western civilization
since civilizations are the product of a certain race.
It is important to point out that he was not an anti Semitic.

Herbert Spencer (1820-1903): He adopts Darwins idea of natural selection and applies
it to society (Darwin would not do that in society).
Spencer created the Social Darwinism.
According to him, individuals are engaged in a blind competition for survival where
only the fittest will survive.
He suggested prohibiting the procreation of unworthy individuals. This idea was called
later on eugenism.
Spencer was a supporter of less affaire and consecutively of capitalism, criticizing any
kind of state intervention in society. He was not a supporter of unworthy people,
people incapable in society.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900): He criticizes the rationalism and egalitarism

promoted by the French Revolution. He also, criticizes modern massification against
this phenomenon, advocating for a society that would stimulate the emergence of
creative individuals and of the superman.
Nietzsche has an idea of a type of aristocracy (spirit Aristocracy). However, he was
very against anti-semists and German people for not being able to digest the Jewish
element and the Jewish population.

Italian Fascism
At the beginning of 20th century, Italian economy had an important discrepancy
between the north/south; rural/industrial areas and poor/rich people.
Italians were not satisfied of what they got from the victory of IWW, as it was a kind of
mutilated victory.
Giovanni Gentile (1875-1944): He uses hegelian dialectics that can envision tensions
and the overcoming of those tensions, the various differences between individuals and
society.
It can be overcome by a new synthesis: the state.
He also admires Marx but he thinks that the central struggle, generating progress, is
not the class struggle, but the struggle between weak and strong nations.

Benito Mussolini- El Duce- (1883-1945): He took power in 1922, after the famous
March to Rome. Initially he was a socialist and then a nationalist. He believes that class
division is not international, as socialists would say, but is part of a nation. Corporatism
should end with the division of social classes.
Like for Gentile, Mussolini believes that the central conflict is between nations.
He was influenced by Nietzsche, defending that masses are passive and manipulable
by strong charismatic leaders and individuals.

Italian Fascism is a 3rd way between socialism and liberalism-Liberalism denies the
state in the interest of individuals and socialism does not acknowledge the possibility
of humanizing social classes in a national state.

In the sixteen years of Benito Mussolini's dictatorship prior to this, there had not been
any race laws; Mussolini had held the view that a small contingent of Italian Jews had
lived in Italy "since the days of the Kings of Rome" and should "remain undisturbed".

Mussolini was a pragmatic leader and wanted to pacify Hitlers policy against Jewish.

Later on, due to the Manifesto of Race, published in July 1938, Mussolini adopted
racism and declared the Italians to be descendants of the Aryan race. It targeted races
that were seen as inferior.

The manifesto demonstrated the enormous influence Adolf Hitler had over Benito
Mussolini since Italy had become allied with Nazi Germany.
The central task is not racial domination, but the expansion of the Italian state,
following the Roman Empire. The state is like an organism. Its vitally is proven only
through expansion. Conservation is a sign of decadence.

National Socialism
Alfred Rosenberg (1895-1946): In his work, The Myth of 20th century, he was
influenced by Arthur Gobineau and by Herbert Spencer, Chamberlain.
Humanity is not homogeneous. There are qualitative differences between races, a kind
of hierarchy. At the bottle are Jews and the black people and at the top are the Arians
and the Nordic people. Each race has soul, generating a certain type of civilization and
the biggest danger is mixing these races.
This book is at the same time, an Anti-Christian book, so Hitler refused to adopt it.

Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)-Mein Kampf: He was also influenced by Gobineau and

Chamberlain. In his book, he mentions 3 human racial categories:
Creators of culture-Arian Race;
Banners of culture-Chinese and Japanese Races;
Destroyers of culture- Jews.
German people are threatened by two things: Jews (interpreted as being a virus or
parasites) and communists or Slavs.
Hitler tries to put in practice the eradication of people with handicap.
Ideologically speaking, Hitler major task is not a powerful state, but creating a pure
Arian Race.
Given his hyper nationalism, he defends that Nordic aristocracy should create a unity.
But in fact, the only nationalism supported by Hitler was during the IWW, when
solidarity between soldiers was beyond their social background.

Meanwhile, Mussolini believes that, the state is an end itself, for Hitler the state is only
an instrument for racial supremacy.

Hitler justifies a new type of Empirealism based on racial differences; considering the
expansionist politics, Germans need a vital space, in order to evolve in the Eastern
Europe (theory explained in Mein Kampf).