DOCSLIB.ORG

Democracy Against: the Antinomies of Politics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Democracy Against: the Antinomies of Politics Democracy Against: The Antinomies of Politics Bryan Nelson A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Social and Political Thought York University Toronto, Ontario April 2017 © Bryan Nelson, 2017 ii Abstract How should democracy be thought? How do we go about organising its concept? On what basis? And to what end? Rather than confine democracy to an ancient political constitution or modern system of government, this dissertation pursues a conception of democracy often concealed by the customary institutional analysis. Written as a sustained appraisal of the often antagonistic encounter between philosophy and politics, as a strategy to reframe democracy an emancipatory, transformative agency of the demos, it is proposed that the topic of democracy be initiated according to what democracy is against. This approach serves to entirely reconsider the question of democracy, engendering a renewed interpretation of what the “power of the people” can mean. Through a series of detailed studies of Jacques Rancière, Claude Lefort and Miguel Abensour, it is argued that democracy invariably appears as a counter or objection to an established social order in which a spectrum of familiar modes of domination are already in place. As the initiation of a unique political controversy and dispute, democracy is presented as an unprecedented challenge to unrestricted and arbitrary rule, concentrations of authority, strategies of inequality and hierarchies of all kinds. It is identified with the forces that seek to expose, contest and transform oppressive and exclusionary iii arrangements and practices from below, from the outside, from a minoritarian positionality. Ultimately seeking more inclusive, participatory and egalitarian institutions and relations, democracy is consequently conceived as the perpetual democratisation of society. After a preliminary reflection on the Hellenistic roots of politics itself, the dissertation undertakes an extensive analysis of what is determined to be democracy’s most general form: its being-against the archê (the underlying principle that divides governor from governed, ruler from ruled). It then proceeds to consider two contemporary theoretical models that uncover the against in more distinguishing terms: Rancière’s democracy against the police and Abensour’s democracy against the State. It concludes that contrary to its long tradition since Plato, philosophy can enhance and embolden an emancipatory politics, as Lefort demonstrates, when it ventures to advance a radical, “savage” conception of democracy organised to critique the here and now. iv Acknowledgements A project such as this cannot be completed in isolation. As Cornelius Castoriadis would remind us, the lesson of democracy is that one cannot be wise alone. I would like to therefore take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to all those who played a role in its realisation. My deepest thanks and admiration to my co-supervisors Dr. Martin Breaugh and Dr. Brian Singer whose invaluable insight, guidance and scrutiny helped shape and enhance this dissertation from its infancy. I would also like to thank my third committee member Dr. Terry Maley for his unique and indispensable perspective on my often still developing ideas. It is difficult to imagine a more ideal and inspiring team to oversee the exploration of such a topic. I am also eternally grateful to my parents, family and friends for their sustained fidelity, encouragement and generosity throughout this long process. Without their support this would not have been possible. Finally, I would like to extend my appreciation to the Social and Political Thought graduate program assistant Judith Hawley for her continual help and assistance in the navigation of this degree. v Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgements iv Table of Contents v Introduction: The trials of thinking against 1 Part One. Dissolution of the archê 1 Towards democracy’s anarchic condition: allegorical origins 22 2 Democracy against the archê 53 Part Two. The use of philosophy 3 To think democracy otherwise: Claude Lefort and “savage” democracy 98 Part Three. Rationalities of democracy’s being-against 4 Model I: democracy against the police (Rancière) 148 5 Model II: democracy against the State (Abensour) 199 Conclusion: “Hic et nunc:” thinking democracy as a critique of the present 260 Bibliography 279 1 Introduction The trials of thinking against Thunder on! Stride on, Democracy! Strike with vengeful stroke! -Walt Whitman Aristotle’s Constitution of Athens is often read as a sustained, undeviating chronicle tracing the punctuated democratisation of Athens by a succession of prominent reformers from Solon to Cleisthenes to Pericles. This reading lends itself to the view that the formal institution of Athenian democracy may largely be attributed to a few exceptional visionaries whose unrivalled status and influence permitted the dramatic transformation of the Athenian political landscape from above. And yet, interwoven with this familiar narrative, fragments of another may be extracted and assembled from Aristotle’s text. This is the narrative of a vibrant, vocal and discontented demos whose persistent, often tumultuous activity played a decisive role both in the creation and preservation of the democratic institutions of their city. Let us consider but a single example. While the profound achievements of the Cleisthenian reforms rightly occupy a pivotal place in Aristotle’s account of the constitutional evolution of the city, the unique series of events that would place 2 Cleisthenes in the position to realise such reforms is far from overlooked in the text. As Aristotle recounts, with the demise of the tyranny of Hippias (510 B.C.E.), a bitter struggle for control of the city would unfold between Isagoras, a notorious Athenian aristocrat and Cleisthenes of the distinguished house of Alcmaeonid. Although Cleisthenes had won great support of the demos, vowing to transfer the seat of government to them, Isagoras’ alliance with Cleomenes soon brought the Spartan king, accompanied by an armed entourage, to Athens to help secure the uncompromised rule of his long time ally. With the backing of Cleomenes, Isagoras successfully forced his rival Cleisthenes into exile, proceeded to dispossess hundreds of prominent Athenian families of their homes and poised to install himself as tyrant, moved to dissolve the citizen’s administrative council (boule) established by Solon himself. However, according to Aristotle, in a moment of remarkable fortitude, the council resisted the assault and the people of Athens, although without a leader or organisational direction, nevertheless assembled in opposition to Isagoras, declaring their unwavering support for the council. The spontaneous revolt forced Isagoras, Cleomenes and his band of Spartan forces to retreat to the Acropolis where they were besieged for two days by the insurgency. On the third day, a truce was negotiated, Isagoras and Cleomenes were permanently expelled and Cleisthenes was summoned to return to the city. Only then did Cleisthenes, remaining true to his commitment to the demos, proceed to introduce his historic reforms that would ultimately come to mark a new era of Athenian democracy. As Aristotle remarks: “The people had taken control of their affairs, and 3 Cleisthenes was their leader and champion of the people [...].”1 While the significance of Cleisthenes’ monumental reforms remains undisputed both historically and politically, the question of how to incorporate such direct emancipatory acts of the demos in a broader theoretical construction of democracy often receives far less consideration. Are examples of such defiance, confrontation and opposition merely illustrative of the revolutionary prelude or “democratic excess” of a properly instituted democratic constitution from which we must ultimately derive its concept, or do such events remain indicative of something essential to the meaning of democracy itself? Echoing this somewhat alternative reading of Aristotle’s Constitution, in a series of writings that aim to reevaluate the legacy of democracy’s often discordant, “fugitive” character, Sheldon Wolin certainly wishes to remind us that beyond the accomplishments of the great reformers, Athenian democracy was considerably shaped by the regular disruptions and interventions of the demos. From recurring class conflicts to disputes over exclusion to campaigns against those with extraordinary influence in the assembly (ecclesia), Wolin maintains that the perpetual democratisation of Athens was the result of a succession of popular uprisings that would repeatedly challenge the limits and conventions of existing institutions and relations. Far from the fixed or settled constitutional form we find in the political philosophy of Plato or Aristotle, Wolin sees the story of Athenian democracy as one of a dynamic and ever evolving 1 Aristotle, The Politics and The Constitution of Athens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 225. Also see Josiah Ober, “The Athenian Revolution of 508/7 B.C.E.: Violence, Authority, and the Origins of Democracy,” Cultural Poetics in Archaic Greece: Cult, Performance, Politics, eds. Carol Dougherty and Leslie Kurke (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993). 4 political culture that not only culminates in the popular control of its major institutions of government, but also includes those intermittent
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rethinking the French Liberal Moment: Some Thoughts on the Heterogeneous Origins of Lefort and Gauchet's Social Philosophy
    CHAPTER 3 Rethinking the French Liberal Moment: Some Thoughts on the Heterogeneous Origins of Lefort and Gauchet’s Social Philosophy Noah Rosenblum ecent scholarship has taken an interest in the renaissance of French liberal thought in the second half of the twentieth century. This R“French liberal revival” has swept up scholars and commentators alike, and is often thought to include the important French philosophers Claude Lefort and Marcel Gauchet. But, as work in intellectual history has shown,1 the term sits uneasily on at least these two. On close examination, we see that some of their mature thought is only ambiguously committed to liberal goals and rests on complex philosophical premises that are incompatible with some traditional liberal arguments. Tracing aspects of their social thought back to its roots reveals how deeply opposed to liberalism some of their premises were and helps us see how they carried illiberal ideas forward into new contexts. This forces us to take a new perspective on at least this piece of the twentieth century’s French liberal moment, revising accepted stories of its origins and meaning. Recognizing the heterogeneous sources of their argument leads us to appreciate Lefort and Gauchet’s creative work of reconstruction and resist the urge to canalize their powerful social philosophy. Conceptualizing the “French Liberal Revival” In a purely analytic sense, we can understand the idea of a “French liberal revival” in two different ways. The phrase describes, first, a new or renewed interest in traditional liberal themes by thinkers writing in French. We can S. W. Sawyer et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Socialisme Ou Barbarie: a French Revolutionary Group (1949-65)
    Socialisme ou Barbarie: A French Revolutionary Group (1949-65) Marcel van der Lindenl In memory of Cornelius Castoriadis, 11 March 1922 - 26 December 1997 The political and theoretical views developed by the radical group Socialisme ou Barbarie from 1949 onward, have only recently received some attention outside the French speaking world.2 For a long period things were little different in France where the group and its similarly named periodical also received scant attention. This only changed after the students' and workers' rebellion in May- June 1968. The remnants of the journal, which had been unsaleable up to then - it had stopped appearing three years earlier - suddenly became a hot-selling item. Many of the 'heretical' ideas published in it seemed to be confirmed by the unexpected revolt. In 1977 the daily Le Monde wrote on the intellectual efforts of Socialisme ou Barbarie: "This work - aIthough unknown to the public at large -has nevertheless had a powerful influence on those who played a role in May 1968." In the writings of the group one finds "most of the ideas which are being debated nowadays (from workers' control through to the critique of modern technology, of Bolshevism or of mar^)."^ In Socialisme ou Barbarie an attempt was made to consider the bureaucra- tization of social movements. The central questions were: is it an iron law that movements opposing the existing order either fall apart or change into rigid hierarchies? How can militants organize themselves without being absorbed or rigidified into a bureaucratic apparatus? Socialisme ou Barbarie first posed these questions because the group asked itself why things had gone wrong in the traditional labour movement.
    [Show full text]
  • Nº 86 Centro De Estudios Filosóficos “Adolfo García Díaz” 2017-2 Maracaibo - Venezuela Mayo - Agosto Revista De Filosofía, Nº 86, 2017-2, Pp
    Dep. Legal ppi 201502ZU4649 Esta publicación científica en formato digital es continuidad de la revista impresa Depósito legal pp 197402ZU34 / ISSN 0798-1171 ···GUILLERMO ANDRÉS DUQUE SILVA Y JAVIER CADAVID RAMÍREZ: ¿Colombia hacia una democracia radical? La Democracia ampliada y la participación política de las FARC-EP···PEDRO MANUEL URIBE GUZMÁN:La tolerancia sustentada: una práctica para la democracia···ASBEL BOHIGUES:Repensando el papel de la élite política en los procesos democráticos···ALESSANDRA PETRONE Y LUCIA PICARELLA: El cosmopolitismo de la utopía a la posible implementación práctica···PATRICE VERMEREN:Saint-Just contre Saint-Just? Miguel Abensour, la Révolution comme énigme et le paradoxe de son héros···LIBERTAD LEÓN GONZÁLEZ:Una Novela Histórica de la Emancipación,Diálogos Discursivos en la Red··· Universidad del Zulia Facultad de Humanidades y Educación Nº 86 Centro de Estudios Filosóficos “Adolfo García Díaz” 2017-2 Maracaibo - Venezuela Mayo - Agosto Revista de Filosofía, Nº 86, 2017-2, pp. 91-116 Saint-Just contre Saint-Just? Miguel Abensour, la Révolution comme énigme et le paradoxe de son héros Saint-Just against Saint-Just? Miguel Abensour, the Revolution as an Enigma and the Paradox of his Hero Patrice Vermeren Université Paris VIII Paris, Francia Résumé Pourquoi lire Saint-Just aujourd’hui ? Selon Miguel Abensour, pour mieux s’interroger sur l’énigme du politique dans sa double dimension de domination et d’émancipation. Saint-Just se tient dans une tension interne : inventeur de lois, à l’ombre desquelles s’avance la tyrannie, il est en même temps créateur d’institutions, génératrices de liberté. Saint-Just a opposé deux répliques à la glaciation du peuple par la Terreur : les Institutions et l’héroïsme révolutionnaire.
    [Show full text]
  • Politics2021
    politics 2021 new and recent titles I polity Page 7 Page 13 Page 13 Page 3 Page 11 Page 7 Page 51 Page 2 Page 6 CONTENTS Ordering details General Politics ............................................ 2 Books can be ordered through our website www.politybooks.com or via: Customer Care Center, John Wiley & Sons Inc. Introductory Texts ....................................... 16 9200 KEYSTONE Crossing STE 800 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46209-4087 Toll-Free: (877) 762-2974 Fax: (877) 597-3299 Global and Comparative Politics .................. 18 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. European Distribution Centre, New Era Estate, Oldlands Way, Environmental Politics ................................. 19 Bognor Regis, WEST SUSSEX. PO22 9NQ, UK Freephone (UK only): 0800 243407 Overseas callers: +44 1243 843291 Political Economy ....................................... 22 Fax: +44 (0) 1243 843302 Email: [email protected] For Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein: War and International Security ..................... 28 Phone: +49 6201 606152 Fax: +49 6201 606184 Email: [email protected] Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding .......... 29 For Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Islands: Toll-free within Australia: 1800 777 474 Toll-free with New Zealand: 0800 448 200 Phone: +61 7 33548455 Development and and Human Rights ............ 30 UK and European Politics ............................ 31 Inspection Copies Most paperback editions featured in this catalogue are Russian Politics ........................................... 32 available for inspection. A maximum of three books may be considered for relevant courses with at least 12 students. A reply form must be returned to this effect. Middle Eastern Politics ................................ 33 Phone (US & Canada): (800) 225-5945 Email: ccopy@wiley,com Freephone (UK only): 0800 243407 Email: [email protected] Phone (Rest of World): +44 1243 843294 Asian Politics .............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Political Science in Motion and JEAN-FREDERIC MORIN R a E M D I O T N I a O
    Political Science in Motion_Political Science in Motion 16/11/15 10:52 Page1 This book examines recent developments in political science research. What n EDITIONS DE L’UNIVERSITE DE BRUXELLES o are the new influences to which the discipline opens itself up? Is political i t science research converging towards a single model or splitting into different N N o st I streams? What are the new challenges at the beginning of the 21 century? By A R M M addressing these questions, this collection of essays discusses three O O M C n interrelated topics: the relationship between political science and the C i A I problems of politics, the relationship between political science and other N R e E fields of research, and the transformation of the profession. In so doing, this O D c M E volume traces the major trends in contemporary political science research A n R R F e - since the end of the Cold War. Y i N B A c D E J E S As part of this approach, the authors rely on the academic journals as a field T D I l of investigation. Each of the eight chapters focuses on a different journal, N D Political Science a A E c including the American Political Science Review , West European Politics, the i t British Political Science Review , Security Dialogue , the Journal of Common i l Market Studies , International Security , Electoral Studies and the Revue o in Motion française de science politique . n P o i The book is intended to scholars with an interest in the historiography of t political science, the epistemology of knowledge, the sociology of the o M EDITED BY profession as well as the evolution of the field in terms of research agendas, theoretical approaches and methodological debates.
    [Show full text]
  • Note Critique
    Document generated on 10/01/2021 11:46 p.m. Cahiers Société Note critique – Partir des textes avec Miguel Abensour Manuel Cervera-Marzal, Miguel Abensour, critique de la domination, pensée de l’émancipation, Paris, Sens & Tonka, 2013, 252 pages Gilles Labelle, L’écart absolu : Miguel Abensour, Paris, Sens & Tonka, 2018, 380 pages Jérôme Melançon Marx, critique du capital et de la société Number 2, December 2020 URI: https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1075550ar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/1075550ar See table of contents Publisher(s) Collectif Société ISSN 2562-5373 (print) 2562-5381 (digital) Explore this journal Cite this note Melançon, J. (2020). Note critique – Partir des textes avec Miguel Abensour / Manuel Cervera-Marzal, Miguel Abensour, critique de la domination, pensée de l’émancipation, Paris, Sens & Tonka, 2013, 252 pages / Gilles Labelle, L’écart absolu : Miguel Abensour, Paris, Sens & Tonka, 2018, 380 pages. Cahiers Société, (2), 269–284. https://doi.org/10.7202/1075550ar © Collectif Société, 2020 This document is protected by copyright law. Use of the services of Érudit (including reproduction) is subject to its terms and conditions, which can be viewed online. https://apropos.erudit.org/en/users/policy-on-use/ This article is disseminated and preserved by Érudit. Érudit is a non-profit inter-university consortium of the Université de Montréal, Université Laval, and the Université du Québec à Montréal. Its mission is to promote and disseminate research. https://www.erudit.org/en/ Note critique – Partir des textes avec Miguel Abensour Jérôme MELANÇON Université de Regina Manuel Cervera-Marzal, Miguel Abensour, critique de la domination, pensée de l’émancipation, Paris, Sens & Tonka, 2013, 252 pages.
    [Show full text]
  • Introducing Claude Lefort: from the Critique of Totalitarianism to the Politics of Democracy
    Introducing Claude Lefort: From the Critique of Totalitarianism to the Politics of Democracy Dick Howard Author’s Introduction, 2007 In 1998, Claude Lefort received the Hannah Arendt Prize given by the City-State of Bremen and co-sponsored with the Heinrich Boell Stiftung of the German Green Party. I was asked to deliver the Laudatio before a mixed public consisting of political figures, university faculty and students, and a general public. As the Laudatio is not a typical American form of oral presentation, I had a great deal of difficulty in constructing the attached talk to fit within the constraints of the occasion. In this English translation, by Eunah Lee, I have taken the liberty of smoothing out the written presentation, adapting some points to make them clearer (or more problematic, as it sometimes seemed necessary). The original text was published in the monthly journal, Kommune; a stripped down version (dropping the formalities of addressing the Sehr geehrten officials who were present), from which this translation was made, was published in a pamphlet edited by the Bremen Boell Stiftung under the title if Politik und Moderne, Band IV, under the title ‘Von der Kritik des Totalitarismus zur Politik der Demokratie,’ pp. 17-22. I have resisted the temptation to update this nearly ten year-old text, which seems to me to stand on its own. It should be noted, however, that Lefort has just published a thousand-page collection of his hitherto un-collected writings that cover a period of 60 years as Le temps présent. Écrits 1945-2005 (Paris: Belin, 2007).
    [Show full text]
  • William Morris, Utopian Theory and the Claims of the Past
    My Utopia is Your Utopia? William Morris, Utopian Theory and the Claims of the Past Joe P.L. Davidson Abstract This article examines the relationship between utopian production and reception via a reading of the work of the great utopian author and theorist William Morris. This relationship has invariably been defined by an inequality: utopian producers have claimed unlimited freedom in their attempts to imagine new worlds, while utopian recipients have been asked to adopt such visions as their own without question. Morris’s work suggests two possible responses to this inequality. One response, associated with theorist Miguel Abensour, is to liberate reception, with Morris’s utopianism containing an invitation to readers to reformulate the vision proffered. However, this response, despite its dominance in contemporary utopian theory, not only misreads Morris but also undermines the political efficacy of utopianism. Consequently, I suggest that Morris responds to the problem of utopian inequality by constraining production, proposing a historical control on utopianising; new utopias are directed by an archive of visions articulated in past struggles. Keywords Freedom, Miguel Abensour, Social change, Utopia, William Morris Publication Information Davidson, J. P. L. (2019) ‘My utopia is your utopia? William Morris, utopian theory and the claims of the past’, Thesis Eleven, 152(1), pp. 87–101. doi: 10.1177/0725513619852684. 1 Introduction It is something of a cliché to say that one person’s utopia is another person’s dystopia. This phrase, however tired, contains an important moment of insight, articulating a significant concern regarding the political and social value of utopia. To propose a utopian vision is a particularly audacious, we might even say brash, form of activity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case of the French Review Socialisme Ou Barbarie (1948-1965)
    Journalism and Mass Communication, September 2016, Vol. 6, No. 9, 499-511 doi: 10.17265/2160-6579/2016.09.001 D DAVID PUBLISHING Acting and Thinking as a Revolutionary Organ: The Case of the French Review Socialisme ou Barbarie (1948-1965) Christophe Premat Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden The aim of the article is to analyze the evolution of a radical left group in France that created a scission inside the Fourth International after World War II. The group founded a review Socialisme ou Barbarie that criticized Marxism and the Trotskyist interpretation of the status of the USSR. The rigorous description of this review reveals the mixture of strong theoretical views on bureaucratic societies and empirical investigations of reactions against those societies. The hypothesis is that this group failed to be a new political force. As a matter of fact, is it possible to depict the evolution of Socialisme ou Barbarie as an investigative journalism based on a strong political and philosophical theory? Keywords: Bureaucratic societies, Sovietologist, investigative journalism, Socialisme ou Barbarie, Castoriadis, political periodicals Introduction The review Socialisme ou Barbarie is a political act refusing the Trotskyist interpretation of the USSR regime as a degenerated worker State. It comes from an ideological scission inside the Fourth International and was cofounded by the Greek exilé Cornelius Castoriadis and Claude Lefort. It is characterized by an early understanding of the nature of the USSR. Socialisme ou Barbarie is first a tendency inside the Fourth International before being a review and a real revolutionary group. The review existed from 1948 until 1965 whereas the group Socialisme ou Barbarie continued to exist until 1967.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Council Democracy
    Council Democracy: Towards a Democratic Socialist Politics James Muldoon ORCID: 0000-0003-3307-1318 Abstract: This introductory chapter provides an outline of the main contours of a theory of council democracy and offers a preliminary sketch of council democracy’s relationship with the major strands of democratic theory. Council democracy is a project of deepening democracy which includes the decentralisation of the state, democratisation of the economy and solidarity with similar international struggles for self-government. Council democrats view capitalist market relations as something that not only have to be tamed, but transformed in a manner which alters the underlying relationship between capital and labour and eliminates capitalists’ controlling power over workers and the state. Introduction Capitalism and democracy have long been uncomfortable bedfellows. But with the ascendancy of a neoliberal rationality of governance, the expansion of corporate power and the increase of income and wealth disparities, the uneasy interaction between the two has gradually led to a hollowing out of democracy by powerful economic interests. Today, not only is policy and law-making in most advanced industrial democracies dominated by a wealthy elite, but a marketplace rationality has seeped into governing institutions and the practices of daily life, undermining the very fabric of democracy as collective self-rule.1 These developments reflect the influence of Friedrich Hayek’s theory that markets should be freed from excessive political regulation and government intervention in order to deliver maximum productivity and efficiency. The post-World War II belief in a mixed economy and the necessity of a strong role for government in economic planning has been replaced by a neoliberal consensus concerning the dangers of government intervention in the economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Machiavelli and the Politics of Democratic Innovation
    MACHIAVELLI AND THE POLITICS OF DEMOCRATIC INNOVATION CHRISTOPHER HOLMAN Machiavelli and the Politics of Democratic Innovation UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO PRESS Toronto Buffalo London © University of Toronto Press 2018 Toronto Buffalo London utorontopress.com Printed in the U.S.A. ISBN 978-1-4875-0393-2 Printed on acid-free, 100% post-consumer recycled paper with vegetable-based inks. Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Holman, Christopher, 1979–, author Machiavelli and the politics of democratic innovation / Christopher J. Holman. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4875-0393-2 (cloth) 1. Machiavelli, Niccolò, 1469–1527 – Criticism and interpretation. 2. Machiavelli, Niccolò, 1469–1527 – Political and social views. 3. Machiavelli, Niccolò, 1469–1527. Principe. 4. Machiavelli, Niccolò, 1469–1527. Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio. I. Title. JC143.M4H65 2018 320.1 C2018-902598-0 CC-BY-NC-ND This work is published subject to a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivative License. For permission to publish commercial versions please contact University of Tor onto Press. This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, through the Awards to Scholarly Publications Program, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. University of Toronto Press acknowledges the fi nancial assistance to its publishing program of the Canada Council for the Arts and the Ontario Arts Council, an agency
    [Show full text]
  • On Claude Lefort's
    chapter 3 Frame: On Claude Lefort’s ‘L’Expérience Prolétarienne’ Socialisme ou Barbarie saw a new ‘problématique’ for revolutionary the- ory emerging from the East Berlin uprising and the French general strike of Summer 1953. Central to this new problématique was the elaboration of a notion of autonomy. Socialisme ou Barbarie’s initial understanding of the term designated strike actions that workers carried out beyond the control of, and in opposition to, the bureaucratic trade unions and political parties that adopted direct-democratic forms of self-organisation. The group connected direct democracy to the potentials continually posited in the course of the conflicts that shape everyday worker experience on the factory floor. Claude Lefort’s 1952 essay ‘L’experience prolétarienne’, outlines the way to understand that experience. For the moment, suffice it to say that the group conceptu- alised this experience as being shaped by the basic contradiction of bureau- cratic capitalism, and as following from the worker response and resistance to its effects. Actions like the East Berlin ‘June Days’ and the August PTT strike were both expressions of these conflicts and experiences that made linkages explicit. In their modes of self-organisation and the collective formulation of demands, autonomous actions were the ‘germ’ of revolution ‘from below’. The task of revolutionary theory was to comprehend, clarify, and situate this ‘germ’ by connecting it, on the one hand, back to the everyday experience at the point of production and, on the other, to a vision of revolution and of direct- democratic socialism. The task of revolutionary politics was to make this theo- retical project as widely available as possible in order to help the ‘worker avant garde’ become more self-reflexive on the question of organisation, and more cognisant of the revolutionary implications of their actions.
    [Show full text]