Search results

Nietzsche's impact on the world of culture, philosophy, and the arts is uncontested, but his political thought remains mired in controversy. By placing Nietzsche back in his late-nineteenth-century German context, Nietzsche's Great Politics moves away from the disputes surrounding Nietzsche's appropriation by the Nazis and challenges the use of the philosopher in postmodern democratic thought. Rather than starting with contemporary democratic theory or continental philosophy, Hugo Drochon argues that Nietzsche's political ideas must first be understood in light of Bismarck's policies, in particular his "Great Politics," which transformed the international politics of the late nineteenth century. Nietzsche's Great Politics shows how Nietzsche made Bismarck's notion his own, enabling him to offer a vision of a unified European political order that was to serve as a counterbalance to both Britain and Russia. This order was to be led by a "good European" cultural elite whose goal would be to encourage the rebirth of Greek high culture. In relocating Nietzsche's politics to their own time, the book offers not only a novel reading of the philosopher but also a more accurate picture of why his political thought remains so relevant today

Forty years on, Theda Skocpol's account of the French Revolution remains remarkably robust. But how are we to think about political change today? Since Louis XVI walked up to the guillotine, we have been used to thinking of a left/right opposition driving political change, but this was not the only division at the time, nor indeed since: during the Terror, Robespierre was supported by the Montagnards, the deputies who sat on the highest benches of the Assembly, while the opposition was located at the bottom, in the Marais or the Plain. Like during la Terreur, today's politics, from France to the United States, appears more to oppose a centre to an extreme, and this prism allows us to track Skocpol's own evolution since 1979, from periphery to centre.

Recent interest in Raymond Aron has focused on his "Cold War Liberalism," but he is neither a neo-liberal nor a Hayekian libertarian. Instead, this article will argue that Aron is a "Machiavellian" liberal – that his democratic theory is underpinned by an engagement with Pareto, Mosca and Michels. First, it will reconstruct Aron's dialogue with Pareto. Second, it will explore his overlooked sociological writings on the ruling classes. Third, it will extend the thesis of a post-War French "Machiavellian Moment" to the Centre Raymond Aron, and ask in conclusion whether his theory of democracy can still shed light on today.