Two Italian writers, Gaetano Mosca and Antonio Gramsci, have been very influential in twentieth-century political thought, the first cast as a thoroughgoing conservative, the second as the model of a humanistic Marxist. The author of this provocative book, the first systematic study of the connection between the two men, maintains that they are closer to each other than is commonly supposed-that they in fact belong to the same political tradition of democratic elitism. Maurice A. Finocchiaro argues that Gramsci's political theory is a constructive critique of Mosca's and that the key common element is the attempt to combine democracy and elitism in a theoretical system that defines them not as opposite but as compatible and interdependent. Finocchiaro finds that a critical examination of the major works of the two men demonstrates their shared belief in the viability of democratic elitism and undermines the importance of the distinction between right and left.
A clash over equality -- A worldwide value divide -- Two tales of globalization -- The rise of the modern state system (1776-1945) -- The age of universality (1945-1980) -- The triumph of market democracy (1980-2007) -- Twenty-first-century rapprochement -- The core currency of political exchange
Left-Wing Extremism and Human Rights unfolds a mosaic of social issues, especially of the weaker and marginalized section, closely intertwined with internal security. Based on an empirical study of the Left-Wing Extremism (LWE) movement in Andhra Pradesh, once the citadel of LWE, it offers a deep analysis of the growth and consolidation of LWE in India. It also studies the profiles and roles of NGOs in promoting rights for which specific case studies have been undertaken. As LWE and counter-extremist operations have bec.
Research recently published in Political Psychology suggested that political intolerance is more strongly predicted by political conservatism than liberalism. Our findings challenge that conclusion. Participants provided intolerance judgments of several targets and the political objective of these targets (left-wing vs. right-wing) was varied between subjects. Across seven judgments, conservatism predicted intolerance of left-wing targets, while liberalism predicted intolerance of right-wing targets. These relationships were fully mediated by perceived threat from targets. Moreover, participants were biased against directly opposing political targets: conservatives were more intolerant of a left-wing target than the opposing right-wing target (e.g., pro-gay vs. anti-gay rights activists), while liberals were more intolerant of a right-wing target than the opposing left-wing target. These findings are discussed within the context of the existing political intolerance and motivated reasoning literatures. Adapted from the source document.