Suchergebnisse

THE purpose of this article is to analyze in a preliminary way some of the basic sociological problems of bureaucratic political systems—legitimation, autonomy, and political struggle. For reasons which will be specified later—not least among them, reasons of space—we shall limit our discussion to pre-modern, historical societies, such as the ancient empires (especially the Egyptian), the Byzantine, Chinese, and Ottoman Empires, and some of the European countries in the age of absolutism. By way of introduction, we shall endeavor to discern some common characteristics in all these political systems, and the main differences among them; and then inquire into some of the sociological conditions that are related to both the common features and the chief differences.

An analysis of some of the basic sociol'al characteristics of historical bur'tic policies. The main examples are taken from the Ancient Empires, the Chinese Empire, the Byzantine one, & from some European countries in the age of Absolutism. The main focus of analysis is the pol'al process & struggle in such Empires & the forces participating in it. It is assumed that the analysis of these processes is essential for the understanding of the admin've structure of these polities. The main forces participating in the pol'al struggle are identified as the king (or his equivalent), the feudally derived or oriented aristocracy, the various Ur groups, the religious elite, in some cases the free peasantry & the upper & middle echelons of the bur'cy itself. The basic soc orientations of these groups are analyzed as well as their policies in the pol'al, econ, & soc (status) fields, Some of the main diff's between various societies are analyzed & a schema for comparative, analysis suggested. Lastly, the conditions which make for diff degrees of autonomy of the bur & its involvement in the pol'al struggle are analyzed. AA-IPSA. Adapted from the source document.

This paper adds a new perspective to recent debates about the political nature of rights through attention to their distinctive role within social movement practices of moral critique and social struggle. The paper proceeds through a critical examination of the Political Constitutionalist theories of rights politics proposed by Jeremy Waldron and Richard Bellamy. While political constitutionalists are correct to argue that rights are 'contestable' and require democratic justification, they construe political activity almost exclusively with reference to voting, parties and parliamentary law-making, neglecting the vital role rights play in political struggle outside and against the official institutions of democratic citizenship. In contrast to the political constitutionalist stress on the patient and reciprocal negotiation of rights within formal electoral processes, this paper locates the political nature of rights in their conflictual logic as 'claims' in multiple spheres that function to mobilise oppositional support against powerful adversaries and challenge dominant understandings. An activist citizenship of rights is frequently necessary, it argues, given the structural barriers of power and inequality that distort legislative decision-making and lead to the denial of fundamental moral entitlements to less powerful groups. The paper provides an illustration of activist citizenship taken from a contemporary squatting movement centred around the right to housing, Take Back the Land. In exercising the moral right to housing, for which they demand political recognition, through the occupation of vacant buildings, the practices of Take Back the Land reflect the conflictual dimension of rights as claims in keeping with their historical role in empowering subordinate groups to challenge unjust relations of power and inequality.

Abstract
This piece discusses the author's experiences in the Occupy protests at the University of California, Berkeley, in 2011 and the initial travel-ban litigation in 2017. It contrasts the different roles law and violence played in each and reflects on the significance of mass mobilizations for achieving the goals of political movements. The piece also situates these two experiences in the broader context of post-financial-crisis left politics; the conclusion builds on Stuart Hall's reflections on Thatcherism and highlights the need for strategic thinking to link disparate struggles in unified opposition to neoliberalism.

This book employs a Marxist framework to analyse aspects of Ghanaian politics during the 1966-81 period. Its central claim is that the present Ghanaian social formation which is dominated by foreign capital through the domestic bourgeois and petit-bourgeois classes is incapable of transforming itself into an independent autonomous system. Hence, it is characterised by recurring political and economic crises. Industrial strikes and other forms of struggle by the lower classes are responses to the deprivations which they suffer as a result of these crises, and constitute attempts to reject the rule of the country's ruling classes. (DÜI-Hff)