malachireview - Review 12/6 Bolsheviks is writing to...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Review 12/6 Bolsheviks is writing to convince the people, Mensheviks, they were tainting Marx (think the state will whiter away” Dictatorship phase in between Weber-Politics as a vocation politicians have an obligation to be ethical-sermon on the mount- can’t be a good politician, because you have to be brutal and not follow religions Charismatic and charming during a revolution because you need the following of the people. Need elections to keep oil in the machine. State is a monopoly on force Criticism of Lenin – state has access to violence. Its Foucoult- the concet of the political Schmidt-aftersaw Nazis and commies would gain power by the structures, criticizes liberals because it allows everyone to debate and nothing gets accomplished. For Weimar Republic, but against the liberalness of it, b/c this is the system we have now, we have to try to fix it Competitor vs competitor, friends enemies system Blurs distinction and lines state should make Distinction of definition of what the political is, any group that has the potential to cause violence, political is there, once that goes away, political is gone Political is conflict b/t two groups Friend enemy distinction important b/c it creates unity and perpetuates the state by keeping it in power, keeps the political political, self-contradictory Dismisses the beurocracy, part of Weber’s school of politcail thought, both say violence is something that is exclusive to the political. Strengthening of the nation state-both wanted to perpetuate Weimar gov’t, Weber-liberal Schmidt-non-liberal anti-liberal VIOLENCCE IS MAIN TOOL OF THE STATE Strauss- invented political science-schmidt speaks as if conflict will never end, strauss talks about how it could end, liberals don’t want the distinction, if liberals are too charged it will become entertainment. Would not have the friend enemy distinction. Political critique rather than a moral one. Hobbes-initial assumption that state of nature is lliberal, Schmidt basis world view off of hobbes, so strauss finds this ironic, says that hobbes is b/ t individuals, schmidt’s is b/t states Only the republic can have enemies, Strauss was jewish and student of Heideger in the 30s, argues that Schmidt is liberal b/c he follows Hobbesian theory, refuses to recognize that so far though we’ve abolished friend enemy distinction could end Schmidt’s critique is more of a moral one than a political one. Strauss’s critique of Schmidt is that the political can be critiqued. Strauss says that friend enemy distinction SHOULDN’t be abolished, but that it has the possibility to be abolished, Freud-Written in n1929against communism, like Weber, can abolish private property because communism is against the political.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Review 12/6 We’re aggressive by nature but society turns that into ourselves w/the superego, the book is about whether or not civilzation has a function or not. Relates a lot ot Foucoult. Foucoult believes society creates docile bodies through our superego. It is discipline,
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This test prep was uploaded on 04/20/2008 for the course HIST 123 taught by Professor Hacohen during the Fall '05 term at Duke.

Page1 / 4

malachireview - Review 12/6 Bolsheviks is writing to...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online