The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom
- Downloads：4347
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-05-25 10:54:15
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：James Burnham
- ISBN：1839013958
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
'The stoic， detached， empirical， hard-boiled， penetrating， realist mind of James Burnham is something to behold， to admire， to emulate' - National Review
A classic work of political theory and practise， this book makes available an account of the modern Machiavellians， a remarkable group who have been influential in Europe and practically unknown in the United States: Gaetano Mosca， Georges Sorel， Robert Michels and Vilfredo Pareto。 In addition， there is a long section on Machiavelli himself。
James Burnham contends that the writings of these men hold the key both to the truth about politics and to the preservation of political liberty。
A classic work of political theory and practise， this book makes available an account of the modern Machiavellians， a remarkable group who have been influential in Europe and practically unknown in the United States: Gaetano Mosca， Georges Sorel， Robert Michels and Vilfredo Pareto。 In addition， there is a long section on Machiavelli himself。
James Burnham contends that the writings of these men hold the key both to the truth about politics and to the preservation of political liberty。
Reviews
Nico Bruin
，
The Machiavellians is a great introduction to the Italian school of political science。 It's ruthlessly logical， unapologetically unsentimental， and I suppose for many people who are quite attached to myths about modern democratic government also quite paradigm shifting。Burnham does a great job explaining the work of other political scientists， his own input regarding the managerial revolution however isn't that insightful given that his predictions have been （mostly） proven wrong by history in t The Machiavellians is a great introduction to the Italian school of political science。 It's ruthlessly logical， unapologetically unsentimental， and I suppose for many people who are quite attached to myths about modern democratic government also quite paradigm shifting。Burnham does a great job explaining the work of other political scientists， his own input regarding the managerial revolution however isn't that insightful given that his predictions have been （mostly） proven wrong by history in that regard。His prediction about private capitalism disappearing falls even more flatly on it's face。I do feel that Burnham is being slightly too cynical about democracy， though not by much。 The ability of people in "democratic" societies to fire their leaders in favour of others does in my view grant some legitimate reason for describing many countries as lowercase d democratic****Overall this is a great piece of political science， and I'm determined to dive deeper into the Italian school。Pareto's theory of the circulation of the elites in particular very much interests me。 。。。more
Brian
，
This book is an odd， but powerful refutation of the notion of democracy and that society can avoid being ruled by a small number of elites。Growing up， I somehow inhaled the American notion that， until the founding of America， most nations were largely limited in what they could do， and that with the innovation of voting， the world had turned a corner and most individuals were better off。 I still am profoundly grateful for American notions of liberty and freedom， and this book made me appreciate This book is an odd， but powerful refutation of the notion of democracy and that society can avoid being ruled by a small number of elites。Growing up， I somehow inhaled the American notion that， until the founding of America， most nations were largely limited in what they could do， and that with the innovation of voting， the world had turned a corner and most individuals were better off。 I still am profoundly grateful for American notions of liberty and freedom， and this book made me appreciate those liberties even more。 However， for a long time now， I have not seen democracy as the source of those freedoms， individual or otherwise， and Burnham has the uncanny ability to point out how democracy actually aggravates individual liberty rather than increasing it。There's a lot of places to go here， but I want to get a few things out of the way。 James Burnham had an odd checkered past as a Trotsykyite and a communist before starting to write for the National Review and becoming a conservative author， with Suicide of the West being his best well-known work。 In this book you definitely feel a sense of his middle-aged atheism in how he talks about "non-logical" （read religious） behavior。 （He returned to religion in old age。） You also get a sense of his being a logical positivist， perhaps in how he talks about politics as a science。At the same time， most of Burnham's arguments make sense with what I see of how people act。 He is perhaps dismissive of Aristotle and other philosophers， but then again， Taleb points out that philosophers have not been the best political thinkers。 At any rate， Burnham makes the rather obvious point that no society can vote on all political decisions， and even if most people wanted to do so， in order to achieve their goals， they would have to join coalitions led by representatives。 This means that， without exception， most societies will be governed by a minority， by an elite class。 Ironically， rather than restraining power， the idea of democracy tends to absolutize power。 After all， if we all believe that our elites are simply us， without any sense of representation and the responsibility that brings with it， it is far easier for some dictator to come along and claim that， because he simply is the will of the people， he can use absolute power。 Burnham expresses this by saying that democracy leads to Bonapartism。This is a powerful argument， and it's an invaluable part of Burnham。 However， the best part of the book is the last part， where he talks about how a good elite functions， and how freedom can actually exist in a society。 He says that societies consist of a innovative， enterprising， even conniving element， and of a conservative， steady， force-wielding element。 He says society must have both elements in the elite， or society will stagnate through conservatism or fail to exert order through too much liberalism。 He also insists that the elite should be both aristocratic in some ways （policing its ranks）， but also open to up-and-comers from below （meritocratic。） He says that some elites lose their will to rule and retreat into art， style， and decadence， lest it lose power through some sort of social revolution。 One of the most fascinating points that Burnham makes is that societies are less violent if they admit the necessity of violence。 Violence is inevitable in this world， until Judgment Day， and Burnham knows this and at several points recognizes the importance of the elite having the will to rule。 As Christians in an egalitarian world， we often act like Aragorn in Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies， or like Harry Potter or any number of modern protagonists who never feel competent to judge or make tough decisions。 Burnham adds to the many voices in my head saying that authority is how God made the world and we do better to acknowledge it with all its problems than to kill it through demands for perfection。In the last few explosive pages he argues that we are entering a managerial age， which fits with his ， the idea that the capitalists are being overwhelmed by the bureaucrats， because in his day the entrepreneurs had lost the will to rule。 He insists that for society to be free in any sense that is meaningful， there must be competing interests， with no one power preventing opposition。 Burnham points out that， despite all the promise of democracy， the Nazi and Soviet regimes were not as free as the American regime。 Burnham ends on a fascinating point: "Only power restrains power。 That restraining power is expressed in the existence and activity of oppositions。 Oddly and fortunately， it is observable that the restraining influence of an opposition much exceeds its apparent strength。 As anyone with experience in any organization knows， even a small opposition， provided it really exists and is active， can block to a remarkable degree the excesses of the leadership。" （223） Burnham， of course， knows that this cannot be a mere grassroots movement。 It has to be the elite that is involved in this social change， but Burnham does think that social pressure from the masses can infiltrate inner-elite fights: "Confronted with this multiple attack [from elites and masses]， the governing elite， in order to try to keep control， is in turn compelled to grant certain concessions and to correct at least some of the more glaring abuses。 The net indirect result of the struggle， which from one point of view is only a fight between two sets of leaders， can thus be benefits for large sections of the masses。 The masses， blocked by the iron law of oligarchy from directly and deliberately ruling themselves， are able to limit and control， indirectly， the power of their rulers。" （emphasis added）。 There is a lot in this last bit in the book。 I am reminded of the title of Taleb's book Intransigent Minorities。 This seems to be a reasonable model of social order that avoids the extremes of both totalitarianism and anarchy， and avoids the foolish idea that any individual or party can run the state through sufficient lobbying while also avoiding the idea that individuals can utterly passive in the face of government。 It also gets at the best of checks and balances and Republican government without exaggerating the influence of the Constitution along， say， American Vision lines。 At any rate， this is a good book that people into conservative political theology should read。 。。。more
Nick
，
An study of the political realist/elite theory of Machiavelli and his intellectual heirs Mosca， Sorel， Pareto and Michels which argues elites are inevitable but that freedom means being able to counter and have circulation of elites。 It’s an intellectual alternative to the Marxism Burnham left behind。
Stuart Enkey
，
What I appreciate about the Machiavellian mode of thought is that the political science takes a ten thousand foot view of developments。 It attempts to be dispassionate and merely observe and draw conclusions， for good or ill， about the science of politics。 Burnham himself appears to have miscalculated in several of his predictions， but I would need to do more reading to see if that really is the case or if there are good reasons why he miscalculated。
Daniel Frank
，
a Straussian book about allegedly Straussian writers。 The Machiavellians introduces Elite Theory （https://en。wikipedia。org/wiki/Elite_t。。。） - a systems based framework for understanding the nature of power in democracies。 This book gets a lot wrong but offers some novel insights on the role of elites in society。 Of the five Italian intellectuals cited in this book， Gaetano Mosca is the one I found most interesting。 a Straussian book about allegedly Straussian writers。 The Machiavellians introduces Elite Theory （https://en。wikipedia。org/wiki/Elite_t。。。） - a systems based framework for understanding the nature of power in democracies。 This book gets a lot wrong but offers some novel insights on the role of elites in society。 Of the five Italian intellectuals cited in this book， Gaetano Mosca is the one I found most interesting。 。。。more
Parasuram Venkatesh
，
A masterful treatise on realpolitik by James Burnham， this book is a must-read for anyone even mildly interested in politics or the machinations of power。 Slicing through the Gordian knot of formulas， residues， and derivations surrounding hackneyed political phrases like 'democracy' or vox populi， Burnham presents in contrast the clear-eyed approach of four thinkers he calls the Machiavellians， namely Mosca Gaetano， Georges Sorel， Robert Michels， and Vilfredo Pareto。The Machiavellians are primar A masterful treatise on realpolitik by James Burnham， this book is a must-read for anyone even mildly interested in politics or the machinations of power。 Slicing through the Gordian knot of formulas， residues， and derivations surrounding hackneyed political phrases like 'democracy' or vox populi， Burnham presents in contrast the clear-eyed approach of four thinkers he calls the Machiavellians， namely Mosca Gaetano， Georges Sorel， Robert Michels， and Vilfredo Pareto。The Machiavellians are primarily concerned with a scientific analysis of power， not in the sense of hypothesising and experimentation， but in the sense of analysing it for what it is。 The fundamental feature of their thought is their anti-formalism; they do not simply take what people say at face value， but see their words as deliberate actions that are means chosen to attain certain ends。 In doing so， they attack the traditional justification for democracy， the myth of power belonging to 'the masses'， and the idea that we live in a post-hierarchical age or that democracy even in theory is capable of delivering to us a world devoid of this eternal distinction between the élites and the masses。 The élites are， as a rule， a minority class with a coherent leadership structure， which is at least a necessary condition for a group of people to act rationally， which is to say in a coordinated manner。 The masses on the other hand are rudderless and inert by virtue of the law of large numbers and cannot independently act in the absence of some leadership。These insights are corroborated with historical experience; all professed egalitarian revolutions were led by a minority of leaders， what Vladimir Lenin called 'the vanguard'， and it is only through their efforts that the masses exert any kind of force upon the political landscape。 A headless chicken does not run in any particular direction， and similarly the masses need to be guided in order to demonstrate a net movement。 Genuinely bottom-up revolutions almost never shake the base of power， and are always subsumed by it; we see this in the queer movement or the advent of jazz， where what began as a truly revolutionary， spontaneous phenomenon， quickly devolved into corporate grandstanding or elevator music。 Only corporate America could make sodomy and perversion appear so damn boring。Above all， though， as the subtitle suggests， the Machiavellians are concerned with freedom， although not in the idealistic sense as espoused by poets and romantics。 They are concerned with the concrete realities of power， and as such define freedom to be the absence of arbitrary exercises of said power， what Mosca calls 'juridicial defence'。 Noting that the only cure to political ailments is checks on power from a oppositional force （also necessarily comprised of élites）， they advocate a system that is aggressively *non*-utopian where a true opposition to power is allowed to flourish and is not clamped down upon with the brutality that authoritarian regimes usually mete out to their dissenters。 The book is also aan appeal to the élites themselves， who Burnham notes have gotten complacent and weak over the course of the twentieth century as a result of not admitting entry into their ranks from below and thus suffocating themselves of the talent that would otherwise emerge。Although I would prefer such an analysis to include sound economic theory， it is not really a critique of the book。 Burnham has done enough for us; I do not fault him for not having done any more。 。。。more
Jay
，
Outstanding。
Sunlogix
，
A bit dated， but the nature of power seems to be unchanging。
Sean Lehmkuhle
，
Why are there books that are not this book？
Spaz tastic！！
，
I took this book for face value on just the title of it alone。 My first thoughts， and expectations was that this should be interesting， I'm aware of Niccolo Machiavelli， and his book， "The Prince"， and I'm really familiar with the personality trait of "Machiavellianism"。 It's 1 of 3 personality traits which is part of the "Dark Triad"， the other two are narcissism and psychopathy。 Now I will say that I wasn't expecting this book to be geared towards the area of psychology or anything to do with I took this book for face value on just the title of it alone。 My first thoughts， and expectations was that this should be interesting， I'm aware of Niccolo Machiavelli， and his book， "The Prince"， and I'm really familiar with the personality trait of "Machiavellianism"。 It's 1 of 3 personality traits which is part of the "Dark Triad"， the other two are narcissism and psychopathy。 Now I will say that I wasn't expecting this book to be geared towards the area of psychology or anything to do with the other two traits that have to do with the Dark Triad， not at all。 I was expecting it to be purely history and political， and hoping at the same time to hear about like the title of the book states， "The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom"。 I was expecting to hear in depth both personally at times and politically about individuals both of the past of course and maybe some at the present time。 Methodologies and occurrences of what all took place at times during these Machiavellians' lifetimes。 Wow！ this book had none of this in detail， not even close to it。 At times it was just playing in the background and the narrator was rambling on about God know what， it seemed that many a times he went beyond the subject of Machiavellianism。 Don't ask to where because I have no clue。 There were a few individuals that he had brought up but nothing at all in detail when it came to Machiavellianism。 You will hear words such as Elite（s）， Alite（s）， Democracy， a free democratic democracy， residue 1 and residue 2 （don't even ask me what he was referring to then， no clue at all）， now， did he go into details in regards to Machiavellianism with any of this stuff， absolutely not， NO。 In the beginning he did cover over a little about Niccolo Machiavelli and his book， "The Prince" but in detail， NO， not at all。 He mentioned him in a few other places at times， he also discussed Dante's Inferno。 If your expecting to hear an in depth story of people who were considered to be like the title of the book states， "The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom"， forget it。 You won't even skim any surface whatsoever。 Most of the time it sounded like someone with a head full of knowledge of stuff to do with politics， but nothing to do really with the politics of the past or the present。 I wouldn't say that I was bored with it， I was just waiting and hoping to hear a more in depth look into certain individuals of the past that had to with the personality trait of Machiavellianism， NOPE， NATTA！ Now， could I have sat down and over time physically have read this book， absolutely not， no way， NOOOOO。 I wouldn't have even gotten close to the middle of it， would I listen to it again， why would I， because to me it didn't have really anything to do with what the title mentions。 You could ask， "Well then what did it have to do with then？！" Beats the heck outta me， I was hanging on for it to go a different direction， but it never did。 If you want to know anything of what the title says， go and look for it yourself， definitely not here though。 A part of me wants to say it was a boring listen， but maybe its just because the whole time I was thinking， "This guy has got to go a different direction with this than whatever he's talking about right now"， but he didn't。 I was anticipating and hanging on for a more detailed accounts of people and Machiavellianism， but it never came。 Bottom Line: It was all a pointless waste of time。 Did I learn anything new at all， NO， not one single thing。 If you want to know ANYTHING about who or what about Machiavellianism， DO NOT， go here， you won't find it。 。。。more
David Derus
，
Cynical and bleek look at politics。 A book that feels like all politicians belive the thesis but would never admit to reading it。
Teodor Moroz
，
A very good introduction to a theory of politics
Kyle Willey
，
The greatest problem with this book is its accuracy。 This is a problem not because the accuracy is lacking， but because many of the conclusions it draws about our society are dismal。
Jack Wilkie
，
Add it to your list， politics junkiesAbsolute must-read for understanding politics。 Burnham and his Machiavellian subjects cut through the facade presented as how government works to explain the science behind how it actually does。
Cara
，
Formidable reading， in particular his arguments on "reality" versus "capacity" in political rhetoric。 His analyses of politics from a scientific lens removes emotional narratives so often intertwined with both sides of the argument。 Also， never thought I'd find something published in 1943 as readable as it was。 Formidable reading， in particular his arguments on "reality" versus "capacity" in political rhetoric。 His analyses of politics from a scientific lens removes emotional narratives so often intertwined with both sides of the argument。 Also， never thought I'd find something published in 1943 as readable as it was。 。。。more
Shaun Phelps
，
Wow。 I'm glad I read this。 Burnham analyzes pre-world war II maciavellian thought。 He offers context for the political system as it is， why it is， and how it got that way。 I'm not well studied in this area and I find myself getting excited and wanting to share what I've learned and I wind up rambling nonsense。 I would recommend this to anyone with the mind and interest to better understand their world。 Also， I thought it was interesting that the author of the forward chose to inject that Burnham Wow。 I'm glad I read this。 Burnham analyzes pre-world war II maciavellian thought。 He offers context for the political system as it is， why it is， and how it got that way。 I'm not well studied in this area and I find myself getting excited and wanting to share what I've learned and I wind up rambling nonsense。 I would recommend this to anyone with the mind and interest to better understand their world。 Also， I thought it was interesting that the author of the forward chose to inject that Burnham doesn't give enough credit to human's capacity to do better。 Burnham well describes why that is， and even covered why someone in the political sciences might choose to criticize and diminish maciavellian thought。 。。。more
Otto Lehto
，
This book has become a bit of a cult classic。 And no wonder: Burnham's book is witty， well-written， and compellingly argued。 This despite the fact that Burnham is not being especially faithful to Machiavelli。 His interpretation of Machiavelli and his followers is heavily skewed by classical liberal and conservative principles。 But the truth of the book， if you can call it that， or the power of the book （to use a more Machiavellian metaphor） has less to do with Machiavelli himself and more with i This book has become a bit of a cult classic。 And no wonder: Burnham's book is witty， well-written， and compellingly argued。 This despite the fact that Burnham is not being especially faithful to Machiavelli。 His interpretation of Machiavelli and his followers is heavily skewed by classical liberal and conservative principles。 But the truth of the book， if you can call it that， or the power of the book （to use a more Machiavellian metaphor） has less to do with Machiavelli himself and more with its brilliant synthesis of four Italian Neo-Machiavellians: Gaetano Mosca， Georges Sorel， Robert Michels and Vilfredo Pareto。 Through them， the book exposes some eternal truths of human nature and human social organization in light of the dark undercurrents of 20th century political theory。 Machiavelli himself， although often misunderstood， remains an important corrective to the perennial romance of politics。 And the 20th century thinkers that the book studies， whether the moniker Neo-Machiavellian is quite accurate or not， make for a brilliant mix。 They all offer mutually supporting analyses of hierarchical power relations， the quirks of social organization， and the limits of political achievement。 Through the Machiavellian lens， Burnham provides fascinating analyses of the frailty of human institutions， the inevitability of power hierarchies， the importance of individual freedom， and the perennial gullibility of people。 I really liked the book。 Stylistically， the reader is swept away by Burnham's seductive prose。 This can be a problem if the reader is seduced by the analysis to overlook its suggestive and idiosyncratic nature。 As I wish to emphasize， the book uses Machiavelli and the Machiavellians strategically， not only to understand perennial human nature， but to argue towards an American neoconservative conclusion。 This means that some nuances of Machiavellian scholarship， for example of the role of The Prince as a self-promotional and potentially tongue-in-cheek treatise， are either ignored or downplayed。 At the same time， Burnham's masterful synthesis of the Italian thinkers is better than orthodox Machiavellianism， since it involves a powerful display of originality and will power。 If you are willing to overlook its excesses and ambiguities， it reveals the profundity of Realism。 。。。more
Matthew Rogers
，
This is a valuable work of political philosophy。 Some truly great insights including how "rule by minority" is always true regardless of system。 I'm going to chew on that for a while。 This is a valuable work of political philosophy。 Some truly great insights including how "rule by minority" is always true regardless of system。 I'm going to chew on that for a while。 。。。more
Arup
，
This is a comprehensive and mostly consistent theory of politics drawing on the works of Machiavelli and his followers （Robert Michels， Vilfredo Pareto etc。）。 Burnham's theory states that politics in essence is nothing but struggle for power amongst different groups of elites。 The common man （demos） is not in the picture。 He is always ruled and never be the ruler （thereby nullifying the possibility of true democracy）。 Many of the hypotheses and conclusions seem logical。 However， reading Orwell's This is a comprehensive and mostly consistent theory of politics drawing on the works of Machiavelli and his followers （Robert Michels， Vilfredo Pareto etc。）。 Burnham's theory states that politics in essence is nothing but struggle for power amongst different groups of elites。 The common man （demos） is not in the picture。 He is always ruled and never be the ruler （thereby nullifying the possibility of true democracy）。 Many of the hypotheses and conclusions seem logical。 However， reading Orwell's take on James Burnham changes your perception a bit。 Overall I think， "the iron law of oligarchy" seems to work more often than not。 It also seems that true democracy is mechanically impossible。 The best we can get to is checks and balances that keeps elite groups under control。 We can also erect institutions or protect values that enable "the circulation of elites" to prevent the nation from becoming decadent （think labor/class mobility）。Orwell's take: https://www。orwellfoundation。com/the-。。。 。。。more
Seshu
，
Thought provoking if not short bookThis book is an introduction to Machiavellian thought of political science。 He goes through about 5-6 such writers from this school of thought and describes their teachings。 Machiavellian thought is extremely practical and realistic and this book is an eye opener to someone who has no idea of this field。 It is also a short and easy read。
James
，
Foundational work in the understanding of political science。 Will probably change you ideologically。
Jean Schindler
，
Nominally about “five Italian philosophers，” but that summary is a little misleading。 More accurately， this book is Burnham’s framework for understanding power in a political context。 “No theory， no promises， no morality， no amount of good will， no religion will restrain power” he writes。 “Only power restrains power。”
Fred M
，
If there were only one book to read to explain politics and politicians - this should be it。 The plain， unvarnished truth concerning what motivates politicians。
C。 Varn
，
The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom was originally published as The Modern Machiavellians。 The renaming seems to make it more in line with American conservative rhetoric around liberty--a concern Burnham would not have had in the early 1940s。 James Burnham was always the post-Trotskyist Marxist turned liberal reactionary par excellence， ambivalently responsible for National Review and part of the thinkers in selected by George Kennan for the OSS。 Fascinatingly， here because he turns his The Machiavellians: Defenders of Freedom was originally published as The Modern Machiavellians。 The renaming seems to make it more in line with American conservative rhetoric around liberty--a concern Burnham would not have had in the early 1940s。 James Burnham was always the post-Trotskyist Marxist turned liberal reactionary par excellence， ambivalently responsible for National Review and part of the thinkers in selected by George Kennan for the OSS。 Fascinatingly， here because he turns his Marxist love of materialist political analysis away from Marxism and into the theories of five key thinkers: Niccolò Machiavelli， Gaetano Mosca， Georges Sorel， Robert Michels， and Vilfredo Pareto。 While several will attribute this to a conservative critique of the bad faith of Utopian politics but miss that all the thinkers with the exception of Machevilli are indirectly linked with fascism in some key way and for a book written in 1943， this is not an insignificant argument。 Furthermore， Mosca was further developed by Michels and Pareto， about the function of elites。 All of them were distant thinkers informed by either Marxism or anarchism but who give up on fighting the power elite and instead try to make it socially productive。 So some people will read this as a statement of "conservative political philosophy" but it is not from the US political tradition and， in some ways， comes from the hangover that Burnham seems to have had after writing the Managerial Revolution and break away from Trotskyism。The Marxist Paul Mattick commented that Burnham had begun to purge himself of the remnants of that had remained in the Managerial Revolution （which famously enraged George Orwell enough he wrote two reviews of it and whose theories who incorporates into Bernstein， the Trotsky surrogate， in 1984）。 I am not so sure Burnham actually does here--the hints of Marxist are in Burnham's exposition and interpretation of Dante's utopian Imperial politics in De Monarchia as theology and bad faith self-apologia。 It does work well to establish what Machiavellians are not。 Dante's political writings are a theological facade for betraying his republic， and that is clear， frankly。 The ethical and theological imperatives are figleaves， and we should be made more sterner and more scientific stuff。 Burnhams' readings of Machiavelli are odd in that he takes Machiavelli entirely at his word at face value。 Machiavelli's layering of irony is not treated with any seriousness。 While parts of Burnham's reading of Machiavelli as an openly transparent force are similar to Marxist thinkers like Gramsci， he seems to not be a very sophisticated reader of the Machiavelli， presenting the Discourses on Livy as nearly entirely in line with the Prince 。 Machiavelli's cynicism often leads to terrible advice that contradicts his other writings， and Machiavelli did not widely promote the work。 Burnham's reading of Machiavelli was an Italian unificationist is frankly very much in contradictions with his other writings and given the citations Burnham is giving， he has to know this。 Furthermore， Machiavelli writes in a different spirit from Mosca， Michels， and Pareto， who are， by Burnham's accounts， more "scientific。" Sorels is the odd one out here， and the only real link seems to be that Sorel's revisions to the mythic event in syndicalist Marxist are an inspiration to the unspoken f-word in the book: fascism。 There are hidden polemics against Marxism in the books reading of Mosca: Mosca's theories of history are multi-casual and not "monistic。" However， in doing so， according to Burnham， Mosca comes up with a theory of the "masses" and the ruling class。 While elites are given and some of these are outcomes consistent in what would be worked out by games theory and public theory， the idea that is necessarily only two classes that matter--the rulers and ruled--is， in many ways， more monistic than Marxist analysis。 However， Burnham's polemical inconsistencies aside， he does a pretty good job of summarizing Mosca's theories and some of the problematic implications of them for modern representative democratic republics。 Like I mentioned earlier， Sorel's revision to Marxist syndicalism lead to Sorel's love of both Lenin and Giovanni Gentile， two topics that Burnham， the ex-Marxist， cannot really directly deal with， nor can he deal with Sorel's endorsement of anti-semitic writings to spread socialism。 Sorel's thesis that the general strike was an animating myth is illuminating， and， sadly， for many Marxists， the concept of revolution has played a similar motivational and eschatological role as have historical figures such as Lenin， Stalin， and Mao。 Now Sorel's theories were about violence and motivation but in general， were against the "materialist" views of Marxist and the need to make politics a science。 His inclusion seems odd until you look at what the other thinkers share with him。 Then we have Burnham's reading on Robert Michels， and the inclusion of makes more sense， as Michels was part of the syndicalist drift towards fascism and then became an explicit theorist of fascism as well as being highly influenced by Mosca。 Burnham is very quiet about this context and does not contextualize Michels' work: if it is scientific， then why， again does Burnham need to？ I could not be that all of the Italian thinkers but one proto-fascist or fascist ties and， like his thesis in the Managerial Revolution， fascists were more likely to control other capitalist elites who have countered society through management？ His exposition of Michels iron law of oligarchy is coherent enough and fair， but that lack of context as well as his selection of "scientific political thinkers" becomes more and more suspicious。 Then we have the discussion of Pareto， which is part of the critique against Marxism。 According to Burnham。 Pareto only seeks to describe and correlate social facts--while this does not strike a non-Marxist as a particular critique of Marxism， remember that Marxists have claimed that Marxism would be a scientific way to understand and change society， not merely correlate it。 Burnham's description of Pareto residues is interesting as his reading of the five factors Pareto thinks are important for society: 1） physical environment， 2） residues （or human universal tendencies）， 3） economic factors， 4） derivations and 5） the circulation of elites。 Admittedly， 1 and 3 are generally talked about in Marxist circles as "material conditions，" and 2 are proto-anthropological human tendencies， 4） seems like some that were further developed out in later social science， but it is 5） that concerns Burnham the most。 Admittedly， Burnham's readings of Pareto's and the way elite power blocks form in parliamentary societies are haunting。 Yet this scientific turn is not， truly speaking， science。 Furthermore， despite this interest in science， all the modern Italian and French thinkers that Burnham invokes are directly linked to fascism。 Yes， there are many truisms that Burnham finds: elites drift and are self-interested。 Naivete in politics can have disastrous results， but these truisms are not unique to any of these thinkers。 Furthermore， if Marxism fails as a science， what Burnham does doubly fails。 Almost all his predictions are wrong and seem a reflection of the conditions of Italy and Germany that were beginning to collapse at the time。 Military Bonapartism， a hangover from Burnham's Trotskyist days with some real applications， does not become the dominant form of US life despite the existence of a political power elite。 Indeed， if anything， after Eisenhower， the trend is away from both the military and civilian competence to people with public relations and legal backgrounds。 Furthermore， Burnham predicts that elites in Europe in post-colonial scramble would be back at war in a short period of time--reflecting the conditions of world war 1 and world war 2 but ignoring the nuclear change of the game and the increasing difficulty of the cold war。 IN almost all predictions， Burnham takes the conditions of the early forties， conditions that informed the early fascist thinkers， and uses them to predict in the future incorrectly。 While applying scientific methodologies and mathematics to politics has greatly helped us， if you cannot see ANY of several major changes coming in the near future， you have failed to produce a useful political analytic rubric that abides by those methodologies。 Predictions matter。 The fact that Burnham does not really deal with the fascist current in all the modern political thinkers he chooses would not age well for "defenders of freedom" if people knew who these figures actually were and context for Burnham's selection and his argument with Marxism。 Burnham had not yet become the mentor to William Buckley and grand old man at the The National Review。 Despite being wrong on many of these predictions， George Kennan did hand select him for the OSS presumably for his scientific bent， but if this writing is a sample of his early post-Marxist thinking， he was given a lot of slack for being wrong in ways that are different from his analysis in The Managerial Revolution which do explain things going on Russia， the US， and Europe fairly well but again picks a losing side in the political forces trying to control management。 。。。more
Arron Chapman
，
Changes your POV on politics and society。
B。T。 Exotic
，
Not trying to be a snob; but when I talk politics to people who don’t get the ideas in this book， I get physically sick。 This book is basically distilled and synthesized red pills （reality）。There is a ruling class， and democracy is not what you think it is。 Change can only happen when there is an exchange of the elites or when novel social forces propel new groups to the echelons of power。
Sebos
，
Good book， however， it relies way too much on the original texts （which can be confusing）。 Goes really hard trying to prove that Machiavelli and by extension， Machiavellians， were really 'scientists'。 Perhaps at the time of the writing the term was less of a meme， but nowdays it can be pretty cringe。 Good book， however， it relies way too much on the original texts （which can be confusing）。 Goes really hard trying to prove that Machiavelli and by extension， Machiavellians， were really 'scientists'。 Perhaps at the time of the writing the term was less of a meme， but nowdays it can be pretty cringe。 。。。more
Leonardo
，
What a great book for understanding the point of view of these thinkers。 A must read for people studying political sciences。
С。 Р。
，
Ревю второто четене:Нямам какво повече да добавя。 Уникална книга。 Този път подчертавах цитати в е книгата。 Всички глави са интересни， но тези на Парето и като цяло втората полоеина на книгата е супер дълбока и интвресна。 Ревю първо четене:Уоу， не знам защо очаквах тази книга да е скучна。 Очаквах да се разправя за политици и простотиите които са правили， само и само за да останат на власт， нещо подобно на Интелектуалците на Соуел。А всъщност книгата беше обобщаваща идеите （наблюденията/откитията） Ревю второто четене:Нямам какво повече да добавя。 Уникална книга。 Този път подчертавах цитати в е книгата。 Всички глави са интересни， но тези на Парето и като цяло втората полоеина на книгата е супер дълбока и интвресна。 Ревю първо четене:Уоу， не знам защо очаквах тази книга да е скучна。 Очаквах да се разправя за политици и простотиите които са правили， само и само за да останат на власт， нещо подобно на Интелектуалците на Соуел。А всъщност книгата беше обобщаваща идеите （наблюденията/откитията） на социалните учени определени за Макиавелисти， тези които С 2 ДУМИ ГЛЕДАТ СВЕТА （и в частност властта） ТАКЪВ КАКЪВТО Е， а не такъв какъвто им се иска да бъде。Никога преди не съм се замислял за Макиавели като за УЧЕН изучаващ политиката по научен начин наблюдаващ емпирични закономерности и систематично описващ ги - какво реално се случва при хората с власт - един журналист на дикавъри животът на лъвовете или лициците - без да вкарва морал и да оценява с добро или зло това което правят。 А изглежда Макиавели прави точно това。 Не е проблема в него。 И ако не ни харесват наблюденията му то защо се сърдим на него， а не на реалността。 Или на очакванията ни за реалността。И НА тези които са ни промили С такива грешни детски очаквания。Реално човек не може да се съеди на действителността че не му отговаря на очакванията。 Може да се сърди на грешнитр си очаквания за реалността。 И евентуално да се сърди на трзи които са го вкарали в тия детски митове， и които продължават да вкарват още хора в тях。Но авторът в последната глава дори оспорва като че ли， че това е възможно。 Всички хора не може да са редпилнати е нещи като теза/въпрос。Харесаха ми особено няколко части които ще прослушам пак - Часта на Анализа на Парето （койро също е забелязал， че хората СМЕ ирационални идиоти， които рядко взимаме умишлени решения и често нещата които казваме като обяснения са всъщност рационализации） и - заключението заключаващо синтезирано принципите откити от макиавелистите。 Хареса ми още в началото， сравнението с Републиката на Данте， как публичните липности и политици като дадаъ някаква причина за някакво действие то има 1。 Официална причина （за пред хората）， на която вярват хоеата и за която спорят журналисти и анализатори из медиите， но и 2。 Реална припина （цел） ковто изследват учениците макиавелисти и която ррално има значдние。 Интересно е че в арабските култури бях чувал， че там е наптлно общоприето ражионализацията。 Напр。 Там шевът， лидерът， диктаторът като го питат защо е направил нещо от него дори не се очаква да даде реална дори логично звучаща причина， а просто да даде причина， дет се вика за протокола。 Което ако не е еталон за това горе в комбинация с невероятната способност на човека да рационализира собствените си глупости аз не знам какво е。 Нещо което не ми хареса но пак не Авторът， а очакванията ми за реалнодтта е виновна， че според авторът вероятно е невъзможно чояек да играе играта в политиката без да лъже。。То е ясно， че да казяа всичко което му е на ума няма да стане， но вероятбо да лъже във вярна посока， както лъже Тръмп е приемлив компромис。Наистина ми е чудно какво и как си представят света на политиката и яластовите структури хората която не са Макиавелисти。。。 - брадясалите деца。。 Професорите - наивни полезни глупаци。Нещо което няма да забравя от книгата е че единственото което може да ограничи една власт е ДРУГА ВЛАСТ。Поне докато сме живи не може човек да избяга от играта， може да я отрича， да се прави， че я няма или да научи добре правилата й и да я играе добре И ЗА НЕГО И ЗА ОКОЛНИТЕ， до колкото е възможно。Защото има хора， които биха играли и за БЕЗ ОКОЛНИТЕ。。。Тази книга ме накара да се замисля за много неща。Както говореха в една друга книга - The elephant in the brain - където се обсъждаха неща акто това напр。， че голяма част от здравната система ИСТИНСКАТА Й ЦЕЛ не е да лекува， а да даде поле за изява за да може близките да покажат колко им пука за болния роднина （а не официалната за пред хора цел на лекува） - и авторите за подобни ситуации коментираха， че МОЖЕ БИ НЕ Е ДОБРЕ ВСИЧКИ ХОРА ДА ЗНАЯТ ТОВА， но е добре ПОНЕ НЯКОЙ ДА ЗНАЕ， и поне тези които имат отношение по оргабизирването на тези дейности。И то явно в свободен свят си става автоматично。 Тия които трябва да знаят постепенно стига до тях това знание， защото търсят и се интересуват。Тези които не знаят и не искат да знаят и не ги интересува си играят играта в забвение надявайки се и разчитайки на това， че "властта"， ще се погрижи за тях。Смешното е че авторът коментира към края как книги катот ази въобще не се пишат за широката общественост， и че ако автор си мисли， че някой от широката общественост ще ги прочете и така подпомага информираната "демокрация" - само се заблуждава。Авторът е наясно и го казва， че поначало повечето хора дори не четат книги， еле па такива книги。И че книги като тази са предвидени за много по-различни хора。Тази чесност и осъзнатост на автора ме впечатли。Защото ми е писнало от превзети професори и и телектуалжи живящи в по-големи заблуди за света и от най-простите хора。Тази книга и подобни на тази книги， като тези на Макиавели или съвременен вариант - Робърт Грийн， и други практични книги като Влиянието на Робърт Чалдини не само са остъпни практически безплатно， достъпни са дори в АУДИОВЕРСИЯ， където някой професионален актьор ти ги четр на ушенце。Та напрактика достъпът до такива знания е по-свободен от всякога。И все пак колко се интересуват？Което говори неща за човешката природа。Но го има и взе пак стената от пропаганда която скрива съществъването на такова знание。Е днеска една във фб обясняваше колко бил готин джон оливър и как добре обяснявал， неосъзнавайки， че той е част от пропагандната машина， независимо дали дори той и сценаристите му го осъзнават （най-веровтно не го）。 Това не са организирани конспирстивни дела， а според мен са автомаъипни саморегулиращи се процеси。Изхлежда наистина не са много хората които са поне в някакъв аспект не NPC。。。Ама такъв изглежда е светът в който живеем。Знанието е власт， а всяка власт нови големи отговорности。 。。。more
Logan
，