humans live in the world. Hitler’s embrace of struggle brings him to oppose any and all attempts to create a peaceful, egalitarian community of co-existence. Specifically, he opposes the liberal state premised on safety and security. As outlined by ThomasHobbes, the liberal state establishes a set of
The Representation of External Threats, Eberhard Crailsheim and María Dolores Elizalde present a collection of articles that trace the phenomenon of external threats in a multitude of settings across Asia, America, and Europe. The scope ranges from military threats against the Byzantine rulers of the 7th century to the perception of cultural and economic threats in the late 19th century Atlantic, and includes conceptual threats to the construction of national histories.
Focussing on the different ways in which such threats were socially constructed, the articles offer a variety of perspectives and interdisciplinary methods to understand the development and representations of external threats, concentrating on the effect of 'threat communication' for societies and political actors.
Contributors are Anna Abalian, Vladimir Belous, Eberhard Crailsheim, María Dolores Elizalde, Rodrigo Escribano Roca, Simon C. Kemper, Irena Kozmanová, David Manzano Cosano, Federico Niglia, Derek Kane O’Leary, Alexandr Osipian, Pedro Ponte e Sousa, Theresia Raum, Jean-Noël Sanchez, Marie Schreier, Stephan Steiner, Srikanth Thaliyakkattil, Ionut Untea and Qiong Yu.
generis figure who has no counterpart in the West. It is possible, however, to draw parallels between the other figures considered here and the seventeenth century political thought of the West. The two giants of Western political theory in the seventeenth century were ThomasHobbes (1588-1679) and John
freedom and fear” ( Podunavac et al. 2008 : 85). Of course, it could be accepted, as already hinted by ThomasHobbes, that in a situation of achieved social compact or in a situation of a clearly ethnically defined national state ready to establish liberal-democratic institutions, the “political
I speak not of the men but of the Seat of Power….
Human societies, regardless of ideology, are not immune to the emergence of the rule of the elites, an everlasting element of humanity’s development. Vilfredo Pareto famously stated that history could be seen as an endless
"militaristic state c a p i t a l i s m . . . , a new Leviathan, in comparison with which the fantasy o f ThomasHobbes seems like child's play."17 The socialist revolution was supposed to cut off this line o f development in favor o f the participatory rule o f the workers, but that hope proved to be
idea of a social contract, then, Caird argued, every individual would seem to have willed to give up “his personality and all its rights.” 13 There was, in short, no obvious way to reconcile Kant’s concept of individual autonomy with political sovereignty, irrespective of whether, as ThomasHobbes had
you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all , and the earth itself to no-one .” 1 This was not exactly how the origins of private property had been described by Hugo Grotius, ThomasHobbes, Samuel Pufendorf or John Locke, Rousseau’s great seventeenth-century predecessors in the study of
epistemological dualism. That dualism is now most visible in Rousseau’s hostile reaction towards the moral and political thought of ThomasHobbes’s most explicit eighteenth-century French admirer, the tax-farmer Claude-Adrien Helvétius, whose controversial De l’esprit (On the Mind) gave rise to a protracted and
doing so, they hope that a correct interpretation of the source will also lead to a correct interpretation of Jefferson’s Declaration. But when looking at the historiography on Jefferson’s sources of inspiration, the picture does not grow more clear. John Locke, James Harrington, ThomasHobbes, Samuel