Theory and History of International

Political Thought
Thucydides —> Look for 2 texts:
1) The Melian Dialogue
2) Pericles Funeral Oration
Abraham Lincoln —> saved the union of the USA; also, the Great. Liberator – one of the
best statesmen in the history of politics, witch. Churchill… Speech:
• Gettysburg Address
PREGUNTA EXAMEN: COMPARAR MELIAN DIALOGUE CON FUNERAL ORATION

CLASSICAL GREECE
HELLAS GREEK MAP: There are a multiplicity of political actors (states), the characteristics
of them is their sovereign. Political, legitimacy and self-interest. Greece was organized in city
states which shared culture, religion, language… but still competed between each other as the
European countries of nowadays do, even inside the EU.

Cities or states with different values are destined to confrontation as happened in ancient Greece
and as happen nowadays between Russia and Europe.
Although there is not a clear link between de Greece and us, their values have been and still are
very important in our way of seeing our lives. For the Greeks what we have is not democracy.
What does democracy mean? Demos (people)-Kratos (people). The Greeks convinced lottery
and voting. Notion of power, freedom, and equality. The eyes which with we see the orient are
much related with the way Greeks saw “the others” the Persians (origin of orient).

TIMELAPSE
1- Solon: Greek lawmaker who laid the foundations of Athenian democracy. He codified
Athenian law, preserving Dracon's penal system, legislating on many other matters and creating
a court to which all could appeal (the Heilea). By establishing the equality of citizens before the
law he made possible the further development of democracy in Athens. Solon forbidden
Athenians to enslave other Athenians. Athenians began to describe the political community
*Dacron: is considered Greece's first legislator because he is credited with the first
codification of the city's laws. Dracon may have been the first point in the social
escalation of the hoplite oligarchy and the beginning of the emancipation of the free
peasants from aristocratic patronage.
Draco-> Create a Law
Solon -> Legal Equality (legal community) He was no revolutionary, avoid unhappy slaves and the elites.
The first recognizable community with proper laws and rules as nowadays; the freaking Greeks. First
community define by laws, which were created by the groups NOT God.
2- Pisistratus: He pretended to have been the subject of an assassination attempt in order to
be allowed to have an armed escort, with which he seized the Acropolis and replaced the
aristocratic power of the city with his own tyranny. It was important for the stability of Athens
what favored citizenship.

3- Cleisthenes: statesman regarded as the founder of Athenian democracy. Cleisthenes

successfully allied himself with the popular Assembly against the nobles
(508) and imposed democratic reform. Perhaps his most important innovation was the basing of
individual political responsibility on citizenship of a place rather than on membership in a clan.
Introduced ostracism as a means of warding off political enemies. Cleisthenes found a
prosperous, healthy, and terrified to alternative Athenian population.
*Ostracism: was an Athenian democratic procedure in which any citizen could be expelled from
the city-state of Athens for ten years. It was used as a way of neutralizing someone thought to
be a threat to the state or potential tyrant, though in many cases popular opinion often informed
the choice regardless.
People voted for it, the process couldn´t be controlled (the name of the person was randomly
elected, you could just call for an ostracism but not point out the person and the decision was
irrevocable). It was a tool used to balance the power = mixed power. The Greeks did with
ostracism as what we do now with veto power. The community was more important than the
individual.

4- Miltiades: Athenian general, with only twelve thousand men, defeated more than five
hundred thousand Persians on the fields of Marathon in the third year of the seventy- second
Olympiad, with whom Darius Hystaspes, king of Persia, had invaded Greece. HOW do he
achieve that? Athenians won against the Persians because they give the citizens a stake (a right
to vote). Hoplites: were citizen-soldiers of Ancient Greek city- states who were primarily armed
with spears and shields. Hoplite soldiers used the phalanx formation to be effective in war with
fewer soldiers.
Why they achieve to create an army, by making people feel free and giving them the right to
choose. Because if they lose, they would become slaves. They would lose their citizenship.

5- Themistocles (Thermopylae, Salamis, Platea, Mikala): He advocated the creation of a

powerful navy, and in 483 BC persuaded the Athenians to build a fleet of 200 triremes, which
would prove crucial in the coming conflict. During the second Persian invasion, he held
effective command of the allied Greek navy, during the battles of Artemisia and Salamis.
Thucydides and Herodotus thought that Athenians shouldn't have not go to war, but that
decision was taken by demagogues against the population's common interests. Athenians have
seriously problems tolerating Tyrans in nearby populations.
Two key elements on which our states are still based on: areté and virtu.

Virtu: in Roman terms, “manhood”, virtu is a development of the notion of arete, which means
commitment to the common good. Service to the community through personal advancement.
Good quality, natural talent, chest woman, it was a development…

Arete: (Aristotles/Plato): commitment to the common good, from the Greek point of view, arête
means commitment to the community, which has to be total, to the ultimate
consequences is the livable, it has to be total, absolute, notion of arete, women want to sacrifice,
has the will to give everything for the common good.

Prudence, strength, temperance, wisdom/justice.

Basis of citizenship/aristol.

Sacrifice Individual for the community (Pericles, Funeral Oration 430/431 bc)

Which institution rest on the notion of arête? All Spanish male citizens being willing to sacrifice
for the whole community: the “mili”. Also, Israel (2 years of “mili” for all the males and
women), South Korea and Sweden.

The concept of arête comes from Thucydides, who thought that by uniting the community they
would completely commit to it. During ancient times, losing a war meant slavery, losing the
notion of freedom. For Greece, the opposite of freedom was literally extermination for the
males, raping and impregnating the women, and the children became the salves of the winners.
The reason why Athenians (300 film) are considered as heroes even losing, is because they
evacuated Athenians because of the self- sacrifice of some Athenians who stayed int the
territory to slow the Persians. Thucydides said: Athens was saved, because Athens is in the
people, the rocks were destructed but the people was saved. As long as the people have a
commitment to the people and to the community, Athens would be safe

- For a community to be successful, it must have a minimum degree of arête (or virtu).

Democratic states, in their willing process to spread their liberal system by sanctioning the
countries which are different, such as oligarchies, are hurting not the oligarchic elites, but
instead, the people within said countries. In this way, those countries residents see democratic
countries as enemies, thus sanctions do not work. Instead, what is needed is to target the
oligarchy with accuracy. For instance: US sanctions because of Navalny, the sanctions are put
over the oligarchic elite which is closer to the leader (Putin), the members thereof, with in turn
would put pressure on the oligarchy itself and on the leader.

Idiot: a person who lucks the sense of virtue. Person who cares about his own interest.
Nowadays we are all idiots, “who is willing to go to war?”. We have lost the sense o virtue.

POLITICS

When there are different political systems competing in the same place at the same time, the
neighboring territories and states will suffer an impact as well. The political differences bring
instability, that is why Thucydides remain relevant to us.

What is politics? the art of making decisions in groups or other power of relations. Politics is
about power (power over the collective), and the collective is defined by law. Politics are related
to interest of the nations. Polity is a political unit or political collective. It’s a form or process of
civil government or constitution. An organized society; a state as a political entity.

Examples of political systems can be:

- Democracies: all citizens are allowed to vote. Citizens are the group of people who has the
same set of rights and obligation as established by law. For our purpose, the notion of citizen
means nationality.

- Monarchies: they are ruled by a king, whether elected (very rare because it leads to
partition) or hereditary.

- Republics: the head of the state is not a king. *Important: republics can be anything
(oligarchies, tyrannies…) but it is important not to associate them exclusively to democracies.

-Tyrannies: the key elements of tyrants are that they reach power through illegal means,
normally military (coup). The crucial thing is that the tyrant tries to represent the people.
Tyrants in the ancient Greek were the carriers of justice, the ones acting for the end of
corruption. The term tyranny for the romans could be currently meaning populist. Parties which
want to overthrow the government for the people’s sake in order to end corruption. Is a product
of the collapsing of the oligarchy political system. They are through illegal means.

- Oligarchies: power is held by a few people. The key characteristic of an oligarchy is that
they rule for themselves. From the classic point of view was a corrupted system (as they did not
rule for the community, but for themselves).

- Dictatorships: (the Romans had that, not the Greeks. A dictator in roman terms is a person
holding absolute power. This figure did not exist in the Greek world, whereas for the Romans it
was a positive term). Today, a dictatorship is somebody holding absolute power, but it has a
negative connotation because it is linked to illegitimacy: a dictator achieves power through
illegal means. During Roman times, dictators were elected, chosen by the people during crisis.
They were legally appointed, being given the power for a reason: to save them. Dictator became
a word of opprobrium because of Julio Cesar; everybody thought that he was an emperor,
however he was kind of a dictator (and killed the Roman rights).

- *Aristocracy: The ideal system from the classic point of view was one ruled by an elite
chosen because of their intelligence: the best rule, being a few, but with the aim of common
wellness. Today aristocracy is referred to a social elite.

Authoritarian: power is accumulated, and liberties are constrained, but not in a total manner.

Franco’s government, as well as Hitler’s, were extremely authoritarian governments,

but not totalitarian.

Totalitarian: The aspiration of a government to hold total control over the lives of its citizens.
A regime that does not allow for autonomous space or freedom in civil society.

Nowadays, probably the closest example of a totalitarian regime would be North

Korea. Also, USSR just under Stalin (not the whole USSR though).

Greek Athenian democrats were very close to a totalitarian system.

POPULIST: Greek, Venezuela which was oligarchy but now is populist, PODEMOS, VOX.
Economy is related to democracy´s health. Example of Africa -> the “healthiest” democracy is
South Africa. You also need people with time, people whose entire lives are not consumed in
surviving and for that you need a quite strong economy. Places such as Athens faced several
situations that could have resulted in civil war, for that reason they decided to insert the
sortative measure, elect officials by lottery. Nowadays we can get rid of the Greeks; examples
macron-sortative and Podemos-agora.

Concepts as representative democracy, assemblies or radical democracy are basic and crucial
building tools to develop ideologies,

As long as there is one democratic country in the world, this one would be a threat to an
authoritarian one, and vice versa. They cannot tolerate each other. In the Melian Dialogue,
Thucydides talks about this: Athens would use its power just because it had it, and if not
accepted, the state would exterminate Melos.

Peloponnesian war: Athens(democracy) vs Sparta(oligarchy).

The internal dynamic within the Delian league was a cover for an empire, they thought that it
was in balance between Athens and the rest of powers. Athens finally got much of the places
thanks to it. The rest of cities were like polis. The made alliances of convenience. It was an
environment of constant change. The USA tried to make the same in Afghanistan the same as
they did in German, Japan and Iran: IMPOSE DEMOCRACY.
CITIZENSHIP:

- Group of people (cives, citizens) united by shared rights and obligations as stablished by law

- Operates in, defines what is, and regulates the “public sphere” (res publica)

- Acquired/ Birth right

- It can be lost (ostracism – Ostracon)

Citizenship is defined as a group of people (cives or citizens) united by shared rights and
obligations as established by Law, like a constitution. People who do not share these rights and
obligations do not form part of this citizenship or society. In past citizenships, women weren’t
allowed to have some of these rights, and merchants either. Today, illegal immigrants face a
similar exclusion. As before said, the rights and obligations of the people operate in and
regulates the “public sphere”. They are acquired by birth. It can also be lost, by the ostracism.

*Public space: a space of political freedom, as defined by the Greeks. However, what they
considered to be freedom within a society, we today would consider it to be close to totalitarian
models, as the main virtue for them, the Greeks, was the areté, the complete commitment to the
community. Then, how is it prevented that a country becomes an awful place such as a
totalitarian system, if general commitment is supported? By the law. The law stablished that
some spaces are free and protected from both, the government and civil society. The Greeks
never did this, as the dominant idea was arête; but they put the first stones towards that notion.

We, in Europe, are liberal democracies. The Greeks invented democracies, but they were
illiberal ones, prone to totalitarian systems. The liberal democracies hold certain
values higher than the proper democracies. These values are such as freedoms (of expression, of
reunion, of thought…). That creates a tension (between democracy and the values).

We don't talk about political communities, but political communities defined by the law, and
what makes a citizen is the law. This is what the Greeks created. We couldn't define them by
other means such as language, ethnic or religion.

When 19 century modern states started to create their political communities and build the
political buildings they looked back to the Greeks. Even Macron with the idea of a similar form
to vote as the Greeks or Podemos in the 15M with an assamblearian form of organizing politics.
State is always sustained with force. The Greeks made laws to make the use of force
whitewashed.

ATHENIAN RADICAL DEMOCRACY

Isonomy: equality of access to the law, regardless the economic or legal status everybody has
the same access to the law, equality access of the law. They did that to get the notion of keep the
peace and the community happy. They wouldn’t tolerate. We give a global protection as a group
in order to achieve individual equality and individual approve. When you get pregnant.

Isegory: equality of access to the world (in the agora). They wanted to influence the political
power. They wouldn’t tolerate awareness at the gods. Your comments aren’t protected, what
protect you is the.

Isocracy: POSITIVE FREEDOM, not absolute. Equality of access to power.

- Democracy: majority of people has access to vote. The law is twisted in favor of
democracy not for isocracy.
- Isocracy: everybody has access to power; it was an alternative of democracy.
They thought that isocracy was unfair. Democracy implies marginalized minorities,
ignoring the rights of the minority who hasn’t won the elections. No advanced country
can tolerate a full democratic system. Isocracy (designed to protect minorities) is a form
of negative freedom, whereas democracy is a form of positive freedom (rule of the
majority: collective). Within isocracies, because all individuals are sought to be the
same, some individuals need extra help so that in the end everyone is treated the same
way; therefore, isocracies move from the negative (individual) freedom towards the
positive (collective) one, in other to achieve equality and be able to go back to the
negative freedom (but this never happens critical race theory

Difference between a democracy and republic. Republic the head of state can’t be a king, the
state can’t be ruled by a king. Democracy can be ruled or not by a king, the head of state can be
a king

Lo que se busca es favorecer a los individuos usando positive freedom (medidas que favorezcan
a la población como grupo) para que así se ensalcen los derechos individuales. LEY ONT
(Votaciones) Se busca favorecer a las mayorías (Cataluña) dándole más representación.
What does freedom mean?
Benjamin Constant he makes a comparation between the Athenians and moderns used the term
“freedom”.
The Greeks used freedom as the ability to take part in some activity (policy for example). In the
last years: the capacity to act independent from government.
Freedom: radical nature of the notion in the presence of enslavement. Athenians live in a world
where you have to sacrifice everything for the community for freedom. It’s an individual thing,
you are free as anybody interferes you. Slave is unfreedom because they have no identity. Being
someone’s property was unfreedom. They didn’t mean what we mean nowadays. If you do the
military service, you were a freeman because you gave everything for the country.
-Positive Freedom: Positive freedom: Ancients. Collective. Greeks had a collective meaning of
freedom; it’s related to arête and virtue. They did that to protect themselves and the community.
Unfreedom: slavery. They understood themselves as a part of a whole. They looked for what
was best for the community. Nowadays it’s being challenged from the right to the left. EX:
VOX busca a sus votantes como miembros de un grupo: España, no como individuos. They
don’t see their electorates as individuals, they see as a part of a group. All nationalisms have this
point of view, they see us as a group. Ability to do something. Freedom TO. During the
pandemic we have been living under positive freedom. The Greeks were willing, and indeed did
it, to sacrifice the individual freedom in posh of the political freedom and the collective
interests.

-Negative Freedom: Moderns. Individual. Our notion of freedom is individual, because of the
liberalism and the American declaration of rights? Freedom FROM. We are not willing to
negotiate our individual freedom to have a powerful political power, we rather have a balance
between them (giving the first one more importance)

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OUR NOTION OF FREEDOM AND THE GREEKS

Having studied the concept of freedom in depth, as the Greeks understood it, we may now be
able to differentiate it from the concept of freedom that dominates our society, particularly,
western countries.
*In order to develop these ideas two text will be used as reference: “The freedom of the ancients
and the freedom of the moderns” by Benjamin Constants and “Positive and negative freedom”
by Isaiah Berlin.

The differences between the two ideas of freedom are multiple and complex, however, as a
starting point we may stablish the main difference in the idea that ancients conceived freedom as
something collective and moderns advocate for a individualistic point of view of the concept.
In ancient civilizations, dominated by the constant pressure of war and conquers, individualism
was not contemplated. Greeks understood that the failure of the community meant the loss of
any type of freedom they may previously had, individual or collective.

Being “free” within a collective or society implied that you were able to make decisions
regarding the issues that affected the whole community, such being able to participate in
political discussion, however, in favour of that you reject to your individual freedom since the
good of the community predominates over your personal interests.

Nowadays, this idea of collectiveness has almost disappeared in favour of individual freedom,
this is the view of freedom western democracies have nowadays and is based in the inviolable
rights of each person and its right to pursue individual dignity.

However, there are still some political forces or groups that find support and use the concept of
collective freedom in order to catch the attention of a specific group of people, this would be the
case of nationalist parties for instance.

As a matter of fact, it is important to say that no society can survive relaying only on, either
positive or negative freedom. A balance between them should be reached in order to protect
individual rights and dignity but limiting acts that may be carried out as a result of the exercise
of those rights in order to protect the community. A security network should be built that would
prevent the society from failing if this is attacked by external factors, if this network doesn’t
exist individual freedom would also be damaged since the state is, in most of the cases, the one
that protects the exercise of those rights as stablished in national legislation.

On the opposite to this believe, the current of liberalism believes in the idea that “shit happens”
and that everyone should take care of themselves. The supporters of this idea represent the
radicalization of the idea of individualism.

According to Samuel Huntington, politics tend to follow a cycle in which periods of

democratization are followed by periods of authorism, then return to democratization and so on.
This idea is the reflex of the war against illiberalism that has dominates Europe specially in the
last few centuries. Whenever the society becomes more radical in terms of liberalism and
advocates for more individual rights, authoritarian movements tend to emerge to “control the
masses” in order to secure the collectiveness.

*There is a third concept of freedom, introduced by the lecturer Lea Ypi, which is
gaining importance. This new concept stays between the two pre-existing ideas and
defines freedom as non-complete or non-absolute but as the capacity each person has
to realize itself and reach its own dignity.

Individual -> Public vs Private (Differences between public vs private space)

Collective -> State vs Civil Society ( State is vertical and violent, civil society is horizontal
and peaceful)
AFTER FIRST TERM EXAM

Pentecontaetia similar in terms of stability and instability to the Cold War, they were competing
but not fighting.

Themistocles was the one who created the power of Athens by creating the most powerful navy
of the world, but at some point he change bands to Persia.

We don’t know what happened with Cleisthenes, if he switched sides or he just died we don’t
really know.

Greek public life was suffused with scandals… one of the reasons Athenians had a free society.
They did not distinguish between private and public life. One of the sons of Pisistratus, gay,
provoked a scandal.

What happened is that Athenians redescribe history to “legalise” the system.

What we think is that Cleisthenes did not want to go to war with Persia and negotiated a peace
because he think Athens will lose. After it he disappears.

Sicilian Expedition a demagogue convinces the Athenians that they must conquer Sicilia in
other to become rich and win the war. The demagogue convinces them that is was beneficial.
The hall expedition died. The same happen to Athens repeatedly.

Which go to war better Democracy or Tyrannis? Which system is more peaceful?

Peace is not connected to political systems. Democracy can be extremely dangerous, because
people have a steak, people can feel offended; as well as they can feel pride. People in
democracies can be really influences, public opinion can be easily manipulated. Democracies
are run by public opinion, and they can be more manipulated than a group of experts that ruled a
Tyranni.

“People don’t go to war” is not true for democracies

Internal dissension combined with existence with different political systems

What are the lessons of Corcyra tell us about? Regarding Democracy, war and estasis

Ejercicio para clase el buscar info de lo que pasó

*

Thucydides devoted three chapters of the History of the Peloponnesian War to the civil war on
Corcyra, the modern Greek island of Corfu. The conflict in 427 BC pitted the oligarchs,
supporters of the league led by Sparta, against the demos, adherents of the alliance with Athens.
The two great powers eventually intervened. And, as Thucydides himself points out, from then
on it became customary, throughout the Peloponnesian War, that when civil war broke out, the
rich asked the Spartans for help and the people asked the Athenians for help. Both the Spartans
and the Athenians would come to the aid of the Spartans. The political and strategic interests of
the great powers have always played a role in civil wars or internal conflicts.
But the chapters on the confrontation between the oligarchs and the demos of Corcyra do not
limit themselves to pointing out this protagonism. Thucydides' discourse soon moves on to
another aspect of the internal conflicts: their effects on political language. During the conflict,
the historian points out, each side changed, in order to justify itself, the usual meaning of words.
Or, more precisely, it changed the way in which these words were used to evaluate the facts and
to describe the relationship of these facts to what is considered just.

The process of degradation of political language described by Thucydides has to do with the
self-interested manipulation of praise and vituperation for persuasive purposes. The language of
each side rewrites as praiseworthy what, according to a traditional assessment, might be
considered vituperative, and vice versa. And it does so in a city that is shown to be divided in
two, in a division that admits of neither remnants nor exceptions, because it is assumed to be a
situation in which everyone must not only take sides but must also praise or criticise according
to the side they have chosen, or else become a traitor or suspect. The fact that the procedure
described by Thucydides may seem so familiar invites us to wonder whether democracies that
do not disguise their conflictual and antagonistic dimension with false consensus are condemned
to mimic, as in a bad comedy, the old story of the degradation of language in civil wars.

When the Peloponnesian War spill out of control the civil wars did the same, therefore tyrannies
are better than ectasis. Having a state is better than ectasis.

Introduction to Peloponnesian War

Peloponnesian War: 3 key elements, Meaning of Power, Democracies at war, Types of

Conflicts

Timelapse
Draco-Solon-Pisistratus-Cleisthenes-Milthiades+Themistocles-Pentecontaetia…
Pentecontaetia finished and Pericles raised to power, the Argives from the city of Argos they
basically try Athenians to go to war against Sparta. Then Corinthians want to get Platea. At
some point Peloponnesian war started in Platea, Pericles decide they need a preventive war so
that they can win the war now not before (Germany in WW1 did a preventive). It was actually a
short of aggression for the part of Athenians. During the first months nothing important happen,
Spartans just tries to bother Athenians, but the pestilence appeared in Athens, this was the only
thing that did not go as plan as what Pericles think it happen before barricading after the city
walls.
Before the war spiral into a loss of control the population was socked after the dead of 1 out of 4
Athenians due to pestilence. After the experience of being barricade with a pestilence inside the
walls of a city, Athenians started to do things like not take prisoners but letting them die. During
the Athenian war it became at this point a real cruel war, as nowadays we understand cruelty at
it last and most radical form. And then we get to Melos and the Melian Dialogue.
Similarities between Athenians point of view in the dialogue with the Russian position in the
war of Ukraine
*complete info with the photocopies and the ppt of the presentation in class + what is realism
Relation between Greeks and Machiavelli -> he lives in a similar geopolitical or geographic
situation + the influences of having studied the classicals. Machiavelli has the defence of the
collective as an important point.

Can we separate power from moral? No, they are interconnected. You need to put morals at the
services of power, this is what Machiavelli said and in part what Pericles said
Both questions are connected
Why do we tolerate the state to have the monopoly of the POWER? absence of state will
suppose the freaking walking dead. Civilization is a tiny thing.
This has a relation with what happen in Corcyra.
*Lysander spartan general who takes over Athens in the Peloponnesian War and Braccidas.
Neither of them was a Spartiate citizen because both fathers were not spartiates. Lysander
wanted to become tyrant there was a completely change in the Spartan population.
*Cimon not educated not top 5 families, he became a demagogue, one of the ways responsible
for the Melian expedition, live a part morals. After it stablish the 30 tyrannis but Athenians do
not longer have tyrannies or oligarchies.
IR students to understand foreign policy must understand internal policy. The war between
Athens and Sparta was an existential war. Two types of war intermodal and intramodal (funeral
speech). Intramodal for example Spain vs US (both democracies) + (they are less important or
have less consequences) and Intermodal China vs US (two different political systems, a threat to
each other) or Cold War or Peloponnesian War + (they outcome of these conflicts are really
powerful or influential)
What the Greeks write is still relevant nowadays.
*How do the Greeks approach the war? They have a set of rules, which can be seen in the
Melian dialogue. Thucydides as the father of realism. The entire cold war was saw trough the
lens of Thucydides.
First key Point (P. War)  Sparta did not want to go to war, but their allies did (the Thebes
attack Platea). Major wars as WWI started due to small relevant nations. The Serbians did not
start the war directly but was the Black Hand with the assassination that caused the start of
WWI. Something similar to what happened to Sparta. Small states triggered a much larger
conflict.
Second key point= about Thucydides  POWER What is power? Military Power (realism
view) + Soft Power. The Pope and Xi Jim Ping are both powerful. There is not a clear definition
to this term. In short, power means do what you want and influence others to do what you want.
The Pope has zero tanks but still power, Xi Jim Ping has zero “respect” but still power; not only
because the tanks but they ruled the globalized economy.
Every great power in history look to justify their physical actions with “moral values”. The only
exception the Mongolian Empire. Thucydides understand this and it is saw in the Melian
dialogue. Or in the funeral oration, Pericles need to persuade Athenians that the war was
necessary (“There were fighting a war for democracy if they lose it was the end of democracy”
according to Pericles)
*Most prominent figures 14/15 century Martin Luther King
*What is a state? Bureaucratic org.
Some companies can favour the expansion of values. As Coca-Cola favour the expansion of
westerns American values. Halloween is another example of a commercial operation that makes
clear the hegemony of USA/Western values. Going to war with states that shared the same
values than you are more difficult.
Another example, every single agreement with USA during the Franco´s regime the Americans
include a cultural + values clause, as for example forcing Franco to open the doors of Spanish
cinema to Hollywood. Why the military troops did not follow the Franco´s regime  teachers
pointed out the reason is that this military where trained by the USA, the ones without contact
with Americans were the Civil Guards.
This dimension is nowadays the most important factor of IR and Political Foreign
Policy of states. The first to realize this was Thucydides who pointed out that
Peloponnesians war was an ideological war, and that soft power was also really important.
There is no intrinsic relation with democracies and peace, but this perception has its origins in
the Athenians. Melos island is a clear example which disproves this. Thucydides wrote that this
was the first reason why Athenians would lose the war.
Is USA an empire? What is an Empire?
A state which ruled over other people which is not citizens of the state. Americans could not
justify the creation of colonies to their people. They cannot whiten it, they were a colony in the
past and fought to expel the British.
Therefore, they have been forced to look for other options as cultural expansion. They are
basically a product of anti-European colonialism. Huge relation with inner politics and foreign
policies. For Europeans is not so difficult to make some things, “horrible ones” due to our pass
which influenced the inner politics. But for US is not the same the public opinion costed them
the lost in Vietnam, after the people was aware of the horrible things were happening in the
combat fields. To understand foreign policy, we need to understand internal
arrangements. First time this can be realized is the Peloponnesian War.
Stasis  civil war. Example of Corcyra of inner arrangements disequilibrium. War has its
own logic and once Corcyra feels into “stasis” politics ended and war started.
War has its own logic  when you mix this with internal conflict and the population awareness
for democracies war became really inflammable. Democracies are indeed more aggressive than
authoritarian regimes when war has reach to is own logic. For whom is more difficult to backed
from the Ukrainian War, Putin or Zelensky? Zelensky, for sure, he would probably need to
consult every freaking agreement as it is a demo country.
Authoritarian regimes are better avoiding the destruction of its own internal rules and
international rules.
*Demagogue = populist ≠ common interest (scapegoating, resentment). Tendency to have lost,
that’s why Hitler is consider as it and not Churchill. Churchill was defending the British
Empire, if he would lose, we would consider him a demagogue.
You need democracy as a scenario for demagogues, as the political system is ruled by the public
opinion.
The Roman used mixed government to counter demagogues. What the Roman
means is a mixed of the differentiated political systems of the Greeks, so a mixed between
aristocracy (government of a few), tyranny (government of one) and democracy
(Government of the majority). A mixed government mixed elements of the 3, some of
democracy, a large number of elements of the aristocracy and just a couple of the tranny.
Roman Government Forms:
- Consuls (power of one, = prime minister) they fear them, so they put a term limit; one year.
Then them would have their actions review. 2 Consuls = as prime minister + king (they can
“counterbalance” each other)
- Senate (they represent the few and were most of the power rested)
*Gracchi brothers the roman version of Solon and Cleisthenes
- Equivalent of a General Assembly, but with no power (Tribune of the plebs), give a voice to
the plebs. With very little power and elected. The office responsible to give a respond to
democratic means.
The Romans have a last political office that was the dictator (we have a misconception
semantical one nowadays between tyrants and dictators) = you suspend every other political
officer in times of emergency, giving total power to each better general.
This kind of things we have nowadays, with for example the state of emergency which indeed
suspended other kind of political powers. We nowadays have something similar to a mixed
government in the roman sense.
We allow one people to center power = executive (prime minister, president of gov)
Parliament = legislative (the people who is in the parliament is elected by the head of the
parties; Sanchez …)
Democracies died due to excessive, that’s what happen to Athens, Roman. Is Western
Democracies dying? We don’t really know but some BIG problems are raising that are really
worrying.
*Cleon  he lied to the Athenians in the full knowledge that the Athenians could lose, he was
not following the Athenians interest but their own interest, by reaching the power. He mastered
the resentment and using fear emotions. Particularly popular because he orders a couple of wars
and a extermination of the city of Mytilene (another example of the war involving into the evil
mode of the war that finally the path that the Peloponnesian war will take)
 Political Though on the War
Saint Thomas Aquinas
Saint Augustine
How the Romans and the Greeks develop a system of tabus on the Law, but we cannot consider
it a proper International Law. Greeks have some tabus on the war habits and actions, certain
limits that at the end both Greeks and Romans failed to respect in some cases. In continuous
seizure of a city was when this both civilizations go beyond their own limits. When this both
civilizations do not fight against their own, the enemy were considered barbarians (“subhuman
people”). So why the still maintain these rules with the barbarians? For two reason personal
interests by creating a system of rules that in case they were the ones losing they could also be
benefited for them and in order to, justifies their action to themselves.
We can connect this with the UN purpose, as its point is to stop wars between states. So why on
earth did US wanted to create the United Nations? The same purpose of the Greeks and the
Romans. States follow their interest although it is a subpart of morality what makes everything
justified.
Why powerful states allow an organization to limit in some way and in some points their
actions? The UN is an instrument. Although you are the most powerful state your actions are
limited by the organization. Creating international systems is in benefit of all the members.
Where we prefer to have Russia nowadays, in or outside the UN? With no doubt in the UN.
Can International Law be enforced no, so what is the point? Morally speaking no point, as it
cannot be enforced, however it is still useful and beneficial for all. Actual system based in 2
principles: ius in bellus and ius and bellum. International Law is volunteer and it’s still useful
as it is beneficial for all. International System is at the service of the powerful those who created
it and control it.
Origins of these both principles: Saint Thomas Aquinas + Saint Augustine (Lived during the fall
of the Roman Empire, a moment of great violence just compared with WWI and WWII, he was
Christian, and Christians began to think seriously on violence. He needs to justified the actions
of the roman empire against the barbarians, just the same that happen during the two great wars;
we go back to them.) “Thinkers” of ius ad bello. Importance of Calvinism (religion of the
rich not the poor as Christianism. Needed as capitalism activities were starting to appear;
religion to justificate some of the actions that triggered these origin of capitalism):
Predestination, specific brunch of calvinism (things happen because of god, not human action).
The protestant and the spirit of capitalism + Politics as a profession and as vocation = triggered
the change from the medieval era to the Renaissance
- ius in bello (International Humanitarian Law): during war. War must be
proportional (not be necrophiliac) (example is the first nuclear bomb, although it
seems unproportionally they make the numbers, and it was clearly proportional. WWI is
the last fair war.) (Why was so important the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and
not other extremely violent bombings as Dresden or Tokyo? The capability of one bomb
to do that kind of damage. They did not know what was going to have happened 100%.
Therefore, this doubt was not proportional. The second bomb was sent when the US
was aware the Japanese were talking about surrendering, so the second bomb has a
purpose; to send a message, to whom? The Soviet Union, as there was nothing stopping
them to continue beyond Berlin throughout whole Europe. Whit the second bomb
Moscow realised US has the power to fabricate regularly nuclear bombs, that they
have more than one and
 that they were willing to use them. So, the UURRSS stop his advanced in Europe, so
was the second bomb proportional? Yes, it enables the freedom of west Europe.) What
all of these saws is that the theory is clear, but that war has each one logic. War is
essentially disproportional, ius ad bello tries to make it more “nicely” more
proportional.

“Kill your enemy with love” said by Saint Augustine. You kill your enemy
because you have, not because odio; this is what avoid war from spinning

Enrich Fromm  Anatomía de la destructividad humana. 3 dimensions:

1. Violence (quick, rapid, vigorous application of force to someone of something. We
associated violence with a bad thing, because we linked with necrophilia. The act of
penetration in sex is violence. Normally, involves hurts but does not mean is bad)
2. Destruction (example: raped, it has a necrophiliac purpose. Destruction is intrinsic to
human live; humans need to destroy things. Destroy resources to make chairs for
example. If destructivement is done without necrophiliac purpose it is not necessarily
bad; “Kill your enemy with love”)
3. Necrophilia (example: arsonists, destruction for the shake of destruction)

Important to look the degradation, the different levels: for the professor the
unique historical example is the Operation Finale

- ius ad bellum: for/of war

What Justifies war?
In order to go to war, you have to declare it (give an ultimatum), second you need to have a
good cause and third you need to have the right intentions.
ius ad bellum consists of the rules of the UN Charter on the use of force. States may
therefore use force only in response to an armed attack (under Article 51) or with the
authorisation of the Security Council.

Both are complementary

On the other hand, "[t]he jus in bello consists of the numerous treaties, rules of customary
international law and general principles governing the conduct of force - whether lawful by
virtue of jus ad bellum or not". Special emphasis will be placed on the latter observation.
The fact that regardless of whether war is lawful under jus ad bellum or not, jus in bello
remains valid is fundamental because sometimes even if the justification for going to war is
lawful under the war is lawful under the UN Charter, the means used during the conflict are
not, and the state that committed such acts must answer before an international tribunal for
having violated international humanitarian law.
 Comparison between conflicts
1. First Iraqi War vs Second Iraqi War: the first one was not proportional, first one was ¿no?
declare expressively but Saddam Hussein make lots of threats (modern technology
makes a prior declaration mostly impossible if you declared the war, because then the
other will launch a preventive attack. It is however a very useful propaganda tool for the
country which has been attack, as no more “official” declarations of war), the cause of
the first ¿not? a good cause (just oil, but if we analyse the prior Iran-Iraq was Hussein
had indeed a point) and about the intentions in the first one was ¿not? (He wanted to
survive) legitimated. (that’s why the Muslim world approved the first US invasion)

The 3 tools that justify the war are useful in the theory not in the practice. Not
completely useless but it is important to know that reality is far from the theory. War is
not coherent it is a little bit more complex.

Similarities between the Funeral Oration and Lincoln´s Speech (PPT de Sandra)

Populism: thin or incomplete ideology (but a real ideology), cannot give respond to everything
as the full ideologies (liberalism or Marxism). A populist can model his ideology depending on
their objectives, necessity or …

They divided society in 2 group: the pure people and the corrupt elite, they say the do talk under
the general will of the pure virtuous people. And the third element are the exo- groups
(inmigrants for example), they are not corrupt but threats to the virtuous people. The problem is
not the exo-groups but the corrupt elites. You need the equation of the three groups. Exo-group
for VOX non-Christians for PODEMOS the Christians.

You see a populist and you can know it is a populist the key element is the common will the
define one and pursue this one. The only ones (talking about ideologies) with this similarity are
nationalism.

Demagoguery is what all politicians do (a person who lies), any ideology. Populist is a thing
ideology, demagoguery not. There are populist which are not demagogues. Populist don’t create
parties but rather movements, “they speak for the people” they wanted to be connected with the
people.

Key Words:

- Scape goats
- Exo-groups
- Charismatic leaders
- Right and left wing
- Divided society
- Easy answer to really complex problems
- THIN ideology
- Appeal to people  emotions
*Race is just cultural concept  that’s why Americans do not consider Finish people has
“white”, they cannot be white and communists.

Who is more African American Obama or Eminem? Eminem as he grew up in the African
American ghetto of Detroit, Obama is a product of white upper class American educational
result. The race is not a matter of color-skin but rather a matter of culture. Point of view of
critical racist theory analysts
PRESENTATIONS

1. Plato and the Mass Media

We should connect these ppt with what we talk about populism. Plato did not like art when it
tries to tell a “reality”.

No longer mass media- but segmentation (capacity of the new media to introduce easily
misinformation)

Walter Lipman

Frankfurt School – Habermas

The world of the mass media is gone., now we get the news from tik-tok or twitter You

cannot have Donald Trump without the Kardashian

2. How did the film industry evolve during the Spanish transitional period

*Autarchy

*Hegemony – Gramsci (“cultural, moral and ideological” leadership of a group over

allied and subaltern groups.)  dominance to the point that the violence is not necessary
to assert the political system.

Lorenzo Delgado + Antonio Niño

3. Sharia and Democracy (IMPORTANT)

They are not very democratic 3.84/10 but they spread the seats of the parliament very
democratically.

(Lebanon) they worry about interreligion strifes.

Certain interpretations of Islam are not compatible with democracy but not all of them.

Democracy means the majority of people, people vote. The democracy measures liberal values
not the actual democracy. People private sphere are somehow protected per group, in Iran only a
certain group of people

Saudi Arabia has a Wahabi government not Islamic (a conservative version of Islam). The
notion of modernization is very complex, it doesn’t not equal being better or more liberal or
more aligned with the western notion of human rights

4. Art during the Spanish Civil War

When art is determined by the political regime it lose all his legitimatization, as what
happened with the artist that backed the Franco´s regime

5. Why are right-wing populist parties successful?

Polarization of the politic sphere, along with the provocative language (link words with new
negative meanings: examples are MENA refugees). The discontent of the population
with democracy plus the national (first the national interests) vs international community are
two factors that make people attracted to this kind of ideologies.

6. Fascism through art

Fascism until the end was the way of the future it was a really powerful trend and even
fashionable, in those years what was uncool has been a liberal. Fascism was cool right up to the
end, same with communism. There is always a connection between art and politics, and this is
not a problem it is when we distort.

Connection with the power elites is lethal for the art or for other movements. The loose
legitimacy.