What do you think?
Rate this book
Liberalismo y democracia
Recuento histórico y filosófico-político acerca de los problemas derivados de la correlación entre el liberalismo y la democracia. Bobbio considera que la democracia es consecuencia directa del Estado liberal y sustenta que el Estado es el resultado de la fórmula de igualdad expresada en la soberanía popular.
115 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1985
18 people are currently reading
649 people want to read
About the author
Norberto Bobbio
168 books101 followersNorberto Bobbio was an Italian philosopher of law and political sciences and a historian of political thought. He also wrote regularly for the Turin-based daily La Stampa. Bobbio was a liberal socialist in the tradition of Piero Gobetti, Carlo Rosselli, Guido Calogero, and Aldo Capitini. He was also strongly influenced by Hans Kelsen and Vilfredo Pareto.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
February 10, 2023
Liberalismul se axează pe statul minimal sau de drept , refuzând "tirania majorității" si intervenția statului in domeniul privat.
Democrația încearcă să regeleze inegalitățile produse de liberalism si despotism.
Dar ambele promovează interesele individului acelea de libertate si egalitate.
Un muncitor pe o plantație nu este liber dacă a fost constrâns de măsuri inegale să ajungă acolo , chiar dacă "s-a dus de bunăvoie".
Democrația încearcă să regeleze inegalitățile produse de liberalism si despotism.
Dar ambele promovează interesele individului acelea de libertate si egalitate.
Un muncitor pe o plantație nu este liber dacă a fost constrâns de măsuri inegale să ajungă acolo , chiar dacă "s-a dus de bunăvoie".
January 11, 2024
ENGLISH
With his well-known clear, didactic and ultra-synthetic style, Norberto Bobbio tackles themes as vast as Liberalism and Democracy in this short work.
Very broad themes tend to be cruel to even the best authors. It happened to Stuart Mill in “On Liberty” (my review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). It couldn’t be different with Bobbio.
First of all, it is important to say that part of my discontent with this book is due to the lack of patience I have with topics on Law lately. Especially due to the way they are taught in law schools, at least in those with a Continental European tradition (I’m a legal professional): an almost complete disregard for the root of the social problems that generate demands from and for Law.
Liberalism and Democracy of course are not themes studied only in Law, but Bobbio takes them on in a way jurists and legal professionals usually do — hence my pet peeve with the book. Bobbio follows a deductive method of analysis, typical of jurists — in his case, a political philosopher. He starts out from broad premises, established ideas, to derive some smaller premises and then draw conclusions — when he does, since he often just presents two schools or more of thought on the issue. It is a logical, apparently hermetic method, almost immune to criticism. In general, however, a lot is lost along the way. This is where my feeling comes to a head that jurists in general sail on the sea of superficiality, looking only at the tip of the social iceberg, not being interested in the causes of social phenomena (as I wrote in the intro sentence on my Goodreads profile). In short, this is everything I have criticized in recent years.
It is true that big questions on the book's topic are addressed competently. Bobbio is undeniably a great author. However, the entire long “tour” that I have been taking among authors of liberalism, especially economic liberalism, since 2019, shows that Bobbio, at the same time as he follows a safe path — never going into too many details of the issues he analyzes —, makes a poor analysis in my view.
The book mentions en passant general ideas from some authors who dealt with the themes, such as Tocqueville, Stuart Mill, Hobbes, Montesquieu, Smith, Hayek and some Italian authors. Then, it faces two major questions that are worth commenting on here. Bobbio never gives his opinion in a clear and committed way, as is characteristic of him, although his entire mode of analysis reveals an inclination towards Liberalism:
(1) Are Liberalism and Democracy antagonistic (or “antithetical”)? This is an old discussion. Classical liberalism and Democracy were once seen as incongruous. On the one hand, democracy, granting political participation to the population (giving also rise to problems such as a “dictatorship of the majority”); on the other, liberalism, especially economic, preaching the guarantee of private property against the State and presupposing exclusion and inequality in the economic process. Said antagonism came back to the fore with the discussion about neoliberalism. In “Globalists” (my review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), Quinn Slobodian portrays the issue well. He points out that Hayek, for example, embraced the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in Chile in the name of applying liberal policies in the Economy. One should note that Stuart Mill, who always exalted the virtues of Representative Democracy and laissez-faire, had already posited that the best form of government for “backward”, “uncivilized” societies was enlightened despotism. History, however, has proven that a system of liberal democracy is possible. This is what most Western countries experience today. Whether it is the best system to bring about prosperity that’s another story.
(2) Does democracy favor ungovernability? This topic has never stopped being hot, but it gets hotter every day. Democracy would suffer from the evils of inefficiency and ineffectiveness, given the problem of “overload” to which Bobbio alludes: many social demands remain unresolved due to the slowness and complexity of decision-making, as many sides must be heard. Some claim that US democracy took centuries to lead the country to prosperity, while the Chinese autocratic system was able to catch up to the US in just over 40 years, from the moment it began reforms aimed at economic development.
All of these topics are broad enough for endless discussions. This book is, however, a good weekend read, although I wouldn't accept wasting more time than that with this type of approach.
PORTUGUÊS
Com seu conhecido estilo claro, didático e ultra-sintético, Norberto Bobbio enfrenta nesta obra curta temas vastos como Liberalismo e Democracia.
Temas muito amplos costumam ser cruéis até com os melhores autores. Aconteceu com Stuart Mill em “On Liberty” (minha resenha aqui: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). Dificilmente não aconteceria com Bobbio.
Primeiro de tudo, é importante dizer que parte da minha má vontade com este livro se dá pela falta de paciência que eu tenho com temas de Direito ultimamente. Especialmente pela forma como eles são ensinados nas faculdades, ao menos naquelas de tradição Europeia Continental (eu sendo um profissional do Direito): um quase completo desapreço pela raiz dos problemas sociais que geram demandas de e por Direito.
É claro que Liberalismo e Democracia não são temas estudados apenas no Direito, mas Bobbio os aborda como costumam fazer os juristas e profissionais do Direito — daí a minha implicância com o livro. Bobbio segue um método de análise dedutivo, típico de juristas — no caso dele, um filósofo político. Ele parte de premissas amplas, ideias postas, para derivar algumas premissas menores e então tecer conclusões — quando o faz, já que muitas vezes ele apenas apresenta duas correntes ou mais de pensamento acerca da questão. É um método lógico, aparentemente hermético, quase imune a críticas. Em geral, porém, perde-se muita coisa no meio do caminho. Aqui chega ao máximo a minha sensação de que juristas em geral navegam sobre o mar da superficialidade, olhando apenas para a ponta do iceberg social, não se interessando pelas causas dos fenômenos sociais (conforme escrevi como frase de entrada no meu perfil do Goodreads). Em síntese, trata-se de tudo o que eu tenho criticado nos últimos anos.
É verdade que grandes questões sobre o tema do livro são endereçadas de forma competente. Bobbio é inegavelmente um grande autor. Todo o longo “passeio” que tenho feito entre autores do liberalismo, especialmente o econômico, desde 2019, porém, mostra que Bobbio ao mesmo tempo em que segue um caminho seguro — nunca descer a muitos pormenores das questões que analisa —, realiza uma análise pobre.
O livro menciona en passant ideias gerais de alguns autores que trataram dos temas, como Tocqueville, Stuart Mill, Hobbes, Montesquieu, Smith, Hayek e alguns autores italianos. Depois, enfrenta duas grandes questões que valem a pena comentar aqui. Bobbio jamais opina de maneira clara e comprometida, também como é sua característica, embora todo o seu modo de análise revele a inclinação para o Liberalismo:
(1) Liberalismo e Democracia são antagônicos (ou “antitéticos”)? Trata-se de uma discussão antiga. Liberalismo clássico e Democracia já foram vistos sim como incongruentes. De um lado, a democracia, conferindo participação política à maioria da população (e gerando também questões como eventual “ditadura da maioria”); de outro, o liberalismo, especialmente econômico, que prega a garantia da propriedade privada contra o Estado e que pressupõe exclusão e desigualdade no processo econômico. O dito antagonismo voltou à baila com a discussão sobre o neoliberalismo. Em “Globalists” (minha resenha aqui: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), Quinn Slobodian retrata bem a questão. Ele destaca que Hayek, por exemplo, abraçou a ditadura de Augusto Pinochet no Chile em nome da aplicação de políticas liberais na Economia. Note-se que Stuart Mill, que sempre exaltou as virtudes da democracia representativa e do laissez-faire, já tinha postulado que a melhor forma de governo para sociedades “atrasadas” e “incivilizadas” era o despotismo esclarecido. A História, porém, provou que um sistema de democracia liberal é possível. É o que a maioria dos países ocidentais vive hoje. Se é o melhor sistema para trazer prosperidade já é uma outra história.
(2) A democracia favorece a ingovernabilidade? Este tema nunca deixou de ser quente, mas esquenta cada dia mais. A democracia padeceria dos males da ineficiência e ineficácia, dado o problema da “sobrecarga” a que alude Bobbio: muitas demandas sociais ficam sem solução pela morosidade e complexidade de tomada de decisão, já que muitos lados precisam ser ouvidos. Alguns alegam que a democracia dos EUA demorou séculos para levar o país à prosperidade, enquanto o sistema autocrático chinês estaria conseguindo alcançar os EUA em pouco mais de 40 anos, a partir do momento em que deu início a reformas voltadas ao desenvolvimento econômico.
Todos esses temas são amplos o suficiente para discussões intermináveis. Trata-se, no entanto, de uma boa leitura de fim de semana, embora eu não aceitasse perder mais tempo do que isso com esse tipo de abordagem.
With his well-known clear, didactic and ultra-synthetic style, Norberto Bobbio tackles themes as vast as Liberalism and Democracy in this short work.
Very broad themes tend to be cruel to even the best authors. It happened to Stuart Mill in “On Liberty” (my review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). It couldn’t be different with Bobbio.
First of all, it is important to say that part of my discontent with this book is due to the lack of patience I have with topics on Law lately. Especially due to the way they are taught in law schools, at least in those with a Continental European tradition (I’m a legal professional): an almost complete disregard for the root of the social problems that generate demands from and for Law.
Liberalism and Democracy of course are not themes studied only in Law, but Bobbio takes them on in a way jurists and legal professionals usually do — hence my pet peeve with the book. Bobbio follows a deductive method of analysis, typical of jurists — in his case, a political philosopher. He starts out from broad premises, established ideas, to derive some smaller premises and then draw conclusions — when he does, since he often just presents two schools or more of thought on the issue. It is a logical, apparently hermetic method, almost immune to criticism. In general, however, a lot is lost along the way. This is where my feeling comes to a head that jurists in general sail on the sea of superficiality, looking only at the tip of the social iceberg, not being interested in the causes of social phenomena (as I wrote in the intro sentence on my Goodreads profile). In short, this is everything I have criticized in recent years.
It is true that big questions on the book's topic are addressed competently. Bobbio is undeniably a great author. However, the entire long “tour” that I have been taking among authors of liberalism, especially economic liberalism, since 2019, shows that Bobbio, at the same time as he follows a safe path — never going into too many details of the issues he analyzes —, makes a poor analysis in my view.
The book mentions en passant general ideas from some authors who dealt with the themes, such as Tocqueville, Stuart Mill, Hobbes, Montesquieu, Smith, Hayek and some Italian authors. Then, it faces two major questions that are worth commenting on here. Bobbio never gives his opinion in a clear and committed way, as is characteristic of him, although his entire mode of analysis reveals an inclination towards Liberalism:
(1) Are Liberalism and Democracy antagonistic (or “antithetical”)? This is an old discussion. Classical liberalism and Democracy were once seen as incongruous. On the one hand, democracy, granting political participation to the population (giving also rise to problems such as a “dictatorship of the majority”); on the other, liberalism, especially economic, preaching the guarantee of private property against the State and presupposing exclusion and inequality in the economic process. Said antagonism came back to the fore with the discussion about neoliberalism. In “Globalists” (my review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), Quinn Slobodian portrays the issue well. He points out that Hayek, for example, embraced the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in Chile in the name of applying liberal policies in the Economy. One should note that Stuart Mill, who always exalted the virtues of Representative Democracy and laissez-faire, had already posited that the best form of government for “backward”, “uncivilized” societies was enlightened despotism. History, however, has proven that a system of liberal democracy is possible. This is what most Western countries experience today. Whether it is the best system to bring about prosperity that’s another story.
(2) Does democracy favor ungovernability? This topic has never stopped being hot, but it gets hotter every day. Democracy would suffer from the evils of inefficiency and ineffectiveness, given the problem of “overload” to which Bobbio alludes: many social demands remain unresolved due to the slowness and complexity of decision-making, as many sides must be heard. Some claim that US democracy took centuries to lead the country to prosperity, while the Chinese autocratic system was able to catch up to the US in just over 40 years, from the moment it began reforms aimed at economic development.
All of these topics are broad enough for endless discussions. This book is, however, a good weekend read, although I wouldn't accept wasting more time than that with this type of approach.
PORTUGUÊS
Com seu conhecido estilo claro, didático e ultra-sintético, Norberto Bobbio enfrenta nesta obra curta temas vastos como Liberalismo e Democracia.
Temas muito amplos costumam ser cruéis até com os melhores autores. Aconteceu com Stuart Mill em “On Liberty” (minha resenha aqui: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...). Dificilmente não aconteceria com Bobbio.
Primeiro de tudo, é importante dizer que parte da minha má vontade com este livro se dá pela falta de paciência que eu tenho com temas de Direito ultimamente. Especialmente pela forma como eles são ensinados nas faculdades, ao menos naquelas de tradição Europeia Continental (eu sendo um profissional do Direito): um quase completo desapreço pela raiz dos problemas sociais que geram demandas de e por Direito.
É claro que Liberalismo e Democracia não são temas estudados apenas no Direito, mas Bobbio os aborda como costumam fazer os juristas e profissionais do Direito — daí a minha implicância com o livro. Bobbio segue um método de análise dedutivo, típico de juristas — no caso dele, um filósofo político. Ele parte de premissas amplas, ideias postas, para derivar algumas premissas menores e então tecer conclusões — quando o faz, já que muitas vezes ele apenas apresenta duas correntes ou mais de pensamento acerca da questão. É um método lógico, aparentemente hermético, quase imune a críticas. Em geral, porém, perde-se muita coisa no meio do caminho. Aqui chega ao máximo a minha sensação de que juristas em geral navegam sobre o mar da superficialidade, olhando apenas para a ponta do iceberg social, não se interessando pelas causas dos fenômenos sociais (conforme escrevi como frase de entrada no meu perfil do Goodreads). Em síntese, trata-se de tudo o que eu tenho criticado nos últimos anos.
É verdade que grandes questões sobre o tema do livro são endereçadas de forma competente. Bobbio é inegavelmente um grande autor. Todo o longo “passeio” que tenho feito entre autores do liberalismo, especialmente o econômico, desde 2019, porém, mostra que Bobbio ao mesmo tempo em que segue um caminho seguro — nunca descer a muitos pormenores das questões que analisa —, realiza uma análise pobre.
O livro menciona en passant ideias gerais de alguns autores que trataram dos temas, como Tocqueville, Stuart Mill, Hobbes, Montesquieu, Smith, Hayek e alguns autores italianos. Depois, enfrenta duas grandes questões que valem a pena comentar aqui. Bobbio jamais opina de maneira clara e comprometida, também como é sua característica, embora todo o seu modo de análise revele a inclinação para o Liberalismo:
(1) Liberalismo e Democracia são antagônicos (ou “antitéticos”)? Trata-se de uma discussão antiga. Liberalismo clássico e Democracia já foram vistos sim como incongruentes. De um lado, a democracia, conferindo participação política à maioria da população (e gerando também questões como eventual “ditadura da maioria”); de outro, o liberalismo, especialmente econômico, que prega a garantia da propriedade privada contra o Estado e que pressupõe exclusão e desigualdade no processo econômico. O dito antagonismo voltou à baila com a discussão sobre o neoliberalismo. Em “Globalists” (minha resenha aqui: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...), Quinn Slobodian retrata bem a questão. Ele destaca que Hayek, por exemplo, abraçou a ditadura de Augusto Pinochet no Chile em nome da aplicação de políticas liberais na Economia. Note-se que Stuart Mill, que sempre exaltou as virtudes da democracia representativa e do laissez-faire, já tinha postulado que a melhor forma de governo para sociedades “atrasadas” e “incivilizadas” era o despotismo esclarecido. A História, porém, provou que um sistema de democracia liberal é possível. É o que a maioria dos países ocidentais vive hoje. Se é o melhor sistema para trazer prosperidade já é uma outra história.
(2) A democracia favorece a ingovernabilidade? Este tema nunca deixou de ser quente, mas esquenta cada dia mais. A democracia padeceria dos males da ineficiência e ineficácia, dado o problema da “sobrecarga” a que alude Bobbio: muitas demandas sociais ficam sem solução pela morosidade e complexidade de tomada de decisão, já que muitos lados precisam ser ouvidos. Alguns alegam que a democracia dos EUA demorou séculos para levar o país à prosperidade, enquanto o sistema autocrático chinês estaria conseguindo alcançar os EUA em pouco mais de 40 anos, a partir do momento em que deu início a reformas voltadas ao desenvolvimento econômico.
Todos esses temas são amplos o suficiente para discussões intermináveis. Trata-se, no entanto, de uma boa leitura de fim de semana, embora eu não aceitasse perder mais tempo do que isso com esse tipo de abordagem.
December 6, 2008
"It all comes down to the individual," as my dad would say.
I wanted to gain some clarity about liberalism in light of the recent election, so I picked up this book.
Bobbio's 'Liberalism and Democracy' is an insightful overview of the anglo-european liberal tradition and the basic contours of its thought. It locates liberalism's origin in a need for the radical aristocracy and the rising capitalist class to intellectually frame their opposition to feudalism and the monarchy. How do you out-king a king? By inventing 'self evident' 'Natural' rights of the individual (at least, certain KINDS of individuals). Bobbio then uses conceptions of 'liberalism' and 'democracy' to trace a major schism in liberal thought in light of its new experiences in power. Throughout, Bobbio dialectically relates liberalism to its central contradiction: individual liberty lends itself to democratic impulses. In the hands of a mass, these democratic interests challenge private liberties, like those associated with private property, and gradually undermine the entire liberal project. Bobbio concedes that revolutionary socialism may be the historic solution of this dilemma.
It is outside the purview of Bobbio's dense short chapters, however it is clarifying to view today's conservative wing of US politics as "classical liberals" in that they see a minimum role for the state outside of securing the interests of private property (a gigantic task on its own, e.g. the military, police, prisons, etc). This relates to a view of social reality where 'society', as Margaret Thatcher infamously claimed, does not exist. There are merely individuals, families, & nations at liberty is reflected in 'the free market', thus identifying democracy with capitalism. Such 'liberty' is protected by limiting the state's role in the face of actual democratic pressure. Hence, 'neoliberalism'. It is worth noting that the minority who push this approach usually have shitloads of money to protect from a majority vested in far more radical forms of liberty.
Those referred to in the US today as 'liberals' also proceed from a view of individuals as the basic political unit. However, this wing acknowledges the reality of a social whole and the necessity, even desirability, for individuals to regulate that overall association for 'the common good' of the individuals concerned. This is a 'democratic liberalism' with egalitarian concerns for at least formal political equality. Economic relations can be considered, although separately & governed by this political premise. Hence the mantra for merely 'equality of opportunity' and not equality in fact. This wing of liberalism is only relevent in the face of such tension. This is why the Democrats are US Capital's 'Team B': they can digest progressive social movements handily while keeping the overall system going. It is also why they 'flip-flop', alienate their base, and get thrown out again.
Interestingly, anarchism also emerges from this tradition as an artisan/peasant response to pressures of the rising bourgeois order. It has it's conservative reflection in what the US calls 'libertarianism'. The progressive anarchist wing is a radical form of social liberalism that stresses the sovereignty of the individual & a minimalist state (i.e. none) with collective struggle. It is a dead end, however, even in its most revolutionary 'anarcho-syndicalist' form. It's anti-authoritarianism has no material basis -no scientific justification- to privilege individual liberty over democratic collectivity. Anarchism seems to stand on the same imagined 'self evident' 'Natural Laws' that informed liberalism's revolutionary period. If you're atomized, this will make perfect sense. However, consistently employing an anarchist approach will not be able to decisively transform the social conditions of individual atomization.
One shortcoming of 'Liberalism and Democracy' is that it traces an ideological history without much material account to back it up. It doesn't suffer from this as, knowing some history, i believe his main arguments are correct. But a reader without historical context could easily imbibe an idealist (in the philosophical sense) account of historical change. I don't know of a work that has traced the development of 'liberalism' in a historical materialist manner. One of the questions that remains for me is how applicable is this analysis when applied outside of europe & the US? What does liberalism mean in Africa, for example? Is the tension Bobbio describes why so many liberals i meet seem politically neurotic? Is this why i suck at "guitar hero"?
I guess it all depends on the individual.
I wanted to gain some clarity about liberalism in light of the recent election, so I picked up this book.
Bobbio's 'Liberalism and Democracy' is an insightful overview of the anglo-european liberal tradition and the basic contours of its thought. It locates liberalism's origin in a need for the radical aristocracy and the rising capitalist class to intellectually frame their opposition to feudalism and the monarchy. How do you out-king a king? By inventing 'self evident' 'Natural' rights of the individual (at least, certain KINDS of individuals). Bobbio then uses conceptions of 'liberalism' and 'democracy' to trace a major schism in liberal thought in light of its new experiences in power. Throughout, Bobbio dialectically relates liberalism to its central contradiction: individual liberty lends itself to democratic impulses. In the hands of a mass, these democratic interests challenge private liberties, like those associated with private property, and gradually undermine the entire liberal project. Bobbio concedes that revolutionary socialism may be the historic solution of this dilemma.
It is outside the purview of Bobbio's dense short chapters, however it is clarifying to view today's conservative wing of US politics as "classical liberals" in that they see a minimum role for the state outside of securing the interests of private property (a gigantic task on its own, e.g. the military, police, prisons, etc). This relates to a view of social reality where 'society', as Margaret Thatcher infamously claimed, does not exist. There are merely individuals, families, & nations at liberty is reflected in 'the free market', thus identifying democracy with capitalism. Such 'liberty' is protected by limiting the state's role in the face of actual democratic pressure. Hence, 'neoliberalism'. It is worth noting that the minority who push this approach usually have shitloads of money to protect from a majority vested in far more radical forms of liberty.
Those referred to in the US today as 'liberals' also proceed from a view of individuals as the basic political unit. However, this wing acknowledges the reality of a social whole and the necessity, even desirability, for individuals to regulate that overall association for 'the common good' of the individuals concerned. This is a 'democratic liberalism' with egalitarian concerns for at least formal political equality. Economic relations can be considered, although separately & governed by this political premise. Hence the mantra for merely 'equality of opportunity' and not equality in fact. This wing of liberalism is only relevent in the face of such tension. This is why the Democrats are US Capital's 'Team B': they can digest progressive social movements handily while keeping the overall system going. It is also why they 'flip-flop', alienate their base, and get thrown out again.
Interestingly, anarchism also emerges from this tradition as an artisan/peasant response to pressures of the rising bourgeois order. It has it's conservative reflection in what the US calls 'libertarianism'. The progressive anarchist wing is a radical form of social liberalism that stresses the sovereignty of the individual & a minimalist state (i.e. none) with collective struggle. It is a dead end, however, even in its most revolutionary 'anarcho-syndicalist' form. It's anti-authoritarianism has no material basis -no scientific justification- to privilege individual liberty over democratic collectivity. Anarchism seems to stand on the same imagined 'self evident' 'Natural Laws' that informed liberalism's revolutionary period. If you're atomized, this will make perfect sense. However, consistently employing an anarchist approach will not be able to decisively transform the social conditions of individual atomization.
One shortcoming of 'Liberalism and Democracy' is that it traces an ideological history without much material account to back it up. It doesn't suffer from this as, knowing some history, i believe his main arguments are correct. But a reader without historical context could easily imbibe an idealist (in the philosophical sense) account of historical change. I don't know of a work that has traced the development of 'liberalism' in a historical materialist manner. One of the questions that remains for me is how applicable is this analysis when applied outside of europe & the US? What does liberalism mean in Africa, for example? Is the tension Bobbio describes why so many liberals i meet seem politically neurotic? Is this why i suck at "guitar hero"?
I guess it all depends on the individual.
January 27, 2019
Na edição que li há uma introdução bastante volumosa, se levarmos em consideração o tamanho do resto da obra, escrita por um tal de Franco Manni. Esta introdução rasteja no lodo da literatura mais panfletária e pobre possível, simplificando questões complexas, rasgando elogios a aliados políticos, oferecendo interpretações da história que parecem escritas por um adolescente liberal de facebook.
É triste que a Edipro tenha escolhido este texto para abrir a obra, dado que o que Bobbio escreve é muito mais centrado e autocrítico. Os pontos mais interessantes da obra são justamente quando o autor aponta a distância entre como os conceitos se desenvolvem na prática e na teoria. Lembro bem do comentário de que historicamente é o processo de perda do poder real inglês que abre brechas para se impor limites ao poder soberano, enquanto na teoria os contratualistas sustentam que os direitos naturais e a sociedade formada pelo contrato de indivíduos foram instituições que sempre existiram.
Bobbio também não planeja dizer que a relação entre democracia e liberalismo foi sempre natural. Pelo contrário, a obra termina apontando que há um conflito perene entre essas duas posições. Que se aproximaram, segundo o autor, para combater inimigos maiores como o facismo e o socialismo.
Bobbio é bastante ponderado quando trata-se de falar do liberalismo. Não o constrói como uma chave de solução universal, mas mostra o quanto internamente existem múltiplas posições acerca de como controlar o Estado, dos benefícios de um governo popular, etc. Sua opinião contra o socialismo recaí sobremaneira na forma como ele foi desenvolvido na realidade. E sua posição a favor do liberalismo parece se fundar no repúdio a qualquer tipo de paternalismo, as diferenças devem ser incentivadas no sistema. Mesmo que a custa de ferir a igualdade.
É triste que a Edipro tenha escolhido este texto para abrir a obra, dado que o que Bobbio escreve é muito mais centrado e autocrítico. Os pontos mais interessantes da obra são justamente quando o autor aponta a distância entre como os conceitos se desenvolvem na prática e na teoria. Lembro bem do comentário de que historicamente é o processo de perda do poder real inglês que abre brechas para se impor limites ao poder soberano, enquanto na teoria os contratualistas sustentam que os direitos naturais e a sociedade formada pelo contrato de indivíduos foram instituições que sempre existiram.
Bobbio também não planeja dizer que a relação entre democracia e liberalismo foi sempre natural. Pelo contrário, a obra termina apontando que há um conflito perene entre essas duas posições. Que se aproximaram, segundo o autor, para combater inimigos maiores como o facismo e o socialismo.
Bobbio é bastante ponderado quando trata-se de falar do liberalismo. Não o constrói como uma chave de solução universal, mas mostra o quanto internamente existem múltiplas posições acerca de como controlar o Estado, dos benefícios de um governo popular, etc. Sua opinião contra o socialismo recaí sobremaneira na forma como ele foi desenvolvido na realidade. E sua posição a favor do liberalismo parece se fundar no repúdio a qualquer tipo de paternalismo, as diferenças devem ser incentivadas no sistema. Mesmo que a custa de ferir a igualdade.
September 21, 2017
Neat, short, and tightly argued book on the history of the sometimes fraught but mostly benignant relationship between liberalism and democracy.
Want to read
May 19, 2023เสรีนิยมกับประชาธิปไตย (Liberalism and Democracy) เขียนโดยนอร์แบร์โต บ๊อบบิโอ (Norberto Bobbio) นักปรัชญาการเมืองชาวอิตาลี ; แปลโดยเกษียร เตชะพีระ ศาสตราจารย์ประจำคณะรัฐศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์
.
เป็นเล่มที่อ่านยาก แต่เนื้อหาก็สั้นกระชับ และที่สำคัญคือเนื้อหาดีมาก ๆ
.
เราอาจเคยได้ยินคำว่าเสรีนิยม/ประชาธิปไตยถูกพูดถึงในหลายวาระในหลายที่ บางคนบางครั้งก็ใช้แทนกันราวกับมันเป็นคำเดียวกัน. แต่จริง ๆ แล้วมันคืออะไร มันต่างกันยังไง ทำไมถึงแยกกันเป็นคนละคำ แล้วมันมักมาอยู่เคียงคู่ประกบข้างกันได้ยังไง
.
ในขณะที่เสรีนิยมเรียกร้องให้รัฐปกครองให้น้อยที่สุดและประชาธิปไตยเรียกร้องให้รัฐอยู่ภายใต้การปกครองของประชาชนให้มากที่สุด ด้านหนึ่งเสรีนิยมกับประชาธิปไตยก็อาจขัดแย้งกันเองถ้าหากฝ่ายหนึ่งฝ่ายใดดำเนินการตามข้อเรียนร้องของตนแบบสุดโต่ง
.
แต่ในอีกด้านหนึ่ง หากมีระบอบการปกครองใดที่ใช้อำนาจไร้ขีดจำกัดหรือไม่รับผิดชอบต่อส่วนรวม เมื่อเกิดการปกครองแบบนั้นขึ้น เสรีนิยมกับประชาธิปไตยที่ลึก ๆ แตกต่างกันก็อาจกลายเป็นพันธมิตรมาร่วมมือกันได้
.
ในบทแรกๆจะพูดถึงแนวคิดเสรีนิยมกับประชาธิปไตยว่าคืออะไร มีพัฒนาการจากอดีตถึงปัจจุบันยังไง มีลักษณ์เด่นยึดถือคุณค่าอะไร มีจุดร่วม จุดต่าง จุดพึ่งพากัน และจุดแย้งกันยังไง
.
ในบทหลัง ๆ ยังพูดถึงแนวคิดทางการเมืองต่าง ๆ อย่างชาตินิยม สังคมนิยม เสรีนิยมใหม่ และอำนาจนิยม ว่ามีผลอย่างไรต่อเสรีนิยมกับประชาธิปไตยด้วย
.
ในความเห็นส่วนตัวของข้าพเจ้า (ซึ่งทุกท่านสามารถร่วมถกเถียงได้) อ่านแล้วหากนำมาประยุกต์มองการเมืองไทยอาจทำให้เห็นปัญหาทรราชย์ของเสียงข้างมากในสมัยรัฐบาลทักษิณ อาจเห็นนักเสรีนิยมกับนักประชาธิปไตยปะทะกันในความขัดแย้งเหลือง-แดง และอาจเห็นการปะทะกันระหว่างปัจเจกนิยมกับอินทรีย์นิยมในสมัยรัฐบาลประยุทธ์
.
เป็นเล่มที่อ่านยาก แต่เนื้อหาก็สั้นกระชับ และที่สำคัญคือเนื้อหาดีมาก ๆ
.
เราอาจเคยได้ยินคำว่าเสรีนิยม/ประชาธิปไตยถูกพูดถึงในหลายวาระในหลายที่ บางคนบางครั้งก็ใช้แทนกันราวกับมันเป็นคำเดียวกัน. แต่จริง ๆ แล้วมันคืออะไร มันต่างกันยังไง ทำไมถึงแยกกันเป็นคนละคำ แล้วมันมักมาอยู่เคียงคู่ประกบข้างกันได้ยังไง
.
ในขณะที่เสรีนิยมเรียกร้องให้รัฐปกครองให้น้อยที่สุดและประชาธิปไตยเรียกร้องให้รัฐอยู่ภายใต้การปกครองของประชาชนให้มากที่สุด ด้านหนึ่งเสรีนิยมกับประชาธิปไตยก็อาจขัดแย้งกันเองถ้าหากฝ่ายหนึ่งฝ่ายใดดำเนินการตามข้อเรียนร้องของตนแบบสุดโต่ง
.
แต่ในอีกด้านหนึ่ง หากมีระบอบการปกครองใดที่ใช้อำนาจไร้ขีดจำกัดหรือไม่รับผิดชอบต่อส่วนรวม เมื่อเกิดการปกครองแบบนั้นขึ้น เสรีนิยมกับประชาธิปไตยที่ลึก ๆ แตกต่างกันก็อาจกลายเป็นพันธมิตรมาร่วมมือกันได้
.
ในบทแรกๆจะพูดถึงแนวคิดเสรีนิยมกับประชาธิปไตยว่าคืออะไร มีพัฒนาการจากอดีตถึงปัจจุบันยังไง มีลักษณ์เด่นยึดถือคุณค่าอะไร มีจุดร่วม จุดต่าง จุดพึ่งพากัน และจุดแย้งกันยังไง
.
ในบทหลัง ๆ ยังพูดถึงแนวคิดทางการเมืองต่าง ๆ อย่างชาตินิยม สังคมนิยม เสรีนิยมใหม่ และอำนาจนิยม ว่ามีผลอย่างไรต่อเสรีนิยมกับประชาธิปไตยด้วย
.
ในความเห็นส่วนตัวของข้าพเจ้า (ซึ่งทุกท่านสามารถร่วมถกเถียงได้) อ่านแล้วหากนำมาประยุกต์มองการเมืองไทยอาจทำให้เห็นปัญหาทรราชย์ของเสียงข้างมากในสมัยรัฐบาลทักษิณ อาจเห็นนักเสรีนิยมกับนักประชาธิปไตยปะทะกันในความขัดแย้งเหลือง-แดง และอาจเห็นการปะทะกันระหว่างปัจเจกนิยมกับอินทรีย์นิยมในสมัยรัฐบาลประยุทธ์
May 20, 2025
Short, pretty succinct introduction to the history of political thought around liberalism and democracy. Found jt pretty illuminating in the sense that I’ve always taken for granted that liberalism is necessary for democracy and vice versa especially given we live in a capitalist society, so liberalism in my view has diverged from its traditional political liberalism definition to economic liberalism, but Bobbio does a good job in pointing out how there are aspects within each which are inimical to each other, creating this pretty complicated relationship. Liberalism sees the state as a necessary evil which demands that power of the state should be limited only to protect an individuals rights, whereas democracy demands that the power should be distributed. So democracy can override liberalism fairly easily with its focus on egalitarianism and tyranny of the majority, and liberalism can overtake democracy pretty easily with a benevolent dictator. He makes a point that the relationship between the two is this clash between two conceptions of liberty: negative vs positive liberty which i think really just about sums it up
One thing which i will continue thinking on is he raises the point that the theory of natural rights is foundational to the entire theory of liberalism. But like the theory of natural rights was literally just locke in his peasantcore era, so like why are we all collectively accepting this idea? Should no one have rights?
One thing which i will continue thinking on is he raises the point that the theory of natural rights is foundational to the entire theory of liberalism. But like the theory of natural rights was literally just locke in his peasantcore era, so like why are we all collectively accepting this idea? Should no one have rights?
May 26, 2025
Un análisis bien explicado y simple sobre los dos conceptos enunciados en el título. Partiendo de una buena rigurosidad conceptual (sin dejar de ser accesible a todo público), rompe con la idea de un supuesto matrimonio de toda la vida entre liberalismo y democracia, ofreciendo un contexto histórico constantemente cambiante que permite comprender las grietas sin fin que se abren entre estos dos, haciéndolos más bien un eterno divorcio. Las distintas combinaciones en que se pueden entrelazar estos modelos políticos serán definidos por los escenarios que da el autor: posibilidad, imposibilidad y necesidad.
Adicionalmente, Bobbio hace un acercamiento conceptual a manera de bonus entre democracia y socialismo, tejiendo un puente entre ellos y, por otro lado, dejando en claro la tajante lejanía de principios entre liberalismo y socialismo.
El autor deja como una de sus reflexiones finales el hecho de que el neoliberalismo ha traído consigo una nueva grieta entre liberalismo y democracia, retomando muchos de los principios clásicos ya defendidos por Adam Smith y sus otros fundadores de la época, asociada a la idea del Estado mínimo y tomando una vertiente más económica que política. Tan incorrecta no era su visión, este libro publicado por primera vez en 1985 será relevante para pensarse el auge del libertarismo de nuestra contemporaneidad.
Adicionalmente, Bobbio hace un acercamiento conceptual a manera de bonus entre democracia y socialismo, tejiendo un puente entre ellos y, por otro lado, dejando en claro la tajante lejanía de principios entre liberalismo y socialismo.
El autor deja como una de sus reflexiones finales el hecho de que el neoliberalismo ha traído consigo una nueva grieta entre liberalismo y democracia, retomando muchos de los principios clásicos ya defendidos por Adam Smith y sus otros fundadores de la época, asociada a la idea del Estado mínimo y tomando una vertiente más económica que política. Tan incorrecta no era su visión, este libro publicado por primera vez en 1985 será relevante para pensarse el auge del libertarismo de nuestra contemporaneidad.
August 19, 2020
Liberalismo y democracia: Interesante intento del autor por dar cuenta en pocas páginas de los linderos que acercan liberalismo y democracia. Quizá deja en el tintero algunas cuestiones relativas a los antiguos y la democracia, como el hecho de que par Platón la democracia no era una forma de gobierno conveniente. Por otro lado, tampoco pone en entredicho el mito moderno del individualismo. ¿Somos libres en realidad? ¿Qué parámetros nos podrían ayudar a dilucidar el sentido de aquello que llamamos “libertad”? Recordemos que antes que la libertad fue aún más importante la propiedad, pues la Carta Magna de 1215 protegía a los nobles y a sus tierras, de tal manera que en lugar de ampliar los derechos hacia la “libertad” moderna, blindó a quienes eran parte de la nobleza. Lo mismo sucede en Francia y en Estados Unidos, los instrumentos normativos adoptados estaban basados en el iusnaturalismo que está en la base jurídica de la modernidad. Demasiado corto el libro para los temas que intenta agotar. Una interesante vista panorámica de ciertos temas que aún provocan discusión y debate. Por cierto, sobre la noción de “democracia” prefiero el punto de vista de Rancière.
June 12, 2025
Reencontrarme con Liberalismo y democracia de Norberto Bobbio ha sido un ejercicio intelectual tan vigente como la primera vez que lo leí. En esta ocasión, lo abordé con mayor bagaje teórico y con la mirada puesta en las tensiones políticas contemporáneas, donde los conceptos de "democracia liberal" parecen cuestionados desde múltiples frentes.
Bobbio, con su característica claridad analítica, desentraña la relación histórica y conceptual entre liberalismo y democracia, dos tradiciones que, aunque a menudo se presentan como complementarias, tienen orígenes y énfasis distintos. El liberalismo, centrado en la limitación del poder y la protección de las libertades individuales, y la democracia, enfocada en la soberanía popular y la igualdad política, no siempre han convivido en armonía. El gran mérito de Bobbio es exponer estas tensiones sin caer en simplificaciones, mostrando cómo su fusión en el Estado constitucional moderno es un logro frágil y siempre en revisión.
En esta relectura, me llamó especialmente la atención su advertencia sobre los riesgos de una democracia sin liberalismo (el autoritarismo de las mayorías) y un liberalismo sin democracia (el elitismo tecnocrático). En tiempos de populismos y neoliberalismos radicalizados, estas reflexiones resuenan con fuerza. También destaco su defensa de las reglas del juego democrático—el constitucionalismo, los derechos fundamentales—como antídoto contra la arbitrariedad del poder, un recordatorio urgente en América Latina y otras regiones donde las instituciones son constantemente puestas en jaque.
No es un libro largo, pero su densidad conceptual exige atención. Bobbio evita el dogmatismo: no idealiza ni condena ninguna tradición, sino que las problematiza con rigor. Por eso, aunque algunas discusiones puedan parecer "eurocéntricas" o ancladas en el contexto de finales del siglo XX, su marco teórico sigue siendo instrumental para entender debates actuales: ¿Puede sobrevivir la democracia sin derechos individuales? ¿Cómo evitar que la libertad económica socave la igualdad política?
Bobbio, con su característica claridad analítica, desentraña la relación histórica y conceptual entre liberalismo y democracia, dos tradiciones que, aunque a menudo se presentan como complementarias, tienen orígenes y énfasis distintos. El liberalismo, centrado en la limitación del poder y la protección de las libertades individuales, y la democracia, enfocada en la soberanía popular y la igualdad política, no siempre han convivido en armonía. El gran mérito de Bobbio es exponer estas tensiones sin caer en simplificaciones, mostrando cómo su fusión en el Estado constitucional moderno es un logro frágil y siempre en revisión.
En esta relectura, me llamó especialmente la atención su advertencia sobre los riesgos de una democracia sin liberalismo (el autoritarismo de las mayorías) y un liberalismo sin democracia (el elitismo tecnocrático). En tiempos de populismos y neoliberalismos radicalizados, estas reflexiones resuenan con fuerza. También destaco su defensa de las reglas del juego democrático—el constitucionalismo, los derechos fundamentales—como antídoto contra la arbitrariedad del poder, un recordatorio urgente en América Latina y otras regiones donde las instituciones son constantemente puestas en jaque.
No es un libro largo, pero su densidad conceptual exige atención. Bobbio evita el dogmatismo: no idealiza ni condena ninguna tradición, sino que las problematiza con rigor. Por eso, aunque algunas discusiones puedan parecer "eurocéntricas" o ancladas en el contexto de finales del siglo XX, su marco teórico sigue siendo instrumental para entender debates actuales: ¿Puede sobrevivir la democracia sin derechos individuales? ¿Cómo evitar que la libertad económica socave la igualdad política?
December 11, 2024
Claro, analítico y crítico, aún para su época.
El libro no es más que la introducción teórica a las diversas relaciones intelectuales que ha tenido el concepto de liberalismo y el concepto de democracia-comunes y presupuestos en los Estados contemporáneos- y que evidencian tener una serie de antecedentes teóricos e históricos que son necesarios al momento de tener en perspectiva la idea de un estado liberal y democrático.
Cabe mencionar también que no sólo se limita a hablar de liberalismo y democracia, sino que toca temas como el socialismo -explicando brevemente en sus interacciones mutuas la aparición de socialismos democráticos e incluso socioliberalismos- o el neoliberalismo -ya campante con Hayek y Nozick para aquel momento- por lo que su análisis dista de ser simple y unidimensional, sino complejo.
Ciertamente un necesario en teoría política, de lo mejor del año.
El libro no es más que la introducción teórica a las diversas relaciones intelectuales que ha tenido el concepto de liberalismo y el concepto de democracia-comunes y presupuestos en los Estados contemporáneos- y que evidencian tener una serie de antecedentes teóricos e históricos que son necesarios al momento de tener en perspectiva la idea de un estado liberal y democrático.
Cabe mencionar también que no sólo se limita a hablar de liberalismo y democracia, sino que toca temas como el socialismo -explicando brevemente en sus interacciones mutuas la aparición de socialismos democráticos e incluso socioliberalismos- o el neoliberalismo -ya campante con Hayek y Nozick para aquel momento- por lo que su análisis dista de ser simple y unidimensional, sino complejo.
Ciertamente un necesario en teoría política, de lo mejor del año.
March 8, 2022
Tra la letteratura bobbiana sinora affrontata questo è sicuramente il testo che mi ha convinto di meno. Tralasciando l'edizione pessima e l'introduzione zoppicante se non scorretta di Franco Manni, il testo mi pare mancare di quella perspicuità analitica che ha invece sempre caratterizzato la prosa del filosofo. La panoramica storica non amplia quello che si potrebbe trovare più nel dettaglio in tantissimi manuali e l'importo teoretico non equivale a quello di "Eguaglianza e libertà", di gran lunga più consigliato del presente.
July 1, 2023
Bobbio, pur limitandosi ad un'analisi di carattere puramente storico-teorica sui grandi concetti di Liberalismo e Democrazia, è riuscito sorprendentemente a scalfire quelle certezze. (le mie!) indissolubili e universali, la cui convinzione la si raggiunge in tanti anni di scuola e forse di pensiero nazionalpopolare. Questo breve saggio mette al bando la retorica e sprona una profonda riflessione sul valore della rappresentanza cittadina nella "cosa pubblica".
La politica è un esercizio serio: niente di più lontano dai nostri standard attuali.
La politica è un esercizio serio: niente di più lontano dai nostri standard attuali.
December 12, 2020
Vzťah liberalizmus a demokracie bol v histórii zložitý, od času kedy stáli proti sebe až po čas, kedy si k sebe museli nájsť cestu. Krátka, výstižná kniha, skôr pre fanúšikov politického rozmýšlania ako pre bežného čitateľa.
January 8, 2019
The author describes the origins and bases of liberalism and democracy, and how they shape the State and government.
March 16, 2019
Brilliant and succinct explanation of the development of democracy and liberalism as distinct political and social philosophies and how they are often antithetical yet hesitant allies.
October 20, 2021
i am dumb
December 9, 2021
Si se quiere profundizar en la ideología liberal y su relación antagónica/complementaria (según el autor y la época), este libro es esencial.
December 27, 2022
Dos conceptos que usamos cotidianamente pero que, como en muchos casos, se han vaciado de contenido y tergiversado en su uso.
September 4, 2024
Fantastic book!
September 16, 2024
derecho constitucional >
September 18, 2025
Um bom livro resumo da teoria liberal com a democracia.
July 16, 2025
This was refreshing to read. Liberalism and democracy are some of the most convolute terms in our latest of political stages. The writing does a great job of untangling their history and politics. This is clearly a more conservative endeavor. But it's about as unbiased as you will find. Thank you Verso for publishing such a simple, straight forward book.
July 12, 2019
Bobbio apresenta o desenvolvimento, tensões e implicações da relação entre a tradição liberal e democrata. Explica como essas doutrinas se combinam e se opõem. O liberalismo clássico, como movimento marcado do século XVII, se funda no individualismo preenchido com conteúdo jusnaturalista – direitos e deveres naturais. O Estado de Direito deve ser limitado por normas gerais e abstratas que preservem a liberdade negativa. Porém, com o progresso social, o pluralismo se apresenta em busca de mais participação democrática – direitos políticos e civis – que, por sua vez, requer mais direitos sociais. A democracia, como desenvolvimento da tradição liberal, passa a se opor à noção de um liberalismo meramente procedimental. Busca-se equacionar liberdade e igualdade.
Forma-se nos Estados modernos o credo liberal democrata – liberdade política, civil mais demandas por direitos sociais e dissipação do poder. O individualismo assume um lado liberal e outro, democrata. Pelo primeiro, encontrado na crítica à tirania da maioria em Tocqueville, o indivíduo deve ser protegido da opressão da maioria. Pelo segundo, influenciado pelo utilitarismo de John Mill, o liberalismo e a democracia são combinados em prol de mais liberdade positiva.
Porém, no século XX, com a expansão do Estado social, a democracia fortemente marcada por traços socialistas se expande em busca de justiça social. Hayek e Nozick, comumente conhecidos como neoliberais por reduzirem a cosmovisão liberal à livre economia (liberismo), defendem um retorno ao liberalismo clássico com fortes críticas à democracia contemporânea.
Forma-se nos Estados modernos o credo liberal democrata – liberdade política, civil mais demandas por direitos sociais e dissipação do poder. O individualismo assume um lado liberal e outro, democrata. Pelo primeiro, encontrado na crítica à tirania da maioria em Tocqueville, o indivíduo deve ser protegido da opressão da maioria. Pelo segundo, influenciado pelo utilitarismo de John Mill, o liberalismo e a democracia são combinados em prol de mais liberdade positiva.
Porém, no século XX, com a expansão do Estado social, a democracia fortemente marcada por traços socialistas se expande em busca de justiça social. Hayek e Nozick, comumente conhecidos como neoliberais por reduzirem a cosmovisão liberal à livre economia (liberismo), defendem um retorno ao liberalismo clássico com fortes críticas à democracia contemporânea.
April 2, 2016
Traçando a evolução paralela relativamente recente da democracia e do liberalismo, Bobbio explicita, primeiramente, a dicotomia da liberdade individual x a igualdade social. Do nascente liberalismo moderno, que prevê o controle negativo do Estado como a única maneira de assegurar o desenvolvimento individual do ser, até a verificação contemporânea de que só há liberdade quando há igualdade, o equilíbrio entre o direito e o dever é anotado de acordo com as várias tendências históricas já observadas. Se por um lado complementares enquanto correalizadoras, tornam-se funestamente antitéticas quando assumem o caráter extremista: assim, o liberalismo radical não contempla a democracia, uma vez que é totalitário, isto é, não admite em hipótese alguma a intervenção estatal na esfera individual, exceto para salvaguardar a ordem - poder de polícia; por sua vez, a democracia na sua versão autoritária máxima não aceita o interesse individual que ultrapasse o bem estar social.
Excelente leitura, em linguagem relativamente simples e bastante explanatória, recomendada para todos os públicos nestes tempos de confusão ideológica, principalmente para aqueles que defendem a ideia disparatada de um "anarquismo capitalista" (e não são poucos!!!)
Excelente leitura, em linguagem relativamente simples e bastante explanatória, recomendada para todos os públicos nestes tempos de confusão ideológica, principalmente para aqueles que defendem a ideia disparatada de um "anarquismo capitalista" (e não são poucos!!!)
Read
October 8, 2012Entonces, el socialismo funciona igual que la democracia
June 22, 2014
สนุกมาก เพิ่งเคยอ่านบ็อบบี้เล่มแรก หลัก ๆ คือ รีวิวดีเบตระหว่างไอเดียเรื่อง Liberalism กับ Democracy แหละ ไม่ได้อะไรใหม่มาก ยกเว้นพาร์ทท้าย ๆ ส่วนของอิตาลี แต่โดยรวมสนุก เขียนง่าย สั้น
September 29, 2015
An excellent and concise discussion of the tensions between liberalism and democracy.
Read
September 4, 2017A wonderfully concise history that revolves around the idea that liberal democratic regimes emerge as uneasy compromises between what are ultimately two distinct sets of values: those of liberalism and those of democracy. Bobbio makes a persuasive analytical and historical case that we must appreciate the extent to which the values of liberalism and democracy are different -- and at times opposed -- if we are to understand the tensions that led to the creation of today's liberal-democratic regimes--and which persist in those regimes.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews