Popular Politics in an Aristocratic Republic explores the different aspects of political actions and experiences in late medieval and early modern Venice. The book challenges the idea that the city of Venice knew no political conflict and social contestation during the medieval and early modern periods. By examining popular politics in Venice as a range of acts of contestation and of constructive popular political participation, it contributes to the broader debate about premodern politics. The volume begins in the late fourteenth century, when the demographical and social changes resulting from the Black Death facilitated popular challenges to the ruling class’s power, and finishes in the late eighteenth century, when the French invasion brought an end to the Venetian Republic. It innovates Venetian studies by considering how ordinary Venetians were involved in politics, and how popular politics and contestation manifested themselves in this densely populated and diverse city. Together the chapters propose a more nuanced notion of political interactions and highlight the role that ordinary people played in shaping the city’s political configuration, as well as how the authorities monitored and punished contestation. Popular Politics in an Aristocratic Republic combines recent historiographical approaches to classic themes from political, social, economic, and religious Venetian history with contributions on gender, migration, and urban space. The volume will be essential reading for students of Venetian history, medieval and early modern Italy and Europe, political and social history.

The Politics of Aristocratic Empires is a study of a political order that prevailed throughout much of the world for many centuries without any major social conflict or change and with hardly any government in the modern sense. Although previously ignored by political science, powerful remnants of this old order still persist in modern politics. The historical literature on aristocratic empires typically is descriptive and treats each empire as unique. By contrast, this work adopts an analytical, explanatory, and comparative approach and clearly distinguishes aristocratic empires from both primitive and more modern, commercialized societies. It develops generalizations that are supported and richly illustrated by data from many empires and demonstrates that a pattern of politics prevailed across time, space, and cultures from ancient Egypt five millennia ago to Saudi Arabia five decades ago, from China and Japan to Europe, from the Incas and the Aztecs to the Tutsi. Kautsky argues that aristocrats, because they live off the labor of peasants, must perform the primary governmental functions of taxation and warfare. Their performance is linked to particular values and beliefs, and both functions and ideologies in turn condition the stakes, the forms, and the arenas of intra-aristocratic conflict�the politics of the aristocracy. The author also analyzes the roles of the peasantry and the townspeople in aristocratic politics and shows that peasant revolts on any large scale occur only after commercial modernization. He concludes with chapters on the modernization of aristocratic empires and on the importance in modern politics of institutional and ideological remnants of the old aristocratic order.

Machiavelli saw history in general as a way to learn useful lessons from the past for the present, and also as a type of analysis which could be built upon, as long as each generation did not forget the works of the past. In "Discourses on Livy" Machiavelli discusses what can be learned from roman period and many other eras as well, including the politics of his lifetime. This is a work of political history and philosophy written in the early 16th. The title identifies the work's subject as the first ten books of Livy's Ab urbe condita, which relate the expansion of Rome through the end of the Third Samnite War in 293 BC. Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (1469 – 1527) was an Italian diplomat, politician, historian, philosopher, humanist, and writer. He has often been called the father of modern political science. He was for many years a senior official in the Florentine Republic, with responsibilities in diplomatic and military affairs. He served as a secretary to the Second Chancery of the Republic of Florence from 1498 to 1512, when the Medici were out of power.He wrote his most well-known work The Prince in 1513, having been exiled from city affairs.

*Includes pictures According to tradition, the Roman Republic came into being in 509 B.C. following the overthrow of the monarchy, and it ended in 27 B.C. when Augustus became the first emperor. During this period of nearly 500 years, Rome grew from a relatively small Italian city to a superpower that dominated the entire Mediterranean world, but the Roman Republic was characterized by an interminable internal power struggle between the aristocratic and populist factions (the Optimates and Populares) for control of the state and the distribution of its wealth. The changes brought about by the Gracchi Brothers, in particular during the 2nd century B.C., was part of a campaign to wrest power from the aristocratic party, the Optimates, and they would prove pivotal in preparing the way for Rome's ultimate transition into an Imperialist government. Despite the fact that they belonged to the upper class, the Gracchi brothers were the first to actively champion the interests of the poor in Roman politics, and in doing so, they created a new partisan divide in the government, which separated politicians into two factions: those who appealed to the rights of the common people (the Populares), and those who believed that power should reside firmly in the hands of the aristocracy (the Optimates). The office of tribune, in particular, came to be used by Populares who used their influence with the people to pass similar reforms relating to land ownership and the rights of citizens, building their political platforms on the premise of giving more power to the people. The tribune of the plebs was an annually elected representative overseeing the plebeian assembly, one of the three popular assemblies in the Roman government with the power to vote on certain types of legislation. The 10 plebeian tribunes crucially held the power of veto, even over decrees passed by the consul, and they could use it to block any measures going against the interests of their supporters in the assembly: the common people. Therefore, the tribunate became an important political mechanism used by the Populares to push through social reforms. They did this not out of a selfless desire to give more power to the Roman people, but because they saw the potential in using the support of the masses to advance their political careers. The wealthy Optimates - of whom Sulla was one - continued attempting to block these populist movements, and the resulting political tension between these two parties later played a major role in the outbreak of Rome's first civil war in 88 B.C. As leaders of the Populares, the Gracchi brothers would have never advocated a monarchical political system themselves, but their role in Rome's political history was to lay the foundations that led to the rise of Caesar and Augustus. That part has to be analyzed in the context of a republic that had moved away from its earliest manifestation and which had lost much of the idealism of the immediate post-monarchical era in which the basis of the constitution had been laid down, and which continued to be fought over throughout the Republican Period. The Gracchi brothers were arguably the first to systematically rouse the Roman mob to violence, using their leadership of the Populares to try to achieve their political purposes. Once that particular genie had been let out of the bottle, it could never be put back in, and the brothers were largely responsible for changes to a system based on party politics as opposed to traditional allegiances to particular families. While the experiences of the Gracchi brothers showed that the use of the mob was useful in the short term, by their actions, they also inadvertently confirmed that the tribunate power each brother individually held was in and of itself insufficient to sustain a radical agenda without military power. That was the critical lesson learned by those who came after them.

Aristocratic opinions of democracy.--Popular government.--Some political and social aspects of the tariff.--Criminal politics.--"The economic man."--Idleness and immorality.--The duty of educated men in a democracy.--Who will pay the bills of socialism?--The poltical situation in 1896.--The real problems of democracy.--The expenditure of rich men

In a blend of history, biography, political science, and political theory, he offers examples of the finest democratic leadership as well as cautionary tales of prominent leaders whose styles were essentially aristocratic."--BOOK JACKET.

A “brilliant” (The Washington Post), “clear-eyed and incisive” (The New Republic) analysis of how the wealthiest group in American society is making life miserable for everyone—including themselves. In 21st-century America, the top 0.1% of the wealth distribution have walked away with the big prizes even while the bottom 90% have lost ground. What’s left of the American Dream has taken refuge in the 9.9% that lies just below the tip of extreme wealth. Collectively, the members of this group control more than half of the wealth in the country—and they are doing whatever it takes to hang on to their piece of the action in an increasingly unjust system. They log insane hours at the office and then turn their leisure time into an excuse for more career-building, even as they rely on an underpaid servant class to power their economic success and satisfy their personal needs. They have segregated themselves into zip codes designed to exclude as many people as possible. They have made fitness a national obsession even as swaths of the population lose healthcare and grow sicker. They have created an unprecedented demand for admission to elite schools and helped to fuel the dramatic cost of higher education. They channel their political energy into symbolic conflicts over identity in order to avoid acknowledging the economic roots of their privilege. And they have created an ethos of “merit” to justify their advantages. They are all around us. In fact, they are us—or what we are supposed to want to be. In this “captivating account” (Robert D. Putnam, author of Bowling Alone), Matthew Stewart argues that a new aristocracy is emerging in American society and it is repeating the mistakes of history. It is entrenching inequality, warping our culture, eroding democracy, and transforming an abundant economy into a source of misery. He calls for a regrounding of American culture and politics on a foundation closer to the original promise of America.

This book highlights the role played by public, political discourse in shaping the distribution of power between Senate and People in the Late Roman Republic. Against the background of the current debate between 'oligarchical' and 'democratic' interpretations of Republican politics, Robert Morstein-Marx emphasizes the perpetual negotiation and reproduction of political power through mass communication. It is the first work to analyze the ideology of Republican mass oratory and to situate its rhetoric fully within the institutional and historical context of the public meetings (contiones) in which these speeches were heard. Examples of contional orations, drawn chiefly from Cicero and Sallust, are subjected to an analysis that is influenced by contemporary political theory and empirical studies of public opinion and the media, rooted in a detailed examination of key events and institutional structures, and illuminated by a vivid sense of the urban space in which the contio was set.