Political science essentials?

All modern political science/philosophy of worth has ultimately been derived from Hobbes.

In the sense that they took the few things that Hobbes was wrong about and then ran with it.

Sure not with Machiavelli.

The Political science "started" with the next generation of writers, like Botero and Hobbes.

Machiavelli was closer to Dante, Pontano or Palmieri, than Botero and Hobbes.
Machiavelli (like Bodin, Ammirato and Guicciardini) can be considered as the break between the medieval political philosopy and the modern political science.

>Applying for my cuck country's "World politics" branch in university.

>Have to read some moralizing shit about specific phenomenon that has barely anything to do with WORLD POLITICS.

It was like reading some leftist wet dream magazine, so fucking shit

>Global Politics: A New Introduction
Found it. It was a complete and utter embarrassment to read through.

So the politics course is bias? I'm a leftist and I'd be pretty pissed off if it was.

You can check the book the application test is based last year. I found it from Internet quickly.

It was a laughing stock. Nothing to do with politics as a field of study. It was basically virtue signaling the book about "topical" things. It was diveded into 12 or so small articles about very specific, "easy to moralize" topics.

Nothing about politics in it.

Cícero, On the Republic
Maquiavel, The Prince
John Locke, Two Treatises of Government
Edmund Burke, A Vindication of Natural Society
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract
Joseph de Maistre, Considerations on France
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

>lolbertarian.

Great List

Notes on the Ancients

Why Cicero and not Aristotle and Plato (but Augustine too)? Or Why not the other works of Cicero like De Legibus and De Officis?
The "Politics" of Aristotle is the ground of all political writings of 1300-1700

Why read only the Prince? Must read the Discourses and the two "Ritratti".

I'd also add:
Plato, The Republic
Aristotle, The Politics
Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality
Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto
Marx and Engels, The German Ideology
Carl Schmitt, The Concept of the Political
Carl Schmitt, The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy
Adorno and Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment

Republic and Politics are only relevant as historical study. Not really important for today in the philosophical or explanatory sense.

Adorno? You serious?

They are totally necessary for anyone studying politics.

And yes, some of the most important political and philosophical thought in the last 100 years, oc I'm serious.

>They are totally necessary for anyone studying politics.
Maybe if you are studying political history, but you sure as hell aren't going to explain Russian geopolitics through Aristotle's Politics or the power play by Turkey to control Cyprus.

>but you sure as hell aren't going to explain Russian geopolitics through Aristotle's Politics or the power play by Turkey to control Cyprus.
>Not realising that politics is more than this

has Veeky Forums ever made an "edgy reader starter pack" pic?
pretty sure The Prince would be right there with Notes from Underground.

They're important because they are two of the first most detailed expositions of what a political community is and should be.

generally I'm not a fan of secondary sources, but pic related is awesome. it starts with the greeks.

and you can get it for free.
discuss.forumias.com/uploads/FileUpload/21/28e489843d193ca736aa1019d09614.pdf

very well written. Even tom paulin liked it and he hates everything.

Yes, I'd say Aristotle (Politics) and Plato (Republic) should be included. Also Augustine (City of God)

This is also relevant ofc, and I'd also add it.

>Factually correct
>One of the most read books at the ivy level
>Is behind the ideologies of the new illiberal democracies even if pleb politicians havent read it

Based

>factually correct

pretty much everything in that book is wrong

Google is your friend for these type of simple general questions

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_philosophers

t. Francis Fukuyama

liberalism itself is the reason for "new illiberal" (I take you mean neoliberalism?)

hernando de soto the mystery of capital and j.s. mill

This one is a good candidate for the title of best contemporary Italian political science.

It's basically a technical, detached analysis of the means and strategies to seize power, using Mussolini, Lenin (and Trokij), Napoleon and Hitler as living examples. The author was an Italian political journalist, a reluctant press envoy of the Fascist regime in warzones.

Probably Empire by Negri and Hardt?

What is "political science", Veeky Forums ?

Is it about how to rule ? Is it about what government should be ? Does it also consist in studying laws, or only politcal power ?

Yes.

anything related to governing a bunch of faggots.

Locke is far superior because love is the root of humanity and logic springs up from it.
Hobbes is only right about demonic nature.

...

part 2 please

...

I'd replace 'vindication' with 'reflections on the revolution in france'.

Start with the Greeks. Thucydides to be precise.

>tfw you failed to realise that right-wing socialism and right-wing libertarianism can be subsumed into the reactionary right by virtue of overcoming the industrial revolution
It's like you are a little baby. Once we conceive the state as an absolute being grounded in divine kingship, we can overcome democratic totalitarianism and ascend toward individual liberty.

It's like you haven't even read Justus Möser.

this

Reminder that Plato's Republic has nothing to do with actual politics.

Bullshit. That's a political science/philosophy book for a reason, you dilettante.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe - Democracy: The God That Failed

>ivy league
isn't selling me
anything that proves it will actually be of worth?

Then why did Plato engage in the shenanigans of the Syracusian tyrants?

"Islam has bloody borders"

>needing a book to know that
It's like you don't even watch TV

It's from 96. (Imagine applying it to the yugoslav war)

>misinterpreting illiberalism as neoliberalism
Neoliberalism precedes illiberalism but is not identical to it.

A working example is how most modern right-wing populist parties started as neoliberal but then got putsched by more illiberal and sometimes even socialist-leaning right-wingers.

But that is a truth you lefties willingly ignore. And thanks to that, you are obscuring the problem.

Veeky Forums Your thoughts on History of Political Philosophy of Strauss and Cropsey?

>all these people recommending books based on the desired politics of the author, not in analysis of how political power actually operates

Actual essential reading list for political science

Bertrand de Jouvenel - On Power
Vilfredo Pareto - The Mind and Society
Robert Michels - Political Parties
Gaetano Mosca - The Ruling Class
Georges Sorel - Reflections on Violence
James Burnham - The Managerial Revolution

Good post. Will save.

This, previous recommendations are okay/good but not political science but political theory. Maybe throw in some Robert Dahl or Verba or Sartori or Lipset and Rokkan for actual starting points and classics in political science

Maybe that user is refering to the thesis of the book Preface to Plato in which the author states that because the amount of chapters that Plato writes about political things in the Republic is tiny the book is actually a treatise about educational reform. This idea is powerful considering Havelock's analysis of the mental landscape of an oral culture and the apparition of new modes of thought due to the invention of the written word and the clash between them (that also explains Plato's butthurt with the poets).

No, illiberal democracy would be the new-right regimes from Putin and Jörg Haider in Austria at the turn of the milenium to the Erdogan regime to golden dawn to the current Eastern European regimes in Poland and Hungary to the new turn right in GB and the US, and maybe France and the Netherlands.

Essentially an authoritarian leaning regime that has no interest in dismantling the democratic system that elected it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiberal_democracy

I would actually call Clintonian Democrats true Neo-Liberals, with their patrimony, disinterest in actual liberal ideals, and apathy towards actual economic suffering.

>Not distinguishing between the politics of political science or sociology from the political of political philosophy and the Ancients
>Probably hasn't read Claude Lefort
>Naturally thinks Turkey didn't invade to protect my ass from murderous Greeks

He is a US Democrat who was a paid couselor for the apartheid regime in SA. He told them that dismantling apartheid would lead to chaos, and that they had to brutally crack down on Black Nationalists in order to maintain South Africa's western ideals.

He was right, but they pussied out. He also identified multiculturalism, again, in 96, as a malignant trend that would push the US out of "the west"

Heard good things, but can you justify reading it for theoretic purposes, like one can w/ Machiavelli?

>muh classical liberalism

>No, illiberal democracy would be the new-right regimes from Putin and Jörg Haider in Austria at the turn of the milenium to the Erdogan regime to golden dawn to the current Eastern European regimes in Poland and Hungary to the new turn right in GB and the US, and maybe France and the Netherlands.
You're lumping a bunch of different political ideologues and movements together that are only tangentially related.

Putin is the head of a dictatorship that pretends it is democratic. Poland and Hungary are countries with a conservative nationalist party in power but functionally democracies.

Jörg Haider's FPÖ never ruled alone and only as a junior partner to the mainstream conservative party.

France and the Netherlands did not even have new-right regimes yet.

The situation in the US is not clear because right-wing populism has only recently emerged on the fringes of the more classically conservative Republican Party. The problem here is obscured by the very ideologically broad two-party system.

GB is just Tory conservatism minus europragmatism.

Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes
The Prince by Machiavelli
Nomos of the earth by Carl Schmitt
Concept of the political by Carl Schmitt

Not all essential, but all vetted to meet minimum level standards or higher of ideological purity.

'Patriarcha; or, the natural power of kings' by Sir Robert Filmer
'political parties' by robert michels
'The Ruling Class ' by Gaetano Mosca
'Discourses on Livy' by Machiavelli
'Laws' by play dough
'popular government' by sir henry maine
'Politics' by aristoteles
'shooting niagara' and 'laterday pamphlets' by Carlyle
'The Revolt Against Civilization' by Lothrop Stoddard
'science, politics and gnosticism' by eric voeglin
'What is Neoreaction' by Bryce Laliberte
'Political Theology l-ll' by carl schmitt
'The imperial animal' by Lionel Tiger
'Chimpanzee Politics' by Frans de Waal
'After Virtue' and 'Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry', b by Alasdair Macintyre
'Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement' by Paul E. Gottfried
'The Social Construction of What?' by Ian Hacking
'cannibals all' by george fitzhugh
'antifragile' by nassim taleb
'the fatal conceit' by hayek
'A Farewell to Alms' by Gregory Clark
'Petrodollar Warfare' by William R. Clark
'War is a Racket' by Smedley D. Butler
'7 Frauds of Economic Policy' by Warren Mosler
'economics without illusions' by joseph heath
'23 things they dont tell you about capitalism' by ha-joon chang
'the management myth' by Matthew Stewart
'dead aid' by Dambisa Moyo
'Money' by Eric Lonergan
'Lords of Finance' by Liaquat Ahamed
'The Story of Money for Understanding Economics' by Vincent Lannoye
'The Truth in Money Book' by Theodore R Thoren
'Society Of The Spectacle' by Guy Debord
'Propaganda: The Formation of Mens Attitudes' by Jaques Ellul
'Propaganda' by Edward Bernays

>Lord of the Rings
>reactionary
Are you retarded?

Poli sci undergrad here.

For Machiavelli, read the discourses instead.

Most of the suggestions in this thread, although they're good, are focused on political theory and philosophy. If that's your interest, I would add thinkers like Kant, Rawls, Nozick, Berlin and Charles Taylor to what's already been mentioned.

That being said, this won't give you a very accurate picture of what the field is about. If you're interested, I'd suggest reading influential works in different areas of study. Here's a few suggestions of the top of my head:

> Institutions and development of the state
Skocpol - States and Social Revolutions
Moore - Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy
Huntington - Political Order in Changing Societies (also both tomes of Fukyama's political order and decay)
Krebiel - Pivotal Politics
Ostrom - Governing the commons
Tilly - The formation of national states in western europe,
> Public policy
Esping-Andersen - The three worlds of welfare capitalism
Lindblom - The science of muddling through
Lipsky - Street-level bureaucracy
this blog -paulcairney.wordpress.com/1000-words/
> Democratic politics, parties and behavior
Downs - An economic theory of democracy
Lipset and Rokkan - Party systems and voter alignments
Inglehart - Modernization and postmodernization
Putnam - Making democracy work

Anyway, those are the subject i'm most familiar with but you could also look into other things such as political science studies of law and constitutions, political psychology, work on specific countries, statistical modeling, etc.
You could also go for scholarly reviews such as the oxford handbooks of political science, which will give you an overview of current developments in every subfield.

Its the aesthetic bro.

person who made this probably knew next to fucking nothing about politics either
first part you cant really go wrong with, literally just the basics
second part has a kind of categorisation that i kind of like the idea of, but its way over-simplified and has egregious problems like putting Spengler alongside fascists without any BIG asterisks, and they probably should have listed his work Prussiandom and Socialism for that angle instead of Decline of the West.

Secondly, why is Cioran listed there like some kind of essential fascist political manifesto? Off-putting and inaccurate. Schmitt really belongs in a general political science overview.

Lack of serious/relevant writers in the Libertarian right section, particularly bad. Then again maybe it just isn't a very serious movement. Could benefit from including Mises, Nozick. Unfortunately pigeonholing into these meme groups means you can't include shit like David Ricardo.

Edmund Burke is good reading for the "Reactionary Right", but he's also good/essential reading for everyone. Memes like Kaczynski need to be removed in place of relevant works. Too much Evola + Guenon wizardry. Obscure books copypasted off the "right wing lit" image like The Biocentric Worldivew need to be replaced with other things.
What te fuck is Umberto Eco and Tolkien doing here

>Political Philosophy:
The Analects - Confucius
The Republic - Plato
The Prince - Machiavelli
Leviathan (Parts I & II) - Hobbes
Second Treatise of Government - John Locke
The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns - Benjamin Constant
Discourse on Inequality - Jean-Jacques Rousseau
The Social Contract - Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Theory and Practice - Immanuel Kant
Reflections on the Revolution in France - Edmund Burke
The Philosophy of Right - Georg Hegel
On Liberty - John Stuart Mill
Utilitarianism - John Stuart Mill
The Communist Manifesto - Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche
Capital (Abridged) - Karl Marx
Beyond Good and Evil - Friedrich Nietzsche
On the Genaeology of Morality - Friedrich Nietzsche
The State and Revolution - Vladimir Lenin
The Concept of the Political - Carl Schmitt
The Constitution of Liberty - Friedrich Hayek
Rationalism in Politics - Michael Oakeshott
The Origins of Totalitarianism - Hannah Arendt
The Second Sex - Simone de Beauvoir
The Wretched of the Earth - Frantz Fannon
One-Dimensional Man - Herbert Marcuse
A Theory of Justice - John Rawls
Anarchy, State, and Utopia - Robert Nozick

>Comparative Politics & International Relations:
Why Nations Fail - Acemoglu and Robinson
The Tragedy of Great Power Politics - John Mearsheimer
Man, the State, and War - Kenneth Waltz
The Clash of Civilizations - Samuel Huntington
The End Of History - Francis Fukuyama
Development as Freedom - Amartya Sen
The Logic of Collective Action - Mancur Olson
Guns, Germs, and Steel - Jared Diamond
The Closing of the American Mind - Alllan Bloom
And many more...

There are many more, but unless you want to become the global authority on a narrow topic, it is probably better to read articles from academic journals, of which there are too many to recommend.

If you're gonna put Tolkien into any political category, reactionary would probably be the one. Dude was literally an anarcho-monarchist.

>People in this thread thinking any of these fucking books matter for political science
As someone that actually graduated in that bullshit I can tell you no.

Political science is just economics for faggot idiots. You'll read about models and game theory and rationality. You'll read about quantitative shit. You'll mostly read academic journals and scholarly articles.

Maybe, just maybe by pure luck, you'll have one class devoted to classical thought and political philosophy.

But that will be one class.

so you're saying he's a racist piece of shit. good to know

>The Communist Manifesto - Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche

>le racist

Where do you fucking think you are?

This. So much. Modern political science is infested by that shit. And stuff like historical political science (50s and early 60s stuff, mainly descriptive institutionalism) is slowly being phased out.

Sucks tbqh.

>people still think the Prince is good
>reading a book literally dedicated to Satan

So much this.

Political science is basically a combination of journalism and economics.

Hear hear.
t. but even if modern pol-sci is like that, or pol-phil, it doesn't mean the other great works aren't worth diving into

So everything is shit, nothing is worth reading ... ever? This is the impression I get from reading your comments

Which really shows you the groundwork for what matters: how labor and capital are being organized within a society.

No. Just don't read some shit tier sociology.
>combination of journalism and economics.
More like history and enomics of, governing nations and people. If you read "journalists" and economist that write to papers you will just read pop-garbage.

That book about propaganda from WW1 that I can never remember the name of.

I can post some lists that I have from /leftypol/ if anyone is interested.

I am.

...

...

...

...

Isiah Berlin, Hobbes, Hoppe, Evola

...

There you go friendo

^ Why would you read that much about a completel failure of a economic and human behavior system?

Because it will surely work if we try it just one more time.