Glosses on Federico Della Sala on tragedy, comedy, and revolution. by Gerardo Muñoz

These are further notes on the mini-series of interventions within the framework of the course that I am teaching at 17 instituto on contemporary Italian political thought. In this third installment we engaged with Francesco Guercio and Federico Della Sala around the notions of comedy and tragedy in Italian theory, and the development of political reflection in Italy from the sixties onwards. Della Sala facilitated an excellent paper entitled “Tragedy and Comedy in Italian Theory: Notes on the intersection between literature and politics” (for the moment unpublished), which was extremely suggestive, elegant, and comprehensive in terms of its critical take on the horizon of Italian theory. These notes are by no means representative of the richness of Della’s text: rather, it just wants to highlight a few checkpoints to further the discussion of the seminar. Francesco Guercio participated in the conversation as a commentator who provided important insights on several of the essay’s critical movements.

1. In his paper, Della Sala offers one of the strongest critiques of Italian theory that I have read in recent times (perhaps the strongest), and it does so by engaging its own premises on alterity and historical restitution, which he defines as working within the paradigm of political modernity. As it emerges in the projects of Massimo Cacciari, Roberto Esposito, Antonio Negri, but also in the commentaries of the so-called Italian difference paradigm by academics such as Dario Gentili, the common terrain is to sustain a paradigm of alternative modernization rooted in difference and conflict. In a way – and I understand I risk of simplifying Della Sala’s layered argument a bit – Italian theory amounts to offering a paradigm that remains within the metaphysics of power and governmental optimization, even when it speaks the language of contingency, errancy, or the outside. Here Della Sala’s critique of Italian theory differs quite substantially from the normativist accounts raised against Italian theory, such as that of P. P. Portinaro, whose discomfort is really against political excess and its allegedly revolutionary principles. For Della Sala, on the contrary, Italian theory is a betrayal of thinking the transformative politics at the threshold of the ruins of modern principles of authority and legitimacy. Indeed, Massimo Caccari’s return to renaissance humanism in his Mente Inquieta: saggio sull’Umanesimo (2019), or Esposito’s Pensiero istituente (2021) that ends up defending human rights and anthropology of rights, ironically self-serve Portinaro’s critique of the “radical excess” as if inadvertently admitting the irreversibility of political modernity. Of course, this doesn’t get out anywhere. In fact, it is regressive, instead of moving thinking forward.

2. Della Sala credits Italian theory – specially from the 1960s onwards, perhaps from the work of Mario Tronti and autonomia more generally – with bringing the question of politics to the center debate, showing the limitations of political economy in Marxist thought and the insufficiency of the negative. But, at the same time, it has done so by remaining within a paradigm of crisis in which the ideal of struggle defines the meditation between politics and life. And this can only exacerbate the administration of a catastrophic of politics. It is through the “krisis” of negative thought (Cacciari, Vattimo, and Esposito) that something like a literature of Italian theory becomes tragic, amounting to a sort of reverse nihilism. Della Sala does not it claim it explicitly – and I wonder if he would agree with my own personal translation – but this tragicity results to a compensatory wager to the sacrificial horizon of the philosophy of history opened by Hegelian dialectics or the imperial romanitas conception of politics. So the sense of the tragic in modernity can live comfortably within the paradigm of the sacrifice of modernity, and it does not get us very far.

3. As Francesco Guercio also suggested it, the abyssal ground of modernity becomes tragic when it places life in the site of death, which entails that existence can only be understood as something to be administered and protected. It goes without saying that this is the overall project of positive biopolitics and immunity in the horizon of democratic legitimacy, whose final utopia, according to Della Sala, is to live at least one day like a King. This rings true given the operative function of King and “archē” (principle) that are needed to legislate the creation between politics and life, history and the anthropological sense of reality. Under this paradigm there is no space – or it is always parasitic, always subjected to the enmity of the species– to the question of existence, which becomes a generic aggregate of civil community. But can one subtract oneself from the seduction of a demonic politics and its negative relation to the tragic politics in the face of nihilism? The strong thesis in Dalla Sala’s paper is that Italian theory has not been successful to the task and that we must begin from scratch putting aside, once and for all, the mythical paradigm of crisis.

4. It is here where comedy enters. And it enters obliquely, although in resonance with Giorgio Agamben’s most recent argument in his book on Hölderlin, where the comic is understood as a retreat from the conversion of the tragic into the sacrificial suture of modernity. And for Della Sala, but also for Agamben, comedy has little done with the anthropology of laughter or the psychic drive of the Freudian slip. Rather comedy becomes the possibility of imagining a life that refuses the promise of living like a future king. On the contrary, the motto of the comic can be the early Hispanic (it was mentioned by Francesco Guercio in the conversation) “vivir desviviéndose” of the pícaro existence that allows for the mystery of life without political subsumption. Della Sala concludes his paper with a provocative assertion: “after all there has never existed nor will exist a tragic or unhappy revolution”. But would a “happy life” be consternated about revolution, or should it forfeit revolution to the trash bin of the modern political concepts? Isn’t comedy the abdication of revolution, either as the return to the same (think of Saint-Just naturalism) or the overcoming of the temporal order of the day after tomorrow? Perhaps comedy as the texture of life is a thorough abandonment not only of the tragic, but also of the efficacy of revolution as a residual messianism. And it is against the closure of revolution (because revolution depends on a principle of authority the exact moment that it triumphs) where the ongoing stasiological present should be thought.

Glosses on Philippe Theophanidis on community and obligation. by Gerardo Muñoz

These are further notes on the mini-series of conversations within the framework of the course that I am teaching at 17 instituto on contemporary Italian political thought. This second installment we had the opportunity of discussing a few ideas with Philippe Theophanidis on Roberto Esposito’s notion of community and its general horizon of inscription within contemporary discussions on immunity, the commons, and communication (a topic already explored with Philippe a couple of months back a propos of the publication of Dionys Mascolo’s La Révolution par l’amitiè, in which he participated). Although Philippe recommended reading and focusing on the first chapter of Roberto Esposito’s Communitas, his presentation intentionally exceeded the mere philological and description exposition. He suggested, perhaps too prudently, that the vocabulary of Italian theory or contemporary political thought is expressively ambivalent. This is already food for thought, as it puts pressure (at least in my reading) to the ‘conceptual’ register of Italian theory, while reminding us of the necessity of thinking against every moral or ideological political analysis. This also seems to traverse all of contemporary Italian theory regardless of what P.P. Portinaro claims on this ground. But I would like to register a few movements of Philippe’s talk in order to provide continuation in the upcoming discussions.

1. Theophanidis began insisting on the relationship between community and language. Because we are speaking beings, capable of saying, we are in the common of language regarding what or how we speak. Beyond and prior to any substance of community and its predication, there is a koine of language as sayability. This of course connects to the vulgar language or the poetics that marks the Italian tradition and that it enters into crisis with the acceleration process of modernization in Italy the postwar scenario, and to which names such as Pasolini, Zanzotto, Morante, or Levi will respond to. The crisis of community is, first and foremost, the crisis of the commonality of language in its rich materiality of the living community of beings. Here I am reminded that in the same way that there is no “theory” of language – as it remains purely inconceptual before grammar – there is no theory of substantive community, nor can there be one. To posit the community in the economy of predication is already to instrumentalize the very need to liberate it from whatever is done in its name.

2. For Theophanidis the conversation about community emerges in the wake of the collapse of 20th century communism and the absolutization of individualism due to the rise of economic management. But this does not imply restitution; it rather points to an ambivalent sense by which the very separation of the modern installment of individual and collective, community and substance, the person and the law, collapses. The unity of ‘munus’ in Esposito is a way to think the irreducibility of what is common between more than one without a securing a principle of mediation. Now, this unbridgeable gap is the negative foundation of the community in Esposito after Bataille, and the French tradition of the 50s.

3. However, Theophanidis assesses Esposito’s insistence in notions such as debt and obligation as an attempt to escape the nihilism of equivalence and the modern delegation of state sovereignty to fully become individuals capable of accumulating the spiritualization of freedom. However, what to make of Esposito’s dependence on categories of the Christian metaphysical tradition such as obligation? I mentioned to Philippe that this registered could be contrasted to the position of natural law, which also emphasis on foundational obligations as to delimit a set of normatively public goods (this typology is most clearly expressed in John Finnis classic Natural Law and Natural Rights). From this it follows not only that Esposito would be close (even if residually) to natural law principles but inscribe his conceptual grid in tension with the mediation of obligations on the one hand, and the reality of a concrete community on the other. In other words, it seems to me that if Esposito cannot guarantee a mediation for the notion of “obligation”, then this notion insofar as it is freestanding concept cannot do the job for any community. It could only stand as such: that is, a merely conceptual. This is something that has reemerged somehow in Esposito’s most recent work in institutions, human rights, and political anthropology in his Pensiero istituente (2020) where mediation does play a role, suggesting that he does not want to be taken as merely conceptual. Of course, I agree with Theophanidis that munus is void, a schism that Esposito does not want to suture, and so in this sense (also as a critic of personalism and the persona) he differs fundamentally from the general ends of iusnaturalism. However, it seems to me that the difficulty regarding the operativity of obligation in Esposito’s renewal of community does not disappear, quite the contrary.

4. A question emerged as to whether community can transform the crisis of political form, or whether any talk about community had to be done ex politico or infrapolitically. Theophanidis defended separating community and politics, if by politics we mean a return to the classical principles of sovereignty and representation; but also, if by politics we imply a general morality that would inseminate direct consensus and legislation across the members of the community. Any reworking of the political has to be done from a counter-communitarian perspective insofar as what is ruined is precisely the community of salvation guaranteed by those that confess or by those that assent to a principle of representation that marks our crisis. Perhaps the negative community (the community of a poetics of language and use) is what remains the fiction of socialization that drags the collapse of political representation. Otherwise, community is a sort of aggregate form of administration that exist comfortably well within the regime of biopolitics (another ambivalent term for Esposito).

5. Finally, Theophanidis expressed, rightly so, some skepticism at the famous Thomas Müntzer’s motto Omnia sunt communia, which on the surface established a totalization of the commons, but in actuality it rendered a moral legislation of what is understood as commons on behalf of a consent of total ownership of property. In this sense, the communitarian claim of Müntzer was a precursor to Carl Schmitt attack against humanitarianism: whoever says Human wants to fool us, since the outermost limit becomes the inhuman or the uncommon that must be obligated, erased, and destroyed whether it is in the name of the Human or the Commons. This is ideology at its finest, and it explains why the itinerary of both humanity and community have experienced such a happy voyage well into our present: it has consolidated a dominating morality veiled under the guise of a contingent good of and for the community. Of course, the price to be paid, just like Thomas Müntzer had to pay, is that the price of one’s head: the figure of acephaly now funds the differential structure of equivalence. Any reworking of community must be thought from and against collective equivalent execution, which is the real truth latent underneath every consensus and every morality.

Glosses on Rodrigo Karmy’s Averroes and Italian theory. by Gerardo Muñoz

These are just a few notes on Rodrigo Karmy’s excellent presentation today on Averroes and averroism in Italy in the framework of a two-month course that I am teaching at 17 instituto on contemporary Italian political thought. And this series is a way to supplement and contribute to an ongoing discussion. So, these notes have no pretensions of being exhaustive, but rather to leave in writing some instances that could foster the discussion further in the subsequent interventions with Philippe Theophanidis, Francesco Guercio and Idris Robinson. There are two subtexts to this presentation: Rodrigo Karmy’s essay on Averroes and medieval theology of the person published in the new collection Averroes intempestivo (Doblea editores, 2022), and his preface to my own Tras la política on Italian thinkers forthcoming at some point this year (this text is unpublished at the moment).

1. Rodrigo Karmy is interested in advancing an averroist genealogy of Italian theory, and not just a matter of historical influence or history of ideas. The genealogical central unity for Karmy is the “commentary”, which I guess one could relate to the gloss, but also to philology (in the broad sense), and to the concrete practice of translation and incorporation of a way of thinking about life and the life of thought. Averroes is the signatura of a strong reading of Aristotle (the strongest argues Karmy against Renan). However, there is no academic ideal here, but rather a force of thought.

2. This force of thinking for Karmy is to be found in Averroes’ unique contribute on the Aristotelean text: the common intellect is substance. This will have important and decisive consequences for anthropology and the anthropological determination in Medieval philosophy (the absolutization of the person in Thomism, for instance). So, for Karmy it is no coincidence that Italian theory is heavily invested in the “common intellect”: from Mario Tronti’s elaboration on the autonomy of the worker to Antonio Negri’s general intellect when conflating Marx and Spinoza, but also in Esposito’s thought on the impolitical up to Giorgio Agamben’s self-serving averroism and its relation to experience of language and poetry as a form of life. The common intellect in Averroes allows, then, the separation of the the nominal subject from the genus of Man or Human. For Karmy this signals a fracture of the theological-political paradigm.

3. Why does Averroes emerge in Italian theory, and not, say, in French philosophy or German hermeneutics? Karmy relates this to the Italian tradition as a laboratory of translation, sedimentation, and the commentary. To which I responded that this is consistent with Bodei’s emphasis on fragmentation of the Italian tradition, Esposito’s idea of contamination of Italian living thought, and even Agmben’s most recent emphasis of diglossia and bilingualism in the Italian language from Dante onwards (in fact, Agamben is the editor of the Ardilut series on Italian poetry at Quodlibet). I tried to add to Karmy’s thesis the following: the notion of the “commentary” is far from being just a standard glossing over the corpus of an author, it could be very well taken as a sort of problem of language – a poetics, not a politics – which expresses a dynamic of the living that is prior to grammaticalization and political separation of power, for instance. This is the event of a language as such (una voce). It occurs to me that Karmy’s notion of the commentary could be analogous to the vocative in poetry (formidable present in Andrea Zanzotto’s poetics, for instance).

4. Finally, Karmy insisted that Averroes is, indeed, a sort of step back from the modern foundation of politics and the res publica. I suggested that this must entail a decisive step back from Machiavellian politics, or the ‘Machiavellian moment’ (JGA Pocock), insofar as Machiavelli inaugurates the sequence of technical nihilism from the force the political to the force of the worker (ways of arranging the administration of power). This is very neatly stated in Martin Heidegger’s seminar on Jünger’s The Worker. So, Averroes insofar as it gestures to a step back is something other than political republicanism, and this forces us to rethink the genealogy of politics. That seems a heavy but important task at the core of contemporary Italian theory.

Un panfleto impolítico: sobre La apropiación de Maquiavelo: una crítica de la Italian Theory (Guillermo Escolar Editor, 2021), de P.P. Portinaro. por Gerardo Muñoz

El libro La apropiación de Maquiavelo: una crítica de la Italian Theory (Guillermo Escolar editor, 2021) de Pier Paolo Portinero, que acaba de aparecer en excelente traducción de José Miguel Burgos Mazas y Carlos Otero Álvarez, se autopresenta como un panfleto político. En su forma ejemplar, el panfleto se remonta a la tradición de los pamphlets (cuya incidencia en la revolución norteamericana sería decisiva, como lo ha estudiado Bernard Bailyn), aunque el libro de Portinaro tiene la particularidad de no abrirse camino al interior del estancamiento de la realidad, sino en un ejercicio particular: desplegar una enmienda a la constelación de pensamiento contemporáneo proveniente de Italia rubricado en antologías y discurso académico como “Italian theory”. Para ser un libro con abiertas intenciones de “pamphlet, La apropiación de Maquiavelo asume una posición en el registro de la historia de las ideas. Esta diferencia, aunque menor, no debe pasarse por alto, pero ya volveremos sobre ella hacia el final de esta nota. En realidad, el libro de Portinaro tiene algunos visos de impugnación contra todo aquello que huela a “teoría” – de momentos recuerda el libro de François Cusset contra la French theory y su impronta en las universidades norteamericanas – a la que Portinaro entiende como una fiesta atroz de disfraces que combina un plusvalor político propio de las viejas utopías revolucionarias con un apego realista en su crítica de la tradición liberal ordenada.

Según Portinaro se trataría de un monstruo de dos cabezas cuya eficacia política no sería anecdótica: “La irrupción de un anómalo populismo don dos cabezas – esta sí, una peculiaridad italiana – no puede considerarse como un epifenómeno sin relación con la pretensión de combinar una sobre abundancia de utopía y una sobreabundancia de realismo, una plusvalía de representación y una plusvalía de conflicto” [1]. ¿Qué esconde este movimiento pendular, según Portinaro? Un pensamiento localizado y localizable (“italiano”, una suerte de reserva nacional para tiempos globales) que no es otra cosa que “promoción de versiones extremas, de las teorías de otros” [2]. Entendemos que Portinaro hace referencia aquí – en efecto, lo despliega a lo largo de su panfleto – al horizonte de la biopolítica en la línea de las investigaciones de Michel Foucault, y la crítica a la metafísica y al nihilismo en el horizonte heideggeriano de la filosofía alemana.

Portinaro no les concede mucho más a los exponentes de la Italian theory. Y, sin embargo, el panfleto de Portinaro se concibe como un libro justo y necesario. ¿Es suficiente? En ningún momento Portinaro se hace cargo de que la introducción de esa “plusvalía política” por parte de la Italian theory, en realidad, viene acompañada de un esfuerzo sistemático, heterogéneo, e imaginativo de poner en suspenso los presupuestos de la organización ontológica de lo político. Como ha visto Alberto Moreiras en su comentario al libro, el pensamiento de Massimo Cacciari, Carlo Galli, Giorgio Agamben, o Roberto Esposito en lo absoluto pueden ser traducidos a una estructura genérica de politización revolucionaria, pues en cada caso estas obras llevan a cabo una exploración efectiva de las condiciones de politicidad [3]. Desde luego, podríamos prever que el rechazo por parte de Portinaro de confrontar los momentos de mayor lucidez especulativa de la IT se justifican a partir de una matriz realista en ambos casos (tanto para la mentada ‘plusvalía política’ de la IT, como para el propio Portinaro cuya dependencia en el principio político de realidad es absoluto). Pero es aquí donde entran a relucir las contradicciones, pues la IT en modo alguno se agota en un realismo político al servicio de los proyectos de la anarquía de los fenómenos políticos mundiales. En efecto, lo que un “realista” como Portinaro debió haber hecho (pero no hizo) es ver qué pasa con la estructuración de la realidad política para que fenómenos iliberales florezcan por doquier, y para que ahora el orden internacional se vea acechado por el nuevo ascenso imperial de la China.

El acto de magia “irreal”, en cualquier caso, es del propio Portinaro al notar las antinomias de revolución y realismo en el marxismo residual de Antonio Negri sin poder responder apropiadamente a los déficits de la propia tradición liberal que ahora han sido liquidados en la propia génesis de su desarrollo histórico (pensemos en el interpretativismo en el derecho como abdicación del positivismo, o en el paradigma de la optimización de la ingobernabilidad como sutura a la crisis de la legitimidad) [4]. Estos procesos de pudrición histórica-conceptual tienen poco que ver con las audacias especulativas de una constelación de pensamiento atenta a la crisis de las mediaciones entre estado, sociedad civil y subjetividad. Pero es cierto que a Portinaro no le interesa polemizar con el registro especulativo del pensamiento teórico italiano, cuyo momento más alto no estaría en la política sino en la dimensión poética e imaginal a través de la herencia de Vico y de Averroes y del regreso de la teología (el debate sobre la secularización que ha tenido una productiva continuación en Italia tras sus inicios germánicos).

A Portinaro le preocupa la anfibología desde la cual el “pensamiento revolucionario” (¿es lo mismo que la IT?) queda atrapado entre la economía y la política; esto es, entre Marx como suplemento de Maquiavelo, y Maquiavelo como suplemento que se convierte en “estratégicamente ineludible” en el post-marxismo [5]. Dicho en otras palabras, el fracaso del pensamiento del paradigma de la economía política de Marx rápidamente se compensa mediante el paradigma de un realismo político de un Maquiavelo radical para así echar a andar el motor de la conflictividad. El Maquiavelo de la IT dejaría de ser el gran pensador florentino del realismo para devenir un nuevo “visionario revolucionario” capaz que llevar adelante un horizonte histórico de liberación. Pero la sobrevalorada importancia de Maquiavelo en el libro de Portinaro es, a todas luces, estratégica y manierista. Pues Maquiavelo viene a confirmar inmutabilidad del “realismo” en la esfera de la política. Sin embargo, ¿no sería, como vio en su momento Carl Schmitt, que Maquiavelo es el pensador menos realista de la política, pues ningún consejero lo suficientemente “maquiavélico” escribiría los libros que escribió el autor de los Discursos?

Sin embargo, el problema en torno a Maquiavelo es sintomático. Pues lo importante aquí es que aquello que pasa por “realismo” en la época (sociedad civil, estado, instituciones, positivismo, mediaciones) ha dejado de tener un sentido concreto ante la abdicación integral de la organización de la arquitectónica política moderna y la crisis de autoridad. En cualquier caso esto es a lo que viene a alertarnos la Italian Theory. Esto supone que, incluso si hemos de aceptar la centralidad de un “maquiavelismo” exotérico en la IT, tanto Portinaro como los representantes de la constelación que se critica quedarían encerrados en un mismo horizonte de irrealidad; o lo que es lo mismo, presos en un encuadre retórico que les permite compensar la disyunción entre hermenéutica conceptual y realidad política, pero a cambio de abandonar toda imaginación capacitada para una transformación realista. La posibilidad de morar en este abismo entre realidad y concepto, entre el agotamiento de la política y la dimensión insondable de la existencia responde a lo que hemos venido llamando una región infrapolítica. Y atender a esta región es el único modo de hacernos cargo de la realitas en un mundo entregado a la devastación sin acontecimiento.

En los momentos más estelares de la IT (lo impolítico y la munus de Esposito; la destitución y la forma de vida de Agamben; el pensamiento en torno al nihilismo de Cacciari, Vitiello, y Severino) se confirma concretamente la pulsión de lo real; si por real entendemos una posibilidad de proximidad en torno a una crisis conceptual de los fenómenos que no puede trascenderse ni mucho menos suturarse con la gramática de los conceptos políticos modernos. Al final, como alguna vez apuntó Román Jakobson, todos somos instrumentos del realismo, y solo varían los modos de efectuar un principio de realidad. En otras palabras, lo importante no es ser realista como siempre lo hemos sido, sino desde una mirada que se encuentre en condiciones de poder atender a la dimensión concreta de los fenómenos en curso. La diferencia entre los primeros y los segundos hoy se instala entre nosotros como dos visiones ante la época: aquellos que en nombre de la realidad mantienen el mundo en el estado perenne de estancamiento; los segundos que, sin certezas ni principios fijos, arriesgan una posibilidad de pensamiento sin abonar las adecuaciones que ya no pueden despejar una ius reformandi interna.

No deja de sorprender la metafórica con la que cierra el libro de Portinaro, pues en ella se destapa la latencia que reprime la pulsión realista. Escribe al final del libro citando a Rousseau: “el filósofo ginebrino menciona en clave antipolítica la práctica de aquellos “charlatanes japoneses” que cortan en pedazos a un niño bajo la mirada de los espectadores; después, lanzando al aire sus miembros uno tras otros, hacen caer al niño vivo y recompuesto. [6]. Las diversas misiones de la IT le recuerdan a Portinaro estas charlatanerías bárbaras e impúdicas (y podemos imaginar que es también toda la teoría de corte más o menos destructiva o radical). Y, sin embargo, ese mismo cuerpo descompuesto, en pedazos, desarticulado, y abandonado a su propia suerte es la imagen perfecta de la fragmentación del mundo luego del agotamiento de lo político. Ese cuerpo en mil pedazos es el mundo sublime y anárquico que el Liberalismo solo puede atribuirles a terceros para limpiar (de la manera más irreal posible) su participación de la catástrofe. 

Pero mucho peor que imaginar el acto de magia negra de recomponer al niño luego de desmembrarlo en mil pedazos, es seguir pensando de que el niño (lo Social) sigue intacto y civilizado, inmune y a la vez en peligro de los nuevos bárbaros irresponsables. Pero sabemos que esto ya no es así, y pretender que lo es, tan solo puede asumirse desde el grado más alto de irrealismo posible: un idealismo categorial sin eficacia en la realidad. De ahí que, paradójicamente, entonces, el panfleto de Portinaro sea al final de cuentas un texto impolítico, en la medida en que a diferencia de los political pamphlets – que como nos dice Bailyn buscaban persuadir, demostrar, y avanzar concretamente una lucha política reformista – el libro de Portinaro busca aterrorizar contra el único bálsamo de aquellos que buscan: la posibilidad de pensamiento e imaginación [7]. La IT no es otra cosa que una invitación a errar en esta dirección ante una realidad que ya no nos devuelve elementos para una transformación del estancamiento. O lo que es lo mismo: la renovación de volver a preguntar por la revolución.




1. P. P. Portinaro. La apropiación de Maquiavelo: una crítica de la Italian Theory (Guillermo Escolar editor, 2021). 38.

2. Ibíd., 39.

3. Alberto Moreiras. “Comentario a «Apropiación de Maquiavelo. Una crítica de la Italian Theory», de Pier Paolo Portinaro”, Editorial 17:

4. Grégoire Chamayou. The Ungobernable Society: A Geneology of Authoritarian Liberalism (Polity, 2021). 

5. Ibíd., 115.

6. Ibíd., 201-202.

7. Bernard Bailyn. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Belknap Press, 2017). 18-19.