Título en español.

Abstract

It is necessary to distinguish c1earIy between the social and the political principies. The two were confussedin the ancient world, except only in China, where Laotse' s rural social system confronted theurbanpoliticalsystem~of Confucius. The Greeks, on the other hand, did not rnake a true distinction between these two principies and, consequently, between social and political reality. Plato'ssystem irnplies the annulment of Society; Aristotles's State would absorb its existence, In stoicisrn one encounters an occasional glimpse of insight into this distinction, but without a clear, conscious grasp of the matter. So much so, that universal society and the Roman Empire are identified as one. Medieval christianity, however, intuits the social principIe, but fails to develop it adequately. On the contrary, the tendency to affirm the supremaey of the State over Society continues to grow. Althusius took issue with the notion of distinguishing between these terms. He rejects the picture of Society as facing the State but acknowledges the autonomy of the social groups and of the principIe that interrelates them. The triumph of absolutism impeded the progress of his original and significant contribution. During the rSth century, paral1eling the development of the bourgeoisíe, the idea began to make headway of a "civil society", as distinct from the State. It is, however, á society dominated by an individualistic criterion, because, theoreticalIy as wel1 as practicalIy, anything that makes references to corporativeexistence is ruled out. After the French Revolution and as a reaction against it, the reality of Society as a totality opposed to the State is clearIy stated. Saint Simon is a precise exponent of this new attitude. In his judgement, Society administers, whereas the State governs, and, giving priority to Society, he pronounces that as many tasks as possible ought to be transferred from politics to administration. Hegel also perceives the differentiation clearIy, but considers that, by itself, Society is incapable of achieving order and liberty, and that it depends on the State to provide these foc her, Lorenz von Stein thinks along the sarne lines. Marx envisions a victorious Society, free at last at the end of the class struggLe but asserts Society's absolute submission to the State during the time necessary to achieve that goal. After this historical exposition, the author states briefly where he himself stands. Rather than individuals, diverse groups comprise the social community, which makes itself felt through communality of life and thought. Alone, it is incapable of handling alI the conflicts which might arise within it -hence the necessity of the State. Nevertheless, the greatest possible margin of social spontaneity ought tobeallowed. To this end, on the one hand, thé greatest -feasible decentralization, must takeplace.. On the other, the administrative, i, e., social management ought to assume many functions which nowadays, are part of thegovernmental process.