Social reforms had an important position in the process of transition changes in Serbia in the previous decade. Their strategic framework and aims have been defined in the first years after the 'democratic changes' of 2000 and their realization followed by a series of problems. The transition from the 'socialist welfare state' to the concept of 'active social policy' has been in compliance with the accepted model of (liberal) reforms and changes in the institutional sphere. Analysis of effects and achievements have pointed to an inadeaqucy of the accepted model and deficiencies in the practice. From the point of view of the current situation and expected changes in the future, there is an obvious need for a comprehensive evaluation of cause of (un)success of social reforms. The reason for that lies in the elimination of insufficiencies and creation of a basis for the construction of a system in compliance with the national objectives, the European standards and global challenges.
This paper introduces the concept of social capital as a valuable social resourcewhich is accumulated and developed via activities of civil society organizations: through reciprocal relationships as well as through relations with the domain of political power. Civil society, as the institutional actor of political participation, is in a relationship with social capital, which, to a great extent, improves the political, economic and cultural aspects of societies – those with consolidated democracy and institutions, as well as post communist societies with nonconsolidated democracy. Strengthening and development of civil society has a positive impact on the strengthening and development of social capital and vice versa. On the other hand, social capital lays a solid foundation and a base for the growth and strengthening of civil society, thus raising citizens' awareness about political participation which is an indispensable ingredient of the development of democracy. By depicting norms, networking and trust, as well as by distinguishing bonding from bridging social capital, this paper is going to portray the subject matter of social capital which is "utilized" by the citizens' and stakeholders' effi cient collaboration, thus contributing to democratic development. The stability of developed social capital facilitates the development of political participation and enhances democratic development.
Joint effect of 2008 economic crises and continous world-wide present deficite of political legitimacy have in 2011 given birth to global resistance, but also facilitated development of its new strategies and tactics. Aldough we are still by large able to understand these contemporary models of collective action with help of New Social Movement Theory, today they objectivelly grasp a wider field of meaning, mainly for reason of their demands for radical transformation of both economic and political system. Contemporary social movements are still struggling for re-interpretation of meaning, and identity issues, but not any more for any particular goal. Instead, they seek systemic change. This extremelly important shift of strategic orientation, which makes new movements a bit old – that is classical, remains in our oppinion, undervalued both in academic, and general public for the reasons that we will try to comprehend, in this writing. ; Sadejstvo udara ekonomske krize iz 2008. i kontinuiranog deficita političkog legitimiteta dovode 2011. do pojave globalnog otpora, ali i do razvoja njegovih kvalitativno novih strategija i taktika. Iako je savremene modele kolektivne akcije dobrim delom i dalje moguće razumeti uz pomoć teorije novih društvenih pokreta, oni danas objektivno zahvataju jedno šire polje, najpre zbog zahteva za radikalnom promenom u ukupnom ekonomskom i političkom sistemu. Savremeni društveni pokreti i dalje se bore za reinterpretaciju značenja i priznanje sopstvenog identiteta, ali ne više za bilo koje pojedinačno pitanje, već za sveobuhvatnu promenu sistema. Ta izuzetno važna promena strateške orijentacije, koja nove pokrete čini pomalo starim – upravo klasičnim, ostaje, čini nam se, nedovoljno primećena iz razloga koje ćemo pokušati da rasvetlimo.
Već više od dve godine traje velika pan-evropska debata o Budućnosti evropske socijal-demokratije (2009-2011) kao pokušaj odgovora na izazove globalne krize, ali i na duboku i dugotrajnu krizu same socijal-demokratije. Dok su tokom 2000. godine socijal-demokrati bila na vlasti u većini evropskih zemalja (11 od 15 članica EU ), danas vladaju u samo nekoliko perifernih zemalja Evrope (4 od 27 članica EU u 2011). Iako u nekoliko velikih zemalja još uvek privlače 20-30% birača, odnosno poseduju koalicioni kapacitet i za osvajanje vlasti, ipak je marginalizacija ključni trend. U traganju za vlastitim identitetom, novom paradigmom, pan-evropska debata problematizuje ključne teme i izazove naše civilizacije, kao što su globalizacija, logika kapitalizma i njegove moguće reforme, smisao i značaj Evropske Unije. Ova debata ponovo vraća u javni diskurs i niz ključnih koncepata na kojima se gradi zamisao o 'dobrom društvu', kao što su društvene vrednosti, kultura, značaj srednje klase i ekološka i socijalna održivost. ; We are in the third year of the pan-european debate on the future of European Social Democracy (ESD). It is a response to the challenges of the global economic crisis, but also a response to the deep internal crisis within the ESD. While the social democrats were in power in the majority of European countries in the year 2000 (11 of 15 EU members), they are rulling parties in only few peripheral countries in 2011 (4 of 27 EU countries). Althouth they are still able to attact 20-30% of voters, and with toghether with their partners are even able to form goverments in some countries, their margananalization is a major trend. This is not only because of electoral defeats, but it is due to membership decline, shaken ties with trade unions, lack of an alternative program in a situation when neoliberalism is shaken and political actors have searching for new formulae. In a search of their own identity, new paradigm and attractive program, pan-european debate critically analyze key issues and challenges of our civilization, such as globalization, nature of capitalism and its possible reforms, meaning and importance of the EU , the role of government regarding markets. This debate has brouth back into public discourse many important concepts that constitute the idea of 'good society,' such as social values (equailty, solidarity, social justice), buth also importance of culture, middle class, and social and environmental sustainability.
This article firstly focuses on the initial recognition, in the final period of the second Yugoslavia, of the existence of social inequalities, as the first serious symptoms of abandoning the ideology of social equality and socialism as a whole. Moreover, the nationalist mobilization was used as a lever for restoration of capitalism as a typical class society. After that it briefly outlines two post-war periods of structuring social opportunities in societies in the West, and partly also in the East. The first period is designated primarily by egalitarian tendencies, which is manifest in increased popularity of critical and radical trends in social sciences. The second period, which still lasts, is quite opposite in orientation, and this is, in turn, manifest in ever greater relevance of social Darwinism as a discursive foundation of a series of sciences. The next, and largest, part of the article is dedicated to an attempt at explaining the permanence of social inequalities, and the author stresses the inexhaustible character of Rousseau's question regarding the origin of social inequalities. In the present-day quest for an answer to that question, certain similarities are noticeable between (neo) evolutionism and (neo) Marxism. Although Marx himself stressed the correspondence of his conception of class struggles in history with Darwin's conception of struggles for survival in nature, but also took into account the differences (between natural evolution and human history), the conclusion on the identity of their conceptions imposes itself through observations about the constant defeat of the proletariat in age-long struggles against the oppressors, which continue to this very day in the epoch of neo-liberal global capitalism. Reflecting on possibilities of a generally different outcome in the struggles for a more just society, the author finds that there are two interrelated prerequisites to their existence. The first has to do with connecting the theory and practice of liberalism and socialism with the aim of establishing a balance between the mechanisms of individual freedom and competition on the one hand, and social sensitivity or solidarity on the other. The second prerequisite is the construction of a world democratic state. Its political interest and scope of governing would neutralize the key concept (and self-reproduction mechanism) of social Darwinism -- inclusive fitness. Quite simply, the latter means to favour "one's own" group while humiliating or excluding the other. In a society with a globally ruling government, the division between "one's own" and "somebody else's" parts of the world -- the boundaries of which are nowadays all too often shifted to and fro as a consequence of the erratic character of expansion and contraction of the market and the breaking out of conflagrations of war, producing a permanent Hobbesian "state of nature" -- would make way for wisdom of governing and for work of all for the benefit of all. Adapted from the source document.
