Search results

In an age of extreme political polarization and waning of reasoned debate across political divides, Capitalism for Realists carefully explores the inner workings of capitalism in a consciously non-partisan and balanced way. Does the modern capitalist economy alleviate poverty and exploitation, or exacerbate them? What, exactly, is neoliberalism,' and how well or poorly has it performed in the past 40 years? Does capitalism undermine democracy, or is it rather one of its key necessary conditions? How have altruism, cooperation, tolerance, violence, and trust fared under the influence of the modern market society? Should we analyse capitalism through the mainstream economic lens or a more critical Marxist perspective? This book offers answers to these questions. Synthesizing decades of research across disciplines, Capitalism for Realists offers an overarching perspective on the modern economy by theoretically unifying many of the claims and conclusions about it offered by various traditionally rivalrous social science paradigms, such as institutional, neoclassical, and public choice economics on the one hand, and Marxist sociology on the other. The book presents and critically assesses the latest data and debates on such crucial contemporary issues as the relationship between poverty, exploitation, inequality, and capitalism, the nature of neoliberalism' and the successes and failures of both state-led industrial policy and the Washington consensus, capitalist peace theory, historical origins of modern capitalism, and more. What emerges is a clear picture of the merits and demerits of the modern economy too nuanced to be simplified and categorized by the prevailing political discourses. Rich in empirical detail, this lively, accessible book will appeal to undergraduate and graduate students with interests in sociological theory, political theory, economics, and political and economic sociology.

Against romanticising democracy -- Wealth: the path to freedom? -- Voters are not stupid, but we do not know much -- Politicians are people, not angels -- For and against democratic peace -- Conclusion: Fukuyama's 'the end of history?' in social scientific retrospective.

AbstractHow have broad patterns of violence and war changed from the dawn of humanity up to present time? In answering this question, researchers have typically framed their arguments and evidence in terms of the polarized debate between Hobbes (or hawks) and Rousseau (or doves). This article moves beyond the stalemated debate and integrates the most robust existing theoretical developments and empirical findings that have emerged from various disciplines over the past 20 years– primarily sociology, political science, anthropology, and archaeology– to answer the question. Drawing on carefully curated violent lethality data for pre historically appropriate hunter-gatherers, as well as historical pre-state and state societies, it shows that simple narratives of violence and war decreasing through history from ostensibly high levels in the human state of nature, on the one hand, and the obverse insistence that the once mostly peaceful communities became highly belligerent with the transition to modernity, on the other, are both wrong. Instead, multiple lines of existing evidence and theoretical perspectives suggest a complex, non-linear, Kuznets-style relationship between violence and the passage of history.

In her introduction to the themed cluster "Nationalism, (Anti-)Communism and Violence in the European Cold War," the author contextualizes the issue's research contributions on Greece, Czechoslovakia, and Bulgaria. She introduces the methodological rationale and highlights what binds the three case studies together: They explore how nationalism was woven into Cold War societies. The authors employ, as analytical prisms, both physical and symbolic violence in order to visualize empirically the workings of nationalism in the service of both communism and anti-communism. Hitherto, few scholars have focused on the interconnections between nationalism, (anti-)communism, and violence in Cold War east central and southeastern Europe.

This article presents and critically assesses the latest anthropological and archaeological research on the chronology, lethality, and frequency of violence and war in human history. Stepping back from the rhetorically polarized dispute between 'Hobbesians' and 'Rousseauans', the article examines the methods and findings of the latest research in a conceptually novel way, i.e. by dropping the existing and widely used polarized terms that have inevitably framed the literature so far. The article demonstrates that multiple sources of evidence point more in the direction of the modal human prehistoric social organization, i.e. nomadic hunter-gatherers, likely having warfare only in a minority of cases, or war even being virtually non-existent (with interpersonal violence being more common). The dispute over this claim so far is found to stem, at least in part, from the varying definitions of war and the grouping together of nomadic with complex foragers. More significantly, the disagreement is due to different sampling and sourcing techniques of different researchers, the biggest divide being between self-selection/systematic sampling and first-best/second-best sources. Important potential warlike exceptions are also noted and discussed in the article from multiple angles (Jebel Sahaba, Nataruk, Aboriginal Australia, etc.), as are the discovered precursors and enabling conditions of war, such as the complexification of (nomadic) hunter-gatherer societies with the transition to settled life.

W opracowanych materiałach zasobów archiwalnych Wojskowego Biura Historycznego
oraz Archiwum Akt Nowych odkryto wiele wcześniej nieznanych informacji dotyczących
organizacji wojska polskiego z okresu walk listopadowych 1918 r. we Lwowie. Fakt ten
świadczy o tym, jak bardzo ów temat pozostaje aktualny, chociaż co roku ukazują
się nowe publikacje mu poświęcone. Zawarte materiały opisują proces kształcenia
pół-ochotniczych jednostek i ich przekształcenie w regularne jednostki wojskowe.
W artykule ukazano Wojsko Polskie, nie od strony udziału w działaniach zbrojnych
a od strony fi nansowej oraz organizacyjnej podstaw służby, mobilizacji, wykształcenia,
zaopatrzenia i uzbrojenia.

The article deals with the process of training of the Galician Army officers and soldiers. The main subdivisions were mobilized soldiers where teaching method were specified. Among them the infantry's training of military district teams in Stryy, Stanislav and Kolomyya were the most successful. The Artillery had been taught in the spare units in Zolochiv, Kolomyya, Ternopil, Stryi and Chortkiv. The Aviation school operated in Krasne. On the territory of the Nadniprianschyna preparation was conducted at cabinet-type maneuvers, although the real studying was impossible because of frequent changes of situation. The only exception was the artillery schools, which trained several dozen artillery officers. The important part of military training and the maintenance of discipline in units was the officers' charisma. Not only the successful operation, attack or defense, but also the life of the staff depended on their personal qualities. The reasons of the disciplinary infringements were: the quality of mobilized soldiers (ideology, war fatigue ect.); agitation and propaganda; lack of a national uniform, low wages, problems with technical and financial support. All the violations were severely punished by the command (degradation in rank, arrest, whipping, hanging or shooting). The soldiers received appropriate remuneration and awards for their courage and dedication.

Sistemi organizacije državne oblasti se razlikujejo po načinu delitve oblasti, organih, ki so nosilci te oblasti ter njihovih medsebojnih odnosih. Parlamentarni sistem, ki je uveljavljen tudi pri nas, temelji na načelu delitve oblasti. Organi državne oblasti med seboj sodelujejo, se nadzorujejo, med njimi pa je z namenom preprečitve zlorabe oblasti vzpostavljen sistem zavor in ravnovesij. V moderni demokraciji med strankami na volitvah vedno poteka tekma za čim višje število glasov, zmago na volitvah in prevzem oblasti. Zmagovalna večina se poveže ter oblikuje vlado, stranke, ki niso članice koalicijske večine, pa čakajo na svojo priložnost na naslednjih volitvah. Vendar mora biti njihov glas vseeno slišan, saj odločitve večine postanejo tudi odločitve manjšine, ki mora zato imeti možnost vpliva na sprejemanje odločitev, poleg tega je pomembna tudi možnost nadzora dela koalicijske večine in izvršilne veje oblasti, v ta namen pa ima opozicija na voljo različne instrumente nadzora. Opozicija ima možnost uporabe svojih sredstev na različnih področjih, v okviru zakonodajne, volilne ter nadzorne funkcije Državnega zbora. Nosilec izvršilne oblasti je v parlamentarnih sistemih vlada, ki je parlamentu odgovorna za svoje delo, brez njegove podpore pa ne more delovati. Parlament, znotraj njega zlasti tudi opozicija, ima na voljo več instrumentov nadzora nad delom vlade, najpomembnejši so poslansko vprašanje, interpelacija in konstruktivna nezaupnica. Nesoglasja med parlamentom in vlado lahko privedejo do politične krize, v končni posledici pa tudi do razpustitve parlamenta in novih volitev. Obstaja več različic parlamentarnega sistema, razlikujejo pa se po načinu oblikovanja, sestavi in delovanju vlade. Naša ureditev se zgleduje po nemškem modelu, pri čemer pa v smeri skupščinske ureditve od njega odstopa v nekaterih pomembnih elementih. Predvsem je tu mišljeno imenovanje ministrov s strani Državnega zbora ter s tem povezani instrumenti, ki povečujejo individualno odgovornost posameznih ministrov v razmerju do Državnega zbora, kar je neskladno z modernimi parlamentarnimi sistemi, ki poznajo predvsem kolektivno odgovornost vlade. Taka ureditev relativizira pomen instituta konstruktivne nezaupnice, ki smo ga sprejeli iz nemškega modela. Zaradi naše neučinkovite ureditve bi bile smiselne ustavne spremembe, kar je zaznal tudi Državni zbor, saj je skupina poslancev predlagala spremembo ustavnih določb, ki se nanašajo na oblikovanje Vlade, v odzivu na ta predlog pa je nastal še predlog Strokovne skupine, ki je predlog poslancev analizirala. Ta naloga obravnava predlagani spremembi Ustave, predlog poslancev in predlog Strokovne skupine, s poudarkom na učinke predlaganih sprememb na položaj opozicije. Poleg tega so v nalogi predstavljene tudi nekatere druge možne spremembe Ustave, ki se nanašajo na način oblikovanja Vlade. Vsak predlog spremembe Ustave našo veljavno ureditev približuje določeni podvrsti parlamentarnega sistema. Pred sprejetjem kakršnekoli spremembe Ustave je torej vredno razmisliti, kateri ureditvi se želimo približati in kakšen vpliv na našo trenutno ureditev bi imel sprejem določene spremembe Ustave. ; The systems of state authority differ in the way they separate powers, branches of power that are holders of the power and their relations. The parliamentary system, which is established also in Slovenia, is based on the principle of separation of powers. The branches of state authority collaborate with each other and control the work of one another. The system of checks and balances is set up to prevent the abuse of power. In the modern democracy there has always been a race to get as many votes as possible, win the elections and take over the power among parties in the elections. The majority that wins is united and forms the Government, while parties that are not members of the majority coalition wait for their opportunity in the next elections. However, their voice has to be heard, because the decisions of majority become the decisions of minority as well, that is why they have to have an impact on decision-making. Besides, the possibility of supervision over the part of the majority coalition and the executive branch is important, for this purpose the opposition has different instruments of supervision. The opposition has a possibility of the use of its means on various areas, within the legislative, electoral and supervisory functions of Parliament. The government, which answers to the parliament for its work, but without its support cannot work properly, is the holder of the executive body in the parliamentary systems. The Parliament, and within it, also in particular the opposition, has several instruments for controlling the work of the Government, the most important are parliamentary question, interpellation and constructive vote of no confidence. Disagreements between the Parliament and the Government can lead to the political crisis and ultimately to the dissolution of the Parliament and new elections. There are several variants of parliamentary system, they differ in the way of forming, structure and working of the Government. Our system follows the German model's example, but as far as assembly is concerned, it differs in some important elements. This mainly refers to the appointment of ministers coming from the National Assembly and instruments referring to it. These instruments are increasing individual responsibility of individual ministers in relation to the National Assembly and that is inconsistent with modern parliamentary systems which are familiar with collective responsibility of the Government in particular. Such system relativizes the meaning of the institute of constructive vote of no confidence which is based on the German's model. Constitutional changes would be logical due to our ineffective system, this was also noticed by our National Assembly. The group of members of the Parliament proposed a change for constitutional provisions which refer to the forming of the Government. In response to this proposal, the Professional group, which analysed the proposal of the members of the Parliament, formed another one. This master's thesis deals with the proposed change of the Government, the proposal of members of the Parliament and the proposal of the Professional group, with emphasis on the effects of proposed changes regarding the position of the opposition. The thesis also presents some of the other possible constitutional changes that refer to the way of forming the Government. Each proposal of the constitutional change brings about our valid system to get closer to the certain category of the parliamentary system. It is worth considering which system is better and what kind of effect would passing a certain constitutional change cause, before even considering constitutional changes of any kind.

AbstractSpencer Dimmock has produced a convincing restatement, defence and update of Robert Brenner's influential work on the origin of capitalism in England. The book productively engages with many Marxist and non-Marxist critics of the so-called 'Brenner Thesis', and presents fresh secondary and primary evidence in favour of it. This review sketches the theoretical background of Brenner's intervention, summarises Dimmock's take on Brenner, and comments on a few notable contemporary critiques of Brenner's general framework which are not explicitly engaged with by Dimmock.