Search results

The author shows that it is not possible to formulate a consistent theory of freedom, tying together the internal perspective of action & the external perspective of rational description & explanation of action. In the history of philosophical discussion about freedom as a fundamental concept of liberalism, Kant & Hegel represent two extremes. Each tried to formulate consistently a concept of freedom & its moral & political consequences, but both paid the price of one-sidedness. Kant postulates the primacy of the internal perspective of the moral subject, which is ideally expressed by his categorical imperative. However, the concept of freedom defined from the stance of autonomous morals loses contact with the historical world of traditional values, with the consequence of moralizing politics & unrealistically disregarding the nation as a characteristic framework of politics. Hegel points out the priority of the external perspective, which gives him an analytical advantage relative to liberal theories of natural law & Kant's moralist position. However, as warned by the German political theorist Hermann Heller, Hegel's position results in defining the sphere of collective morality as superior to individual action, disregarding the protection of individual liberties against the state & accepting national politics of power as the only criterion for international politics. The author concludes that liberal constitutions, unlike totalitarianism, must then be inconsistent. Adapted from the source document.

The author elaborates on two central assumptions. The first (based on comparative survey results from ten postcommunist countries) is that there is a marked positive correlation between the residue of "communist legacy" in people's & the electoral success of leftist parties. Since that legacy in Croatia (& the Czech Republic) has been weakest, this is going to be an aggravating circumstance for SDP in their struggle for power. The second assumption is that the politics of leftist parties that could come to power is to shuttle between two extremes: the restoration of real-socialism in a modified form & the social-democratic model of Sweden or at least Germany. According to the author, the key agents of such politics are "neotraditionalism" & "political capitalism", both from the former system. Adapted from the source document.

The collapse of the communist systems has brought about the crisis of identity & political efficacy of the Left, not solely in Eastern Europe but in the West as well. Due to this situation, the author claims, all the elements of the traditional leftist identity have come under scrutiny. This applies both to the political ingredients common to all leftist parties (the primacy of the economy, rejection of private ownership & market, egalitarianism, collectivism, & the theory of progress) as well as the elements that instigated irreconcilable differentiations within the Left (internationalism vs nationalism, parliamentary democracy, attitudes toward violence, reform vs revolution). The author concludes that due to the complex structure of the problems facing leftist parties, & other political protagonists as well, there is little possibility for the emergence of an all-embracing leftist political program; instead, partial program variation should be expected. 6 References. Adapted from the source document.