Suchergebnisse

В статье рассматривается становление социологии как науки (вторая половина XIX начало ХХ вв.) и её влияние на идеологические структуры в обществе. Статья содержит полемику с К. Мангеймом, который заложил основы современных представлений об идеологии, охарактеризовав её как выражение интересов определённых слоёв населения, он называл её «частичной идеологией». В аннотируемой статье проанализирован иной подход к идеологии: опираясь на социологов, которые видели в ней науку о целостном обществе, автор выделяет у них мысль о существовании целостных идеологий научного типа. О. Конт, один из создателей социологии, рассматривал её как науку о человечестве, соответственно, он сформулировал идеологию, которая выдвигает цель блага человечества. Э. Дюркгейм настаивал на приоритете общества перед индивидом и разрабатывал идеологию солидарности. Русский марксист и позитивист А.А. Богданов оценивал социологию как науку об организации опыта человечества и утверждал, что наука развивается в сторону единства социального опыта, в этом духе он говорил об идеологии коллективизма, солидарности. Авторский метод состоял в сопоставлении теоретических взглядов ранних социологов позитивистской направленности О. Конта, Э. Дюркгейма, А.А. Богданова на социологию и идеологию и в полемике по этим вопросам с К. Мангеймом. В статье обосновывается вывод о том, что наряду с частичными идеологиями (выражающими интересы определённых классов) существуют идеологии тотальные, формирующиеся на основе социальных и естественных наук и могущие в полной мере быть названными научными идеологиями. Современность свидетельствует о том, что частичные идеологии всё более размываются, тогда как научные идеологии распространяются и охватывают каждое общество, что происходит по причине срастания науки, техники и государства. ; In modern times (last 100-150 years), the influence of science and technology increases on society, not only the utilitarian influence (on production, on the organization of social life), but also on the ideology, just the science becomes ideology (J. Habermas). Thus the question arises, what is the relationship between science, scientific ideology and traditional political forms of ideology (socialism, liberalism, conservatism). For example, this article describes three social systems of O. Comte, of E. Durkheim and of A.A. Bogdanov. These positivist sociologists were closest in contact with science and with the science of sociology in particular. Parallel to this was the polemic with Karl Mannheim, who had laid the foundations of modern conceptions of ideology as expression of the interests of certain social groups. Auguste Comte was one of the founders of the science of sociology, for him it was the complete of the natural sciences. The result was the elimination of the deep differences of natural philosophy from the moral philosophy accepted since the time of Plato and Aristotle. The ideology of Conte was an expression of the interests of the whole society, not even of the state, but of mankind. So was formed Conte's new ideology of solidarity, the promotion of the public good should be predominant in it. E. Durkheim, following Comte, stood on the positions of the scientific study of society, but the bearer of public interest for him were, on the one hand, family and professional association, on the other hand, the state. At the end of his life he spoke about socialism, but his socialism was special, he rejected the principle of equality, but appreciated the impact of the group on the individual and therefore can be considered close to the ideology of solidarity. The third form of the science of sociology and ideology of solidarity, which is seen in this article, it is empiriomonism of A.A. Bogdanov. He insisted on the integrity of human experience, both natural and social. For centuries there were processes of convergence of different sciences, but at the stage of machine production there appeared a chance to overcome the specialization and anarchy, to submit sciences and social experience to the principle of monism. Like Comte, Bogdanov thought in the scale of humanity, whose task was considered the organization of all its forces for the struggle with nature, to establish the power of labor over it. Bogdanov was a brilliant mouthpiece of the idea of solidarity, though, being an unorthodox Marxist, recognized the principle of equality. It is considered that sociology is a theoretical construction which contains the political view of a certain segment of the population at its present and future. Ideologies of examined social theories pretend to be scientific and to express the interests of large human conglomerates, lately they are getting stronger, while traditional political ideologies are blurred (blurred communism, blurred socialism, and nationalism is experiencing attacks of ethnic groups, etc.). Reality demonstrates the multiplicity of ideologies, but a holistic knowledge doesn't give the relative synthesis of different ideologies (Mannheim), but the ideology derived from scientific knowledge of society. The author is far from the idealization of scientific ideologies, though they had the form of an ideology of solidarity, but we must be aware of their impending force and its pros and cons.

Blood in the Sand is Stephen Eric Bronner's powerful critique of the current state of American foreign and domestic policy, ranging from the government's initial response to 9/11 and the assault on Afghanistan through the Iraqi War and the ramifications of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Bronner, who just months before the war began spent time in Iraq as part of a peace delegation, examines the state of twenty-first century America, a nation in which security against future terrorist attacks has become an obsession, "moral values" have turned into a slogan, and belief in the right to engage

American liberalism today is in a state of confusion and disarray, with the "L word" widely considered a term of derision. By examining both the historical past and the fractious present, Liberalism for a New Century restores a proud political tradition and carves out a formidable defense of its philosophical tenets. This manifesto for a New Liberalism issues an urgent and cogent call for the most important rethinking of its values since the late 1960s, when conservatives reenergized themselves after Barry Goldwater's infamous loss. The essays in this volume, most of them never before published, are written by a leading group of historians, journalists, and public intellectuals. Some of the nation's most highly respected liberal minds explore such topics as the classical liberal tradition, postmodernism's challenge to the American "Enlightenment," the civil rights era, the influence of twentieth-century radicals on American liberalism, the 1950s, tolerance, the cold war, and whether liberalism should have a large and aggressive vision. One essay considers liberalism in Iran and what American liberals might learn from this movement. Fast-paced and encompassing such hot-button issues as the family and religion, here are ringside-seat arguments between people who don't often get to engage with one another: right-leaning liberals like Peter Berkowitz and John Patrick Diggins, and leftier liberals like Michael Tomasky and Mona Harrington. The result is a lively and stimulating collection that articulates a clear-minded alternative to the conservative ascendancy in American history and offers a timely and essential contribution to the growing national debate

Polens nationalpopulistische Regierung hatte auf Großbritannien gesetzt, um eine engere Integration in Europa zu verhindern. Doch nach dem Brexit-Votum und dem Wahlsieg Emmanuel Macrons steht Warschau im Abseits. Die Kosten sind hoch: Je weniger Einsatz und Solidarität Polen für Europa zeigt, desto mehr schwindet sein Einfluss. (IP)

Das heutige Russland ist kein von Wladimir Putin geschaffenes Konstrukt, sondern das Produkt einer Entwicklung seit dem Zerfall der Sowjetunion. Der Aufstieg eines Wirtschaftssystems, das weder Wettbewerb noch Innovation bieten kann, war genauso unvermeidbar wie die Rückkehr zur imperialistischen Außenpolitik. (IP)

Seit Jahren verbittet sich Russlands Staatsspitze Kritik wegen Missachtung von Demokratie und Rechtsstaatlichkeit. Doch nun geht der Kreml in die Offensive. Putin reklamiert nicht nur einen eigenständigen Weg Russlands, sondern proklamiert sein Land zum Hüter "traditioneller Werte". Der Versuch, an die Rolle Russlands als "Gendarm Europas" anzuknüpfen, ist augenfällig. Auch erschließt sich der Kreml damit ganz neue Alliierte, und zwar am rechten Rand des westeuropäischen Parteienspektrums. Die Suche nach Partnern für eine langfristige demokratische Entwicklungsperspektive in Russland ist schwieriger geworden. Aufgegeben werden darf sie nicht. (Osteuropa (Berlin) / SWP)

Die syrische Muslimbruderschaft (MB) hat im Sommer 2013 herbe Rückschläge hinnehmen müssen. Zum einen hat Katar, einer ihrer wichtigsten regionalen Unterstützer, Saudi-Arabien die Führungsrolle in der Freundesgruppe des syrischen Volkes überlassen – einem Zusammenschluss von Staaten und Organisationen, die Syriens Opposition zur Seite stehen. Zum anderen haben ihr die starke Kritik an der Regierungsarbeit der MB in Ägypten und die Medienhetze gegen den politischen Islam seit dem Sturz Mohammed Mursis zugesetzt. Unter dem Eindruck dieser Ereignisse haben die syrischen Muslimbrüder die Ende Juni angekündigte Ausrufung einer Partei – bis dato ist die MB eine Missionsgesellschaft – vorerst aufgeschoben. Dabei ist die Bruderschaft die Kraft, die innerhalb der syrischen Oppositionsbündnisse am besten organisiert ist. Nach wie vor sieht sie sich als führende Kraft im postrevolutionären Syrien. Deutsche und europäische Politik sollte moderate Kräfte jeder politischen Couleur zur Zusammenarbeit ermutigen und sie bei der Umsetzung demokratischer Konzepte unterstützen.(Autorenreferat)

On 11 February 1975 Heath lost the election as leader of the Conservative Party and transferred his place to Margaret Thatcher. This date marks the anchor of a process of voluntary marginalisation through which Heath opposed Thatcher and rejected thatcherism. During the fifteen years of the Thatcher era, Heath took on the role of the revolted dissident and, according to John Campbell, became "the embodiment of anti-Thatcherism." We will see on this occasion that if his dissent company follows traditional mechanisms — denial of leadership, denial of legitimacy, systematic criticism of his action — it nevertheless offers an interesting reversal of the codes. Her entry into dissent was much more than an opposition to a political adversary, she was a means of life and renaissance. Power muted Heath, the dissent released him. Heath opposed himself and turned out to rebel. His dissent experience thus provides original insights into a concept too often associated with the concepts of oppression or clandestine. Heath was the only real resistance to Thatcher and there is still a key feature of dissent and rebellion in the British political landscape. It will be interesting to look at his years of revolt — not yet studied to date — and to see how he built his opposition to a leader that nothing seemed to reach and how it operated within a party known to be untolerant of acts of dissension and disloyalty. ; Le 11 février 1975 Heath perdit l'élection au poste de chef du Parti Conservateur et céda sa place à Margaret Thatcher. Cette date marque le point d'ancrage d'un processus de marginalisation volontaire au travers duquel Heath marqua son opposition à Thatcher et son refus du Thatchérisme. Pendant les quinze ans de l'ère Thatcher, Heath endossa le rôle du dissident révolté et devint selon John Campbell "the embodiment of anti-Thatcherism." Nous verrons à cette occasion que si son entreprise de dissidence suivit des mécanismes classiques – négation de l'autorité du leader, refus de sa légitimité, critique systématique de ...

Over the past decade, there has been a surge of "new Left" governments in Latin America, yet polling data shows no comparable shift to the left among the general Latin American population. If electorates have not followed their political leaders to the left, then it is likely that new right-wing political actors will emerge to compensate for the leftward shift in Latin American politics. The author proposes a research agenda for studying right-wing politics in light of the current wave of left-leaning governments in the region. He argues that we should focus on four main areas of right-wing politics: the political agenda of right-wing groups; their political organization; their power capability; and the institutional environment in which they operate. This agenda requires that we move beyond the traditional focus on right-wing political parties and focus on right-wing organizations at all levels of formal politics, as well as groups that operate outside the formal political arena. (GIGA)