Suchergebnisse

Until the first half of the 19th century, two major contending families were predominant in political theory, namely republicanism and liberalism. The early 19th century unambiguously resolved this theoretical contestation in favor of liberalism. In the last two centuries, liberalism has been the leading political theory. The paper analyzes the revival of republican political theory within the framework of the "historical school" and puts forward the theoretical views of Quentin Skinner and John Pocock. Adapted from the source document.

The dispute between liberalism & protectionism is analyzed on two levels: theoretical & practical. First, there is the conflict between A. Smith's liberalism & F. List's economic nationalism. Over the years, Milton Friedman & James Tobin have become leaders of opposing camps. The cutting edge of the debate has been blunted, but the remaining bones of contention are still micro- & macro-issues of national & international economy. The global conflict between liberalism & protectionism has for now ended in a stalemate between regional liberalism & global protectionism. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes the long-, medium-, & short-term prospects of liberalism in Croatia. The long-term prospects are determined by the global future of liberalism; however, agreement among liberal theoreticians as to what that future might look like has not yet been reached. It might be said that the clout of liberals in relation to the other two major political groups -- conservatives & social democrats -- depends on the type of mixture of the value of freedom, equality, & solidarity in Croatian political culture. The medium-term prospects are determined on the basis of the analysis of the social structure of Croatian society, which displays a powerlessness of educated & economically independent social strata as the traditional addressees of liberal politics. The author thinks that major short-term changes in the Croatian political scenery are unrealistic. 2 Figures, 10 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author probes into the epistemological roots of Rorty's liberalism & describes the mental evolution by which the unpolitical ideas presented in Philosophy & the Nature's Mirror obtained political meaning in Rorty's philosophical-political writings. Focusing on Rorty's usage of the notion of incommensurability, the author claims that Rorty fails to explain to the liberals of enlightenment why his postmodern liberalism is better than modern liberalism. 18 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author's thesis is that in the 19th century, Croatia was going through a process of liberalization parallel & similar to that in the rest of Europe. The liberal idea in its political & economic forms played a major role in the platforms of the leading Croatian politicians of the time. The staunchest adversaries of liberalism were the top ecclesiastical echelons. Political liberalism received a mortal blow in 1918, while economic liberalism was smothered by the planned economy after 1945. 30 References. Adapted from the source document.

The author tries to show which social & political processes in modern postindustrial society underlie the above mentioned deliberation. Upon enumerating some of the key characteristics of the contemporary information society, the author shows the way in which communitarianism & new liberalism have tried to counter these challenges. The author shows that communitarianism & liberalism, unlike the earlier theories of democracy, are not models for the organization of a society or a state that deserve to be applied, but open-ended projects by which it is possible to democratically solve open political & social issues in the present-day information age. Adapted from the source document.

The author's starting assumption is the domination of two undemocratic ideological orientations: liberalism & republicanism. The author sees republicanism & liberalism as the ideas proximate to the political or the democratic. These ideas operate semantically but cannot be identified with the political or the democratic. This is not possible as they are not commensurable structures. By providing a theoretical account of various historical traditions the author shows that European republicanism ignored democracy & considered it to be the worst form of government. This is partly true of the liberal political doctrine that evolved later. The author argues it is possible to convert republicanism to democratic pluralism i.e. that this is the biggest common good today. In this way republicanism may be spared its controversies. References. Adapted from the source document.

The author writes about MacIntyre's usage of the concept of incommensurability in the sphere of the philosophy of politics. The concept was first used by Feyerabend who based it on his relativist attack on liberalism. MacIntyre also focuses on the criticism of liberalism, not from the anarchodadaist but from the neo-Aristotelian-Thomistic perspective. The essay consists of four short sections: Section A gives a short review of MacIntyre's understanding of the concept of incommensurability in the books After Virtue & Whose Justice? Which Rationality? Section B compares MacIntyre's thinking about the incommensurability with Kuhn's & Fayerabend's solutions of the same problem. Section C describes the use of incommensurability in the book Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry; section D tries to see how dangerous MacIntyre's criticism is when directed at nonuniversalistic liberals. If incommensurability is a fact, does that make it an insurmountable problem for liberals? This text is an attempt to answer that question. Adapted from the source document.

The author writes about MacIntyre's usage of the concept of incommensurability in the sphere of the philosophy of politics. The concept was first used by Feyerabend who based it on his relativist attack on liberalism. MacIntyre also focuses on the criticism of liberalism, not from the anarchodadaist but from the neo-Aristotelian-Thomistic perspective. The essay consists of four short sections: Section A gives a short review of MacIntyre's understanding of the concept of incommensurability in the books After Virtue & Whose Justice? Which Rationality? Section B compares MacIntyre's thinking about the incommensurability with Kuhn's & Fayerabend's solutions of the same problem. Section C describes the use of incommensurability in the book Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry; section D tries to see how dangerous MacIntyre's criticism is when directed at nonuniversalistic liberals. If incommensurability is a fact, does that make it an insurmountable problem for liberals? This text is an attempt to answer that question. Adapted from the source document.

The author claims that classical liberalism solely recognizes the individualist perspective of maximizing individual profit & totally bypasses the issue of solidarity. Only as the consequence of workers' movement & the Marxist critique of the freewheeling market did the welfare state emerge to make up for the lack of solidarity. The welfare state, however, is based on a combination of the opposing principles: freedom & social justice, the state of law & social responsibility, the right to an unfettered individual development & the limitations to individual freedom through welfare institutions. The contradictions & the crisis of the welfare state have resulted in a series of criticisms. Contrary to the liberal & social-democratic critique, the author bases his position on the precepts of a bourgeois society as an ambience of civic solidarity. Such an attitude takes the civic responsibility for granted not only regarding legal & political but also social prerequisites for practicing civic autonomy. Adapted from the source document.

The author claims that classical liberalism solely recognizes the individualist perspective of maximizing individual profit & totally bypasses the issue of solidarity. Only as the consequence of workers' movement & the Marxist critique of the freewheeling market did the welfare state emerge to make up for the lack of solidarity. The welfare state, however, is based on a combination of the opposing principles: freedom & social justice, the state of law & social responsibility, the right to an unfettered individual development & the limitations to individual freedom through welfare institutions. The contradictions & the crisis of the welfare state have resulted in a series of criticisms. Contrary to the liberal & social-democratic critique, the author bases his position on the precepts of a bourgeois society as an ambience of civic solidarity. Such an attitude takes the civic responsibility for granted not only regarding legal & political but also social prerequisites for practicing civic autonomy. Adapted from the source document.

The author demonstrates how the individual is implied in the very idea & concept of democracy as being free in principle & equal to other individuals. The emancipation & subjectivization of man in the new era appears to be the fundamental presupposition of every democracy, including, of course, the pluralistic one. In a political community in which the free individual does not happen to be the starting point & the purpose of the political system, there is no democracy. Neither is there any demos, as this entity is only possible if a full & unalienable political subjectivity of the individual is presupposed. Without the philosophy & the historical experience of liberalism, there would be no possibility for a modern pluralist democracy either. Pluralism suits human nature & relationships among people more than all other political forms. Man himself is "structured pluralistically" because of the complex mental structure & the different interests that activate him. No social order or political system based on the principle of collectivity (regardless of its social, national, religious, or philosophical origin) has any chance either to promote social progress or to survive. Adapted from the source document.

Is Rousseau unquestionably an enemy of political liberalism, as per the famous irrevocable judgment of I. Berlin? In other words, is he a representative of radical (even "totalitarian") democracy, an apologist of popular sovereignty and a vicious plebeian "friend of the people" (of so-called "positive freedom"), who overlooks the importance of negative freedom of individuums and the separation of powers? Are Rousseau as republican political theorist on the one hand and political liberalism on the other advocates not only of different, but opposite perceptions of political freedom? The first part of the paper recalls the fact that Rousseau's political theory is shaped in a deliberate and complete opposition with regard to the physiocratic economic liberalism, which reduces freedom to its economic and legal aspects, and the modern man to a bourgeois. In this Rousseau is very close to Tocqueville, who questions the physiocratic doctrine from the standpoint of political liberalism. The second part provides a concise presentation and evaluation of the critique of Rousseau's political doctrine (of political freedom and popular sovereignty) from the standpoint of B. Constant's classic political liberalism. In the third, final and most important part, the author shows that an adequate comparison of Rousseau's doctrine with the liberal political doctrine must carefully distinguish between the conceptual clusters reflecting affinity (the people and the separation of powers) and the ones reflecting opposition (the people, the law, the general will and the citoyen). On the basis of this distinction, Rousseau turns out to be both frere and ennemi -- i.e. frere ennemi -- of political liberalism, but not of economic liberism as well. Adapted from the source document.