Suchergebnisse

Since his student days in Zagreb, Milivoj Magdic, one of the leading Croatian political publicists in the first half of the twentieth century, was well-disposed towards Marxism. On a result, he gained a prominent place in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. But in his writings he soon divorced himself from official communist ideology. As a result, he was proclaimed a traitor to the party and a provocateur in the pay of the police. He nevertheless remained a committed Marxist until Stalin's purges in the USSR in 1935 left him disillusioned. Thereafter, he became the Yugoslavian communists most dangerous ideological opponent. Magdic' believed that Marxism was flawed because it attempted to build socialism by controlling people, because it left the responsibility of establishing socialism exclusively at the feet of one social class, and because, most fatally, it relied too heavily on materialism. For holding ideas such as these, the communists at one point even atempted to murder Magovac. During the period of the Independent State of Croatia (1941-1945) he wrote mostly for the periodical Spremnost (Readiness), but he held no political office. At the end of the Second World War he emigrated across Austria to Italy, but he was arrested in Rome in 1947 by the English and handed over to the Yugoslav government. He was proclaimed a war criminal, brought before the court, and sentenced to death. This was primarily due to his writings against communism and Marxism. (SOI : CSP: S. 116)

Do proleća 1917. godine, na teritoriji (bivšeg) Ruskog carstva našlo se nekoliko desetina hiljada ratnih zarobljenika Južnih Slovena, od kojih su se mnogi direktno uključili u revolucionarna događanja započeta padom monarhije u februaru. Nakon Oktobarske revolucije, hiljade Bugara, Hrvata, Slovenaca i Srba borile su se na strani boljševika. Od 1918. godine, imali su svoju Južnoslovensku komunističku grupu pri Boljševičkoj partiji, kao i novine Svetska revolucija. Grupa se, međutim, brzo sukobila po pitanju ustrojstva posleratnog projekta. Jedni su se zalagali za stvaranje Jugoslavije kao države Južnih Slovena, dok su drugi smatrali da buduća socijalistička država treba biti Balkanska federacija, stari projekat balkanske socijaldemokratije. Ovo neslaganje dovelo je u konačnici do odvajanja Bugara iz Južnoslovenske komunističke grupe. Iako pitanje buduće radničke federacije na Balkanu nije razrešeno čak ni formiranjem Komunističke internacionale, ova zaboravljena rana debata između tada vodećih južnoslovenskih komunista bila je uvod u kasnije marksističke rasprave o nacionalnom pitanju u Bugarskoj i Kraljevini SHS. Analiza ovih projekata otvara pitanja o prijemu boljševičkih ideja među Južnim Slovenima, kontinuitetu i diskontinuitetu marksističke misli među balkanskim socijalistima pre i posle 1917. godine, kao i o razvoju koncepta lenjinističkog prava na samoopredeljenje u kontekstu političke situacije na Balkanu u posleratnom periodu. ; By the spring of 1917, tens of thousands of South Slavic prisoners of war had found themselves on the territory of the (former) Russian Empire, and many of them took an active part in the revolutionary events which had begun with the collapse of the monarchy in February. After the October Revolution, thousands of Bulgarians, Croats, Slovenes, and Serbs fought on the side of the Bolsheviks. Beginning from 1918, they had their own South Slavic Communist Group of the Bolshevik Party, as well as a newspaper called Svetska revolucija (The World Revolution). However, the Group soon became divided over the question of building a future postwar order. Some communists supported the creation of Yugoslavia as a country of South Slavs, while others thought that the future socialist state must be a Balkan Federation, an old project of Balkan social democracy. The pro-Yugoslav current was composed primarily of people who were radicalized by the world war and the revolution and who fought together in the South Slavic units of the Russian Imperial Army before 1917. The supporters of a Balkan federation were those who were active in the labor movement before 1914. The Bulgarian communists, influenced by the theoretical tradition of "narrow socialism" developed by Dimitar Blagoev, were the standard bearers of the idea of Balkan federalism, while most Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes eventually opted for Yugoslavia, also as a federal state. This disagreement eventually led to the separation of Bulgarians from the South Slavic Communist Group. Even though the question of the future workers' federation in the Balkans was not ultimately resolved even after the creation of the Communist International, this forgotten early debate between the leading South Slavic communists foreshadowed the later Marxist discussions on the national question in Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. The analysis of these projects raises new questions regarding the reception of Bolshevik ideas among the South Slavs, the continuities and discontinuities of Marxist thought before and after 1917, as well as the development of the concept of the Leninist right to self-determination in the context of the political situation in the Balkans in the post-WWI period.

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.

In the 1960s, the quantity of publications on aesthetics of music significantly increased in Hungary. The variability of the subjects, the approaches and the opinions are result of an explicit ideological reordering based on the consequently articulated politics of anti-Stalinism. By the mid-sixties the economic founding and sustainability of socialism and its optimized operation became the crucial problem for the power, hence the importance of natural and social sciences increased in the public discourses. The arts were no longer treated as mere illustrations of the political power and its intentions. I focus on the main contributions to aesthetics of music of the so-called creative Marxism written by three internationally acknowledged Hungarian scholars of this period: József Ujfalussy, Dénes Zoltai and János Maróthy. Selected texts are analized from theoretical points of view and interpreted in the context of the Hungarian cultural policy and the national and international career of their authors as well. ; Током шездесетих година прошлог века, број публикација о естетици музике значајно се повећао у Мађарској. Разноврсност тема, приступа и мишљења резултат је експлицитног идеолошког престројавања услед артикулације политике антистаљинизма. Будући да су средином шездесетих година економска утемељеност и одрживост социјализма и његова оптимизација постале кључни проблем власти, порастао је значај природних и друштвених наука у јавним дискурсима. Уметност више није третирана као пука илустрација политичке моћи и њених циљева. У овом раду фокусирам се на главне доприносе естетици музике од стране заступника тзв. креативног марксизма; аутори чије радове разматрам јесу три међународно призната мађарска естетичара из овог раздобља. Одабрани текстови анализирани су са теоријског становишта и интерпретирани у контексту мађарске културне политике, као и националне и међународне каријере аутора. На основу семиналне књиге Музичка слика стварности (1962) испитујем како се Јожеф Ујфалуси (József Ujfalussy) обавезао да ће конкретизовати основне категорије опште естетике марксизма-лењинизма у музици, да би створио музичко-теоријску основу за дебате о (социјалистичком) реализму у музици. Као резултат својих истраживања, Ујфалуси је разрадио интерпретацију категорије интонације, која садржи психолошке, неурофизиолошке и акустичке компоненте, као и разматрања о историји музичког материјала, мелодији, хармонији и жанровима уопште. Према мојој хипотези, његова естетика је од велике важности јер је послужила као чврста основа за Бартокову парадигму културне политике која се опрезно оријентисала према Западу и његовој "буржоаској" култури. Ову тенденцију је додатно развио Денеш Золтаи (Dénes Zoltai). У овом сегменту текста истражујем како је Золтаи заговарао антидогматску и либерализовану теорију уметности у својој збирци радова Превазилажење "књижевноцентричности" социјалистичког реализма (1964), у којој је музика коришћена као методолошка основа (а не књижевност). У својим написима он је изнео и ново тумачење националног карактера социјалистичке културе, наглашавајући важност интеграције разних дивергентних националних традиција буржоаске уметности. У овом раду, Золтаи се изричито позвао на политички маргинализованог, светски познатог филозофа и естетичара Ђерђа Лукаша (György Lukács), који је са ентузијазмом заговарао оријентацију социјалистичке музичке културе према Бартоковом духу и укупном опусу. Књига Музика и буржоазија, музика и пролетеријат (1966) коју је написао Јанош Мароти (János Maróthy) такође је престављала фундаменталан допринос мултидисциплинарном успостављању марксистичке музикологије у Мађарској. Интегришући неке резултате Ујфалусија и Золтаја, Мароти је конструисао наратив који је требало да буде предисторија социјалистичког реализма. Услед његових политички мотивисаних и застарелих ставова о функцији уметности,као и делимично телеолошког и нормативног карактера његове теорије, ова књига се изразито супротставља другим двема књигама које су предмет овог разматрања. Упоређивањем комплементарних и супротстављених елемената ових дела и њихове рецепције, постају нам разумљиви теоријски проблеми реализма и социјалистичке музичке културе тог времена, а може се видети и како су марксистички теоретичари покушавали да пронађу везу између савремених изазова и европских традиција. ; Часопис је индексиран на http://doiserbia.nb.rs/, http://dais.sanu.ac.rs/handle/123456789/914 и у међународној бази ProQuest. / The journal is indexed in http://doiserbia.nb.rs/, http://dais.sanu.ac.rs/handle/123456789/914 and in the international database ProQuest. Издавање ове публикације подржали су Министарство културе и информисања Републике Србије, Министарство просвете, науке и технолошког развоја Републике Србије и СОКОЈ - Организација музичких аутора Србије / The publication of this volume was supported by the Ministry of Culture and Information of the Republic of Serbia, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia and SOKOJ - Serbian Music Authors' Organization