Suchergebnisse

In 2005 The Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory has undertaken a reputed interview (after the one done in 2001/2002, whose results have been published in Politika i svakodnevni zivot, 2003), based on identical methodology (in-depth interview and qualitative analysis) but on a reduced sample (30 interviewees) in six towns in Serbia. The objective was to examine how citizens see the circumstances in society today, five years after the October turn, and what conditions their attitudes towards: the policy of new democratic powers, of democratic parties and those of the ex-regime, as well as towards the problems they are confronted with, and whether the initial optimism has gone and why. The results obtained by this interview show that after five years of experience with democratic transition the interviewees are more critical regarding the actual democratic policy (especially of the second democratic Government), and more likely to forget the reasons created by the former regime as obstacles to a successful democratic transition. For this reason, disappointment has grown, and an initial optimism gives its place to pessimism, with vanishing of the hope in the possibility of radical democratic change. This makes it possible to give a chance to the Radical Party in a future election. But, in spite of current confusion among citizens produced by the examined state of affairs, as well as the ambiguities in certain attitudes, this inquiry suggests that the interviewees have provided a quite realistic evaluation of the actual conditions in Serbian society today, and that their criticism, which arises from disappointment, does not completely cancel a positive attitude towards democratic transition, since their criticism results from dissatisfaction with the unrealized democratic principles and values after October 5th.

It is argued that six factors contributed to the breakdown of the Yugoslav state: the development of nationalism, particularly among Serbians in the Kosovo region; the lack of a symbolic universum (ie, shared meanings & symbols that unite a society) in post-WWII Yugoslavia; the emergence of social, political, & economic crises in the early 1980s; the fall of communism in 1989/90; & the number of uneducated & illiterate people. Though these factors made civil war inevitable, it is contended that Yugoslavia missed opportunities to democratize socialism in the 1950s & during the 1968 student movements. Reflections on the future of the region are offered, & the impact of intellectuals & peace activists on the civil war is discussed. W. Howard

A commentary on A. Schaff's "Les Pays socialistes, sont-ils socialistes?" ([Are Socialist Countries Really Socialist?], L'Homme et la societe, 1982, 65-66), calling into question Schaff's conclusion on the socialist nature of East European societies. The false premises on which the questionable conclusion is based are: (1) that a negation of the socialist character of these countries demobilizes any attempt to surmount their "deformations" & "errors"; (2) that one can formulate a "reduced definition of socialism" in economic terms alone to provide arguments in favor of the aforementioned thesis; & (3) that abolition of private property guarantees a socialist base in these societies. However, Schaff exchanges theoretical argumentation for political rhetoric, intending to touch his readers' feelings, not their minds, completely disregarding all unfavorable events that contradict his thesis, eg, Czechoslovakia's invasion & Poland's coup d'etat. Theoretically, the most questionable idea is Schaff's "reduced definition of socialism," ignoring everything except the abolition of private property as a socialist achievement per se, as if political structure & social relations were not relevant to a definition of socialism. His "broader conception of socialism" is useless for being so broad & general. When the definition of socialism is more concretely formulated in terms of a necessary reconstruction of power structure based on monopoly of power, of a society's members' participation in decision making, or even of a more just distribution of goods & opportunities, it becomes clear that "socialism" is so far removed from the practices of these societies that Schaff has not even attempted to seriously analyze the situation because he knows it for what it is; therefore, he had to resort to sophistry. Modified AA

A review essay on F. Feher's, A. Heller's, & G. Markus's Dictatorship over Needs (Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell, 1982 [see listing in IRPS No. 30]). This work affirms that critical Marxism can explain "really existing socialism," using an anthropological approach, & proposes a viewpoint of authentic democratic socialism from which to do so. It offers a sound explanation of the functioning of actually existing socialist societies & economies, as command economies based on corporate ownership of the means of production by a party apparatus. Important innovations in analysis are suggested. Coresponsibility for this situation is ascribed to Marxism, seeing it as rooted in a conflicting view of human existence that affirms both perfectibility & pessimism. Ultimately, it is decided that the only socialism with a future is one that denies "actually existing socialism" the claim to be socialist; this denial must be the basis for any meaningful reforms. W. H. Stoddard

Although in Eastern Europe in the 1980s, the only political possibility would appear to be acceptance of the existing "socialism," this belief was challenged by in 1980/81 the Solidarity movement in Poland, which represents the first appearance in history of an entire society's movement toward emancipation. The historical lessons of this event are explored. The era of purely proletarian movements has come to an end, having been replaced by social movements; the era of classical revolutions has also ended. The Polish event was not purely political, as is Euro-Communism, but was made up of free associations. Its basic principles included the pursuit of emancipatory aims, self-organization of society, self-determination by individuals, & avoidance of the reduction of social issues to political ones. A number of long-established illusions & myths associated with socialism must now be rejected for a new vision. W. H. Stoddard.

Democracy & socialism are not separate concepts; socialism is a development of democratic relations. However, it has long been common to identify Stalinism with socialism. Stalinism can be defined in terms of state ownership, merging party & state power & suspending social power, suspension of democracy within the party, & limitations on individual liberty. These policies are essentially counterrevolutionary. Stalinism was not the inevitable result of the October Revolution, nor was it due to the underdevelopment of Russia; rather, it derived from the inner limitations of Bolshevism, including vanguardism, a one-party system, & growing detachment from the international workers' movement. The Stalinist system continues to exist as a bureaucratized political society whose primary end is not emancipation of the Wc but consolidation & maintenance of power. Rejection of this system of existing socialism opens a possibility of its rehabilitation. W. H. Stoddard.