The article examines the ideologem of the decline of the welfare state. The main question is whether the welfare state is still possible in contemporary society. It is argued that the thesis of the impossibility of the welfare state is an ideological statement, and the supposedly objective demise of the welfare state is what M. Foucault called 'the regime of truth'. The article contrasts the procedural and substantive features of the concept of the welfare state. According to J. Habermas' theory of legitimation crisis, the welfare state and the social rights it provides are not treated as paternalistic and freedom-restricting measures but rather as the foundation of legitimation.
The main task of this article is to analyze the relationship between totalitarianism and democracy in relation with the concept of inverted totalitarianism by Sheldon S. Wolin. The article argues that the possibilities of inverted totalitarianism are inherent within democracy itself. The tendencies of inverted totalitarianism are not only the trait of concrete political regime, but also intrinsic to global political and economic structure. The article asserts that the disciplinary tendencies in contemporary societies are radically changing the classical idea of "rule by the people". The main conclusion is that we are witnessing not only the inversions of totalitarianism, but also the inversions of democracy. This new form of democracy can be called a total democracy without demos. ; Šio straipsnio tikslas – išnagrinėti problemines sąveikas tarp totalitarizmo ir demokratijos, analizuojant ir išplečiant Sheldono S. Wolino totalitarizmo inversijos sampratą. Teigiama, kad totalitarizmo inversijų galimybės slypi pačioje demokratijoje. Inversinio totalitarizmo tendencijos gali formuotis tiek konkretaus politinio režimo rėmuose, tiek ir globalios politinės ir ekonominės struktūros lygmenyje. Straipsnyje pabrėžiama, kad demokratijos teorijos turi atsižvelgti į šiuolaikinėms visuomenėms būdingas disciplinarinės tvarkos tendencijas, kurios radikaliai keičia klasikinę "liaudies valdžios" idėją. Daroma išvada, kad kartu su totalitarizmu apverčiama ir demokratija, kuri įgauna totalios demokratijos be demoso formą.
The main strategy of this article is to consider liberalism in contrast withdemocracy. Many critics of liberal democracy argue that there is no necessaryrelation between two distinct traditions but only a contingent historicalarticulation. The main ideas of liberalism are the rule of law, the defense ofhuman rights and the respect of individual liberty. Democracy, by contrast,relies on substantial equality, identity between governing and governed, andpopular sovereignty. In other words there is a tension between democratichomogeneity and liberal heterogeneity or pluralism.Mainly because of liberal assumption of an autonomous rights bearingindividual, liberalism is very skeptical on the issue of democracy. Liberalsstress the protection of freedom against potential oppressive democraticmajorities. Equality in the liberal tradition is reduced to equal liberty. Theabstract liberal conception of equality postulates that every person is, as aperson, morally equal to every other person. The substantial democratic conception of equality, however, requires the possibility of inequality, i.e. thepossibility of distinguishing who belongs to the demos and who is exterior toit. Equality is only valuable politically so long as it has substance or concretepolitical context.John Rawls's theory of political liberalism accents formal and proceduralaspects of liberal democracy. The main cause is that Rawls's theory is deontological.He draws the distinction between the "right" and the "good" – between a framework of basic rights and liberties, and the conceptions of the good that people may choose to pursue within this framework. Rawls's priority of the right over the good is presented as the principle of neutrality.But the problem is that political liberalism can provide a consensus onlyamong reasonable persons who are persons who accept the principles ofpolitical liberalism. Thus Rawls's allegedly neutral public reason is derivedfrom the fundamentals of liberalism or the specific concept of good.Communitarian political philosophy criticizes liberalism for itsatomism, concept of negative liberty and the priority of human rights. Deontological liberalism, it is said, is excessively individualistic, abstract and universalistic. Challenging the liberal commitment to individualism and to human rights, communitarians insist that democratic community cannot be justified without reference to common purposes and ends. To be a citizen is to interpret oneself as a member of the polity. Democratic homogeneity requires the identity between governing and governed. So, democracy rests not on individual rights, but essentially on the general will of the community.The model of deliberative democracy argues that the essence of democracy is deliberation itself, as opposed to voting, interest aggregation, constitutional rights, or self-government. Deliberative democracy concerns the degree to which democratic control is substantive and engaged by competent citizens. The influence of informal public opinion formation, it is claimed, has to be transformed into "communicative power" and accordingly into "administrative power". But in essence deliberative theory accepts the key tenets of political liberalism. Some deliberative theorists argue that the priority of liberal rights is necessary for deliberative democracy itself.The agonistic model of democracy says that the dimension of antagonism is inherent in human relations. The ineradicability of antagonism, it is argued, is constitutive of the political. The main task of this model is to establish us/them discrimination in a way that is compatible with pluralist democracy. On the one hand, agonistic democracy criticizes neutral and procedural aspects of liberal democracy, on the other hand, both agonistic and liberal models accepts the priority of pluralism and individual rights.In summary, the processes of liberalization and democratization are conceptually contradictory. The ethos of liberalism, especially the ideal of negative liberty, reduces the substantial concept of equality to indifferent equal liberty. The principle of moral equality is gradually transformed to the principle of moral individualism. The deontological liberalism ignores the main democratic question – how to establish the democratic community with both the autonomy of persons and the shared understanding of the good? In this way political liberalism negates the ideal of democracy – the identity between governing and governed. ; Straipsnio tikslas – parodyti, kaip skirtingos politinės filosofijos koncepcijosapibūdina įtampą tarp demokratijos ir liberalizmo. Teigiama, kad politinioliberalizmo koncepcijoje pabrėžiami formos, o ne turinio aspektai. Liberalizmoraida, teikianti pirmenybę liberalizmo, o ne demokratijos idealams, atskleidžiavienpusišką tendenciją. Pirmenybę teikiant individo teisėms, įtampa tarp liberalaus laisvės ir demokratinio lygybės idealų redukuojama į abstraktų lygių laisvių postulatą. Norint aiškiai skirti liberalizmo ir demokratijos įtakos sritis, svarbu grįžti prie filosofinių diskusijų prielaidų lygmeniu. Čia svarstomi klausimai lyginamuoju aspektu tęsia Alvydo Jokubaičio nagrinėtą liberalizmo ir demokratijos santykį kaip gilų konfliktą tarp dviejų skirtingų filosofijų bei raginimą skirti liberalizmo ir demokratijos įtakos sritis.
The main strategy of this article is to consider liberalism in contrast withdemocracy. Many critics of liberal democracy argue that there is no necessaryrelation between two distinct traditions but only a contingent historicalarticulation. The main ideas of liberalism are the rule of law, the defense ofhuman rights and the respect of individual liberty. Democracy, by contrast,relies on substantial equality, identity between governing and governed, andpopular sovereignty. In other words there is a tension between democratichomogeneity and liberal heterogeneity or pluralism.Mainly because of liberal assumption of an autonomous rights bearingindividual, liberalism is very skeptical on the issue of democracy. Liberalsstress the protection of freedom against potential oppressive democraticmajorities. Equality in the liberal tradition is reduced to equal liberty. Theabstract liberal conception of equality postulates that every person is, as aperson, morally equal to every other person. The substantial democratic conception of equality, however, requires the possibility of inequality, i.e. thepossibility of distinguishing who belongs to the demos and who is exterior toit. Equality is only valuable politically so long as it has substance or concretepolitical context.John Rawls's theory of political liberalism accents formal and proceduralaspects of liberal democracy. The main cause is that Rawls's theory is deontological.He draws the distinction between the "right" and the "good" – between a framework of basic rights and liberties, and the conceptions of the good that people may choose to pursue within this framework. Rawls's priority of the right over the good is presented as the principle of neutrality.But the problem is that political liberalism can provide a consensus onlyamong reasonable persons who are persons who accept the principles ofpolitical liberalism. Thus Rawls's allegedly neutral public reason is derivedfrom the fundamentals of liberalism or the specific concept of good.Communitarian political philosophy criticizes liberalism for itsatomism, concept of negative liberty and the priority of human rights. Deontological liberalism, it is said, is excessively individualistic, abstract and universalistic. Challenging the liberal commitment to individualism and to human rights, communitarians insist that democratic community cannot be justified without reference to common purposes and ends. To be a citizen is to interpret oneself as a member of the polity. Democratic homogeneity requires the identity between governing and governed. So, democracy rests not on individual rights, but essentially on the general will of the community.The model of deliberative democracy argues that the essence of democracy is deliberation itself, as opposed to voting, interest aggregation, constitutional rights, or self-government. Deliberative democracy concerns the degree to which democratic control is substantive and engaged by competent citizens. The influence of informal public opinion formation, it is claimed, has to be transformed into "communicative power" and accordingly into "administrative power". But in essence deliberative theory accepts the key tenets of political liberalism. Some deliberative theorists argue that the priority of liberal rights is necessary for deliberative democracy itself.The agonistic model of democracy says that the dimension of antagonism is inherent in human relations. The ineradicability of antagonism, it is argued, is constitutive of the political. The main task of this model is to establish us/them discrimination in a way that is compatible with pluralist democracy. On the one hand, agonistic democracy criticizes neutral and procedural aspects of liberal democracy, on the other hand, both agonistic and liberal models accepts the priority of pluralism and individual rights.In summary, the processes of liberalization and democratization are conceptually contradictory. The ethos of liberalism, especially the ideal of negative liberty, reduces the substantial concept of equality to indifferent equal liberty. The principle of moral equality is gradually transformed to the principle of moral individualism. The deontological liberalism ignores the main democratic question – how to establish the democratic community with both the autonomy of persons and the shared understanding of the good? In this way political liberalism negates the ideal of democracy – the identity between governing and governed.
The aim of this dissertation is to analyze the relationship between the event of post-communism and the democratic nature of the political. Three main tendencies of post-communist condition are analyzed: the relationship between post-communism and historicism; the interaction between post-communism, liberalism and postmodernism; the relationship between unitarism and pluralism. The fundamental assumption of the analysis is the significance of post-foundational political thought for the understanding of post-communism. Post-communism is analyzed not as linear liberal modernization, but as democratic transformation. Post-communism is the hybrid condition that includes the alter egos of communism, liberalism and postmodernism. Post-communism assimilates the potential alter egos of liberalism and postmodernism and therefore transforms the distinction of friend/enemy to the criterion of friend/friend, which ignores the nature of the political. Condition of post-communism requires not the eradication of differencies, but self-reflection of the differential nature of the political. The task of new democracy of post-communism is to articulate the possibility of democratic pluralistic politics under post-totalitarian conditions. However, post-communism is reluctant to accept the dimension of post-totalitarianism and tries to converge with universal post-liberalism. Dominating liberal pluralism assimilates democratic pluralism which becomes democratic procedural minimalism.
The aim of this dissertation is to analyze the relationship between the event of post-communism and the democratic nature of the political. Three main tendencies of post-communist condition are analyzed: the relationship between post-communism and historicism; the interaction between post-communism, liberalism and postmodernism; the relationship between unitarism and pluralism. The fundamental assumption of the analysis is the significance of post-foundational political thought for the understanding of post-communism. Post-communism is analyzed not as linear liberal modernization, but as democratic transformation. Post-communism is the hybrid condition that includes the alter egos of communism, liberalism and postmodernism. Post-communism assimilates the potential alter egos of liberalism and postmodernism and therefore transforms the distinction of friend/enemy to the criterion of friend/friend, which ignores the nature of the political. Condition of post-communism requires not the eradication of differencies, but self-reflection of the differential nature of the political. The task of new democracy of post-communism is to articulate the possibility of democratic pluralistic politics under post-totalitarian conditions. However, post-communism is reluctant to accept the dimension of post-totalitarianism and tries to converge with universal post-liberalism. Dominating liberal pluralism assimilates democratic pluralism which becomes democratic procedural minimalism.
The aim of this dissertation is to analyze the relationship between the event of post-communism and the democratic nature of the political. Three main tendencies of post-communist condition are analyzed: the relationship between post-communism and historicism; the interaction between post-communism, liberalism and postmodernism; the relationship between unitarism and pluralism. The fundamental assumption of the analysis is the significance of post-foundational political thought for the understanding of post-communism. Post-communism is analyzed not as linear liberal modernization, but as democratic transformation. Post-communism is the hybrid condition that includes the alter egos of communism, liberalism and postmodernism. Post-communism assimilates the potential alter egos of liberalism and postmodernism and therefore transforms the distinction of friend/enemy to the criterion of friend/friend, which ignores the nature of the political. Condition of post-communism requires not the eradication of differencies, but self-reflection of the differential nature of the political. The task of new democracy of post-communism is to articulate the possibility of democratic pluralistic politics under post-totalitarian conditions. However, post-communism is reluctant to accept the dimension of post-totalitarianism and tries to converge with universal post-liberalism. Dominating liberal pluralism assimilates democratic pluralism which becomes democratic procedural minimalism.
The aim of this dissertation is to analyze the relationship between the event of post-communism and the democratic nature of the political. Three main tendencies of post-communist condition are analyzed: the relationship between post-communism and historicism; the interaction between post-communism, liberalism and postmodernism; the relationship between unitarism and pluralism. The fundamental assumption of the analysis is the significance of post-foundational political thought for the understanding of post-communism. Post-communism is analyzed not as linear liberal modernization, but as democratic transformation. Post-communism is the hybrid condition that includes the alter egos of communism, liberalism and postmodernism. Post-communism assimilates the potential alter egos of liberalism and postmodernism and therefore transforms the distinction of friend/enemy to the criterion of friend/friend, which ignores the nature of the political. Condition of post-communism requires not the eradication of differencies, but self-reflection of the differential nature of the political. The task of new democracy of post-communism is to articulate the possibility of democratic pluralistic politics under post-totalitarian conditions. However, post-communism is reluctant to accept the dimension of post-totalitarianism and tries to converge with universal post-liberalism. Dominating liberal pluralism assimilates democratic pluralism which becomes democratic procedural minimalism.
The main task of this article is to analyze complex relations between post-communism and democracy. More specifically, it aims to understand the interaction of two different forms of society: holistic and pluralistic. The article argues that post-communism is the hybrid condition that includes the alter ego of communism, liberalism and postmodernism. The reflection of triple relations is necessary for the autonomy of post-communism. The relationship between post-communism and communism is analyzed as the problem of post-totalitarianism, between post-communism and liberalism as the problem of democratic liberalization, and between post-communism and postmodernism as the problem of pluralisation of pluralism.
The main task of this article is to analyze complex relations between post-communism and democracy. More specifically, it aims to understand the interaction of two different forms of society: holistic and pluralistic. The article argues that post-communism is the hybrid condition that includes the alter ego of communism, liberalism and postmodernism. The reflection of triple relations is necessary for the autonomy of post-communism. The relationship between post-communism and communism is analyzed as the problem of post-totalitarianism, between post-communism and liberalism as the problem of democratic liberalization, and between post-communism and postmodernism as the problem of pluralisation of pluralism. ; Santrauka. Šio straipsnio tikslas – atskleisti ir išnagrinėti problemines sąveikas tarp postkomunizmo ir demokratijos; reflektuoti vidines politiškumo formos perskyras, kurios formuojasi komunizmo ir liberalizmo idėjų ir skirtingų visuomenės formų, holistinės ir pliuralistinės, susidūrimo momentu. Teigiama, kad postkomunizmo politiškumo forma yra mišri, apimanti tris – komunizmo, liberalizmo ir postmodernizmo – alter ego. Kiek postkomunizmo transformacijos fenomenas yra autonomiškas, t.y. siekia apibrėžti savo ribas ir neištirpti kitame, tiek reflektuoja santykius a) komunizmo, b) liberalizmo ir c) postmodernizmo atžvilgiais. Pirmasis santykis nagrinėtinas kaip posttotalitarizmo, antrasis – kaip demokratijos liberalizavimo, trečiasis – kaip pliuralumo pliuralizacijos problema. Pagrindiniai žodžiai: postkomunizmas, liberalus pliuralizmas, demokratinis pliuralizmas, diferencinė politiškumo prigimtis. Key words: post-communism, liberal pluralism, democratic pluralism, differential nature of the political. ABSTRACT THE TRANSFORMATION OF POST-COMMUNISM: BETWEEN LIBERAL PLURALISM AND DEMOCRACTIC COMMUNITY The main task of this article is to analyze complex relations between post-communism and democracy. More specifically, it aims to understand the interaction of two different forms of society: holistic and pluralistic. The article argues that post-communism is the hybrid condition that includes the alter ego of communism, liberalism and postmodernism. The reflection of triple relations is necessary for the autonomy of post-communism. The relationship between post-communism and communism is analyzed as the problem of post-totalitarianism, between post-communism and liberalism as the problem of democratic liberalization, and between post-communism and postmodernism as the problem of pluralisation of pluralism.
The main task of this article is to analyze complex relations between post-communism and democracy. More specifically, it aims to understand the interaction of two different forms of society: holistic and pluralistic. The article argues that post-communism is the hybrid condition that includes the alter ego of communism, liberalism and postmodernism. The reflection of triple relations is necessary for the autonomy of post-communism. The relationship between post-communism and communism is analyzed as the problem of post-totalitarianism, between post-communism and liberalism as the problem of democratic liberalization, and between post-communism and postmodernism as the problem of pluralisation of pluralism.
The main task of this article is to analyze complex relations between post-communism and democracy. More specifically, it aims to understand the interaction of two different forms of society: holistic and pluralistic. The article argues that post-communism is the hybrid condition that includes the alter ego of communism, liberalism and postmodernism. The reflection of triple relations is necessary for the autonomy of post-communism. The relationship between post-communism and communism is analyzed as the problem of post-totalitarianism, between post-communism and liberalism as the problem of democratic liberalization, and between post-communism and postmodernism as the problem of pluralisation of pluralism.
The main task of this article is to analyze complex relations between post-communism and democracy. More specifically, it aims to understand the interaction of two different forms of society: holistic and pluralistic. The article argues that post-communism is the hybrid condition that includes the alter ego of communism, liberalism and postmodernism. The reflection of triple relations is necessary for the autonomy of post-communism. The relationship between post-communism and communism is analyzed as the problem of post-totalitarianism, between post-communism and liberalism as the problem of democratic liberalization, and between post-communism and postmodernism as the problem of pluralisation of pluralism.
