The author claims that freedom is what makes philosophy possible in its essence. Along with Kant, the author sees in freedom the spring of pure reason. It is in freedom, as a self-construed concept, that pure reason has its substance. The author goes then goes into the negative & positive concepts of freedom & analyzes the practical notion of freedom whose principles might secure world peace. Adapted from the source document.
In accordance with his practical philosophy, which views the essence of morality & right as "ought to" (Sollen), Kant deduces his notion of perpetual peace as the paragon of the relationship among rulers & states. Hegel's criticism of this view in his Philosophy of Law points to its three major flaws. The first is the very nature of the international legal system, which operates among independent states & whose sanctions do not provide a supra-sovereignty of a pan-international state. Further, treaties & agreements among states have no praetor & do not exclude war as "the natural state" among them. Finally, there is no universal international will, but only particular wills of individual states, which hardly achieve a consensus on war & peace. As a postulate of practical reason, perpetual peace remains a sheer ideal. Adapted from the source document.
The study is a contribution to the discussion on the definition of war in the modern era & focuses on contemporary debates. By exploring the essence of politics & nation, in line with Carl Schmitt's theory of politics & by taking into consideration the forms of national liberation wars, the author points to the inadequacy of von Clausewitz's instrumental/political definition of war & lists most critical remarks to this theory. The author describes other theories, such as the pure war theory (war separated from politics) & the existential war theory (a political entity is being shaped & coming into being). Then he systematically lays out the modern concept of the nation & the corresponding definition of war. In defining wars, the author relies on the modern philosophy of the subject, particularly by G. W. F. Hegel, & on Scheler's theory of nation & war. Finally, the study shows that international relations are still to a large extent determined by the nationally based politics, & that contemporary wars include many features of international & national-liberation wars. 14 References. Adapted from the source document.
The article distinguishes two ways in which Heidegger can be a subject of research. In one type of research, he is a historical figure of political events, & as such a subject of history as a science. Such research has to satisfy the scientific criteria of historiographical method regardless of how critically it treats its subject. In the second type, the subject are Heidegger's work & the philosophical motives of his political involvement at the start of the Nazi regime in 1933/34. An analysis has in both cases come up with some sloppy scientific procedures & shown that frequently the a priori assumptions get the upper hand, & tend to lean in favour of proving his guilt. A brief introductory overview of the debate is followed by a concise historical outline of the stages in this controversy, & then by an excursus about the essence of the scientific method, & finally by a critical review of the works of some historians which serves the author to demonstrate how it is possible for research to get off the right track when not respecting the criteria & the standards of the scientific method. The second part focuses on the question of the interpretation of the relationship between philosophy & political activism. The thesis (with critical references to some recent ideas by Fried, Kisiel, Thoma) is that the philosophical motives of Heidegger's "leap" into politics should primarily be sought in the methodological dimensions of his work, primarily in those linked to the problems of grounding, & not so much in certain notional concordances of his categories with the Nazi terminology & concepts. 54 References. Adapted from the source document.
A poll on political tolerance was conducted using a 772-subject sample. Because of the long-lasting totalitarian system & the short period of democracy, a rather low level of political tolerance was expected. However, the results of the poll showed a high level of political tolerance instead. Similar findings have been obtained by an American survey conducted in several European countries, including Croatia. This means that political tolerance in Croatia has not been shaped by the totalitarian system but by the pluralist traits of the Croatian culture, ensuing from numerous contacts with a plethora of different cultures. If the pluralist democracy in Croatia is to function democratically, appropriate legal prerequisites & institutions do not suffice; the people who are in line with the principles of pluralist democracy are central to this as well. Pluralist democracy legalizes various political options & enables citizens to organize themselves & act in accordance with the embraced option. All this, however, is a moot point if people are not willing to accept the existence & activism of different political options. That is why the concept of political tolerance always goes hand in hand with the concept of pluralist democracy. The essence of political is not tolerance & patience but non-restriction of political freedoms & political pluralism. Those who accept political pluralism must acknowledge the existence of various political options, even those of which they do not approve. They more readily accept the existence of various political options & nurture a less intensive feeling of intolerance & bigotry. So, tolerance means accepting, not just tolerating, different political options. 12 Tables, 2 Graphs, 19 References. Adapted from the source document.
The source of the four centuries of controversies surrounding Althusius's Politics is not the work itself but its interpretations. The author argues that Althusius's political teaching is not controversial; further, its methodical nature is highly conducive to a theoretical debate about the political/theoretical & cultural tradition of thought in general. The author first identifies the fundamental concepts of Althusius's political thought, & the logic of his exposition in Politics. He shows that Althusius's work is a systematic -- methodically presented -- study of politics, defined as a way in which people unite to have a good life by means of the communicatio of things, services & rights. Consequently, political science deals with the real or ideal ways of this association & its results. Althusius was the first author who explicitly said that only a people as a whole may be sovereign. He also created a theoretical concept of popular sovereignty. That part of his teaching is Althusius's greatest & largely undisputed contribution to political thought. In the second part, the debate about the interpretation of the "controversial" fundamental tenets of Althusius's teaching is reviewed, the tenets that refer to the essence of human community & the character of its political organization. The author concludes that Althusius's work is a type of junction of the then "defeated," but today increasingly popular, ideas: communitarianism (vs individualism) & social solidarity (vs the one-sided maximalization of individual benefit), a kind of matrix-type structure of the social system (vs political-pyramidal), ie, the autonomy of its parts (vs the monolith centralist-state system). In the dawn of a new era, the elements of those traditions that were soon to be (temporarily) defeated, were systematically depicted in Althusius's epochal opus, whose internal potential is increasingly recognized as one of the most relevant provenances of modern political thought. 25 References. Adapted from the source document.
The essay describes the evolution of the concept of political culture, from the concepts such as Comte's 'consensus,' Durkheim's 'collective awareness,' Weber's 'significance of individual actions,' to Parson's 'action frame of reference,' & Mead's 'national character.' The development began with Comte's search for differentia specifica of social sciences in relation to other positive sciences & finished in 1963 with the introduction of the concept of political culture into political science by G. Almond & S. Verba. Our analysis has shown that many definitions of political culture point out that its essence lies in people's beliefs since political culture is a set of beliefs regarding politics. As much as it may seem a paradox, it cannot be reduced to mere individual beliefs, but represents a system of inter-subjective opinions on various political objects. This explains the possible discrepancies between the political events & the political beliefs of the people, between their behavior & political culture, & so on. Contrary to the belief of some authors, it has been shown how political culture may & should be taken as a common denominator for a variety of opinions on politics. Political attitudes, values, norms, public opinion, & political ideologies are nothing but different manifestations of political culture. Thus, the concept of political culture includes diverse facets of the subjective attitude of people towards politics. This is the asset & not the downside of this concept, as some authors would have it. It is pointed out that the manifold manifestations of political culture do not carry the same 'weight' in explaining the political activism of people & the functioning of political systems. The relationship between these manifestations is extremely complex & a challenge for research. It is this very relationship that could explain the stable & less stable (ie, stable & vacillating) reactions of people in their political activity. Adapted from the source document.
U razdoblju od 1944 do 1947. KPJ je imala rukovodeću ulogu u novom državnom aparatu, ali je postojalo i višestranačje. Dilema da li ovakav stranački pluralizam ili jednostranački sistem brzo i relativno lako je riješena u korist KPJ. U tom razdoblju stranački sistem u Jugoslaviji se najviše približio boljševičkom. Sukob sa Staljinom prisilio je rukovodstvo da potraži novi identitet jugoslavenskog društva, različit od birokratskog sovjetskog sistema, ali uz zadržavanje diskontinuiteta sa zapadnim tipom građanskih demokratskih društava. Tražio se tzv. treći put društvenog razvoja na terenu samoupravnog socijalizma. KPJ je donjela odluku o vlastitoj preobrazbi u SKJ, ali se nije bitno izmijenila niti vlastitom ulogom niti organizacijskom strukturom. Polovicom 1950. lansirana je teza o odumiranju države, ali nerazvijenoj društvenoj praksi i dogmatskom teorijskom nasljeđu korespondirale su i nerazvijene teorijske rapsrave o bitnim problemima odumiranja države. Nakon kratkotrajnih inicijalnih rezultata smanjivanja uloge i funkcije države, nastupaju duga razdoblja jačanja države. Država je ostala sila iznad institucionalnih oblika samoupravljanja. Ustavom 1974. oktroiran je tzv. integralni sistem socijalističkog samoupravljanja. U takvom sistemu, ali i zbog njega, razgara se duboka i dugotrajna društvena kriza. Usprkos čestim promjenama politički sistem reproducirao je stare birokratske insitutcije koje su onemogućavale provođenje dubljih društvenih promjena. Dominacija politike nad ekonomijom nije dozvoljavala da se faktički radi na deetatizaciji i debirokratizaciji političkog sistema. Prelaz na razvijeni model parlamentarne demokracije bio je neophodan, ali je vrlo dramatičan. ; In the period from 1944 to 1947 the KPJ (Communist Party of Yugoslavia) played the leading role in the new government, but the multi-party system also existed The dilemma of choosing between such party pluralism and the one-party system was quickly and relatively easily resolved in favour of the KPJ. In this period the party system in Yugoslavia had come closest to the Bolshevist system. The conflict with Stalin compelled the leadership to search for a new identity of the Yugoslav society, different from the bureaucratic Soviet system, but retaining the discontinuity with the Western type civil democratic societies. What was sought after was the so-called third road of social development on the pounds of self-managing socialism. The KPJ decided to transform itself into the SKJ (League of Communists of Yugoslavia), but in essence it neither changed its role nor organizational structure. In the mid-fifties the withering away of the state concept was launched, but the undeveloped social practice and dogmatic theoretical legacy was also accompanied by undeveloped theoretical debates about the crucial problems concerning the dying away of the state. After short-lived initial results in reducing the role and function of the state, came long periods in which the state strengthened its power. The state remained a force above the institutional forms of self-management. With the 1974 Constitution the so-called integral system of socialist self-management was octroyed In such a system, but also due to it, a deep and long lasting social crisis had flamed up. In spite of frequent changes, the political system reproduced old bureaucratic institutions which prevented deeper social changes from taking place. The domination of politics over economy did not permit work to be done on the deetatization and debureaucratization of the political system The transition to the developed model of parliamentary democracy was indispensable but it has been very dramatic.
