Suchergebnisse

Kako je tema ideologije europskih stranki populističke i radikalne desnice u literaturi vrlo opširna, u radu se pokušava kroz analizu diskursa i programa istražiti moguća povezanost fašizma i radikalne i ekstremne desnice; na koji način i ako uopće, desne organizacije i stranke rehabilitiraju fašističke ideje. Kratkom uvodu u kojemu se objašnjava cilj istraživanja, slijedi teorijsko-konceptualni okvir u kojem se najprije definiraju pojedini važni pojmovi – ideologija fašizma i današnje desnice pa onda i razlikovanje ekstremne i radikalne desnice. Drugi se dio okvira odnosi na prikazivanje veza različitih europskih ekstremnih i radikalnih stranaka i grupacija s fašizmom. Na primjeru nekoliko europskih stranaka utvrđeno je kako postoji razlika između ekstremnih i radikalnih organizacija iako nije uvijek moguće točno odrediti granicu budući da nerijetko takve stranke prilagođavaju ideologiju u skladu s vremenom kako bi osvojile vlast. Nakon glavnoga dijela prikazuje se kratki zaključak s istaknutim nedostatcima i prijedlozima za poboljšanjem. ; As the topic of the ideology of the European populist and radical right parties is extensive in academic research, the possible connection between fascism and the radical and extreme right through the analysis of discourses and programs will be explored; how and if at all, right-wing organizations and parties rehabilitate fascist ideas. A short introduction explaining the aim of the research is followed by a theoretical-conceptual framework in which certain important concepts are defined - the ideology of fascism and present-day right along with the distinction between the extreme and radical right. The second part of the framework shows the links between various European extreme and radical parties and groups with fascism. The example of several European parties has shown that there is a difference between extreme and radical organizations, although it is not always possible to determine the exact distinction, as often such parties adjust their ideology in accordance with ...

First, the author analyzes Helmuth Plessner's interpretation of Husserl's phenomenology. He goes on to outline the cognitive limits of the phenomenological-hermeneutical method, successful in text analysis, but inadequate in illuminating pertinent historical processes. In his conclusion, the author points to Plessner's uncritical mixing of scientific & phenomenological interpretations of fascism. Adapted from the source document.

The author points out that in postcommunist countries, there is a genuine danger of postfascism, which is identical neither to classical fascism nor to neofascism, but shares certain fundamental common traits. Like in classical fascism, expansionism is particularly dangerous in postfascism. The author shows that the project of Greater Serbia is the very roots of the war in the entire territory of former Yugoslavia. Based on the tradition of Croatian antifascism, the author claims that the response to postfascism can only be democratic politics. Globally, it means that democratic countries cannot be morally neutral or passive toward manifestations of postfascism. The historical experience with fascism shows that diplomatic means are insufficient to thwart postfascist projects. Adapted from the source document.

Cilj je ovog rada steći što širi uvid u problem definiranja modernizma u fotografiji između dva svjetska rata u Zadru. Pozornost se posvetila političkoj i društvenoj situaciji u Zadru, fotografima te fotografskim izložbama koje su ostva- rile utjecaj na razvoj zadarske fotografije. Obradom referentne građe o izložbama, pregledom relevantne literature i periodike te uvidom u arhivske i muzejske zbirke raspravio se razmjer prodora i utjecaja modernizma na fotografsku situaciju u Zadru toga vremena i utjecaj koji je izvršio na poslijeratni modernizam. ; The aim of this paper is to offer a broader insight into the problem of defining modernism in Zadar's photography between the two World Wars. Particular attention has been paid to the political and social situation in Zadar, its photographers, and the photo exhibitions that had a special impact on the development of Zadar's photography. By analysing the relevant material on the exhibitions, scholarly literature and periodicals, as well as the archival and museum collections, the author has assessed the extent to which modernism has permeated and influenced Zadar's photography at that time and the impact it exerted on post-war modernism.

In a reply to Vujevic's response to his earlier review of the latter's FTRPoliticka i medijska kultura u HrvatskojR ([Political and Media Culture in Croatia] 3PLMS 2003 1), the author points out the polemical nature of invoking fascism, communism, etc, to make rhetorical points; also notes that Vujevic fails to grasp his own nuanced thought, & that he also fails to distinguish between tolerance as a virtue of the civil society & tolerating in the sense of tacitly accepting the odious. The author takes issue with Vujevic's definition of tolerance as embracing difference rather than supporting it, & also asserts his claim that Vujevic does not analyze his own data correctly, claiming that a 38% sector of the population in favor of legally protecting political parties of various ideological stripes is a majority. 1 Table. A. Siegel

For the political principle defining the political will of fascism, survival of a national state (regardless of whether it already exists or is to be formed; in the latter case, this gives legitimacy to antagonism) is sufficient reason for the unconditional imperative of political activity. The concept of the state underlying the political activity of fascism is solely an empirical notion or a sensory concept of community. Another more paramount reason is transcendental, unfeasible, as it were. According to the same nation-building principle, another nation, within & without a particular state, is a priori suspicious, since it must be striving to create its own state by encroaching on another nation's state. Thus, this fascist political principle, which wants to turn this nationalist maxim into a constitutive principle, cannot ensure either internal (ie, a state) or external peace & perishes in a civil or world war. For antifascist activity, however, it is not central whether it takes place in this or that state. The basis of antifascism is the concept of the state that, in its most positive & purest form, came to the fore in bourgeois political thought. In it, the central concept of the state, considering the rationale for the existence of a state, is clean-cut & thus, general, although a possible historical existence of a state is empirical & particular. The fundamental motive of antifascism is not national & patriotic but primarily moral & political, & possibly (derivatively) patriotic. Which state deserves to exist is determined by external social conditions for the realization of the concept of freedom. This makes room for the formation of broader multinational unions, even federal states. The world federation is a bourgeois political ideal, whose realization represents the ultimate purpose of world history. Adapted from the source document.

In his Homo sacer trilogy G. Agamben engages with a series of important issues related to contemporary political philosophy & ethics. Agamben shows that the period of National Socialism & Fascism confronts us with an epochal project of subject destruction. The core & uniqueness of this project are derived from an ideologically & biologically founded naturalism. Thus perceived naturalism uses, ie., misuses, the technical possibilities & means of the politics of power of modernity, creating a system of perfect organization with the purpose of destroying the Other. Such a naturalistic policy can be termed historically unique, since its goal is no longer the destruction of individuals, groups, classes or peoples, or even of mankind as a whole. Its aim is to destroy the humanity of man, precisely in the sense ascribed to this concept by Kant -- namely, man's subjectivity. In other words, a fundamental idea is revoked here: the idea of mankind as such, which encompasses the idea of common mankind, and, in this way, the very idea of subjectivity is negated. Adapted from the source document.

In a response to Vladimir Vujcic's earlier review of the author's (2003) book, Politicka i medijska kultura u Hrvatskoj (Political and Media Culture in Croatia), which charged that the author had trod on research that Vujcic himself was preparing in his own recently published Politicka tolerancija (Political Tolerance), & also failed fully to account for a conclusion that intolerance of fascists, Yugoslavists, communists, & Ustashe in contemporary Croatia is not indicative of a culture of political intolerance. In response, the author points out that much of his research was carried out in 1992-1993, & that the author himself acknowledged the difficulty of adequately defining "tolerance." In conclusion Vujcic is accused of sophistry. A. Siegel

Examines liberal democracy in relation to the European tradition from whence it sprung & enumerates the biggest differences between the historical forms of democracy & its modern guise. According to the author, the authentic enemies of modern liberal democracy are fascism & bolshevism. He summarizes his analyses into three points. (1) In western countries the principles of democracy have mostly been realized in the course of a long genesis following the conflict with monarchist absolutism & more recently, with fascism. (2) In the philosophy of modern day politics, mostly formal & quantitative aspects of democratic processes have been analyzed, which is the biggest shortcoming of these theories. That is why the author proposes an analysis of meaningful aspects of liberal democracy. (3) Focus is on the analysis of freedom & democracy as forms of the organization of political life of major human groups characteristic for the industrial age & modern capitalism. At the end of his study the author puts some light on the relationship between liberalism & democracy by describing the hermeneutical functions of morality in the modern age. The political culture & moral consciousness represent the base for the functioning of mediatory democracy. The hermeneutical nature of moral consciousness allows modern democracy to develop a practical relationship with its tradition without which it cannot function, as has been the case with those states in which democracy is being introduced today. Adapted from the source document.

The cognitive worth of the concept of totalitarianism is constantly refuted. In this text, the author begins by confronting his perception of totalitarianism as a new social formation, which he advocated in many of his works, with four scientific arguments raised by historians against totalitarianism as a political category or in favour of a limited use thereof. The first is that communism and fascism are fundamentally different, that the ideologies which characterize them are radically opposed to one another. This argument overlooks the fact that in such regimes ideology is not merely the prevalent discourse -- it has a new function and efficiency, it establishes a totalitarian "regime" of language and thought in which the power of discourse and the discourse of power are made equal. The second argument is that totalitarianism is evident, in Germany and Russia, only during limited periods. To this the author replies that it is a "realistic" illusion to assume that the totalitarian project was ever fully realized in history. According to the third objection, the concept of totalitarianism is of no cognitive worth to the historian, and totalitarian regimes belong to the order of contingency, and not of historical necessity. On the other hand, the author stresses the historical novelty of totalitarianism, which does spring and can spring only from the modern "democratic revolution" (in Tocqueville's sense) as a radical refutation thereof. The final objection of a methodologically aware historian (F. Furet) is that the concept of totalitarianism can be analytically fruitful only if used as an "ideal type", as a common trait of regimes established in atomized societies through total domination by way of ideology and terror. To this the author replies that we cannot be satisfied with the use of the concept "ideal type", although it is true that it liberates the historian from the naivety of positivistic descriptive historiography. The making of an ideal type thus makes it possible to avoid the choice between philosophy and descriptive history, but only inasmuch as the historian is transformed into a cognizant subject which is external with regard to history. In the second part of the text, the author provides a critical evaluation of the theory of totalitarianism by H. Arendt, particularly her central thesis that totalitarian society comes into being in modern atomized society. Namely, totalitarianism is characterized, on the one hand, by an artificialist project of organization, and, on the other, by a substantialist ideal of incorporation: both are realized in the Party, which is not only devised as an organization, but is also a "mystical person" in which all its members are brought together. As such, it incorporates the people. The figure of the indivisible people is put forward in the Party; the figure of the indivisible party is put forward in the figure of the people. In the first, organizational aspect the Party contains the project of an organisable whole, while in the other, substantialist aspect it contains the project of an incorporable whole. Adapted from the source document.

In interpreting current social and political processes, one should recognize new and mutually different political and democratic forces, which should offer an alternative to trends which had generated the crisis. Since totalitarian regimes such as fascism and communism (and even neoliberalism) did not solve the crisis of capitalism in the past, writers like Habermas, Searle, Luhmann, Wolin, Vesting and others do not consider them as potential solutions for the contemporary crisis. The solutions are not being sought within the framework of universalisation of particular interests either. Even less they look for a solution within some universal virtue that would represent all other virtues. On the contrary -- the contemporary theory recognizes that humanity in its lifeworld operates within different media and that the unified lifeworld is represented in different, incommensurable media, so the new theory attempts to create a modus vivendi among various representations of the world, not one single unitary interpretation. Contemporary theories are interested in the issue of coexistence between incommensurable differences, and thus they ask: how to preserve pluralism of social life. This process remains open. On the other hand, any idea of a single solution within a single unified medium leads to renewal of totalitarianisms, or even a world war, a new Holocaust or a new Hiroshima. Adapted from the source document.

Publicly, conspiracy theories are considered a bizarre mode of thought. In the academic discourse, they are unserious statements positioned between bad imitation of scientific theory and political pathology. Therefore, their authors and consumers experience a procedure of exclusion from the community of "serious people". But there are situations in which conspiracy theories are taken seriously, and established precisely as an exclusion device. These situations are predominantly interpreted as collective endangerment or political crisis. In that case, conspiracy theories stem from the center of political power as legitimate interpretation of reality. This was realized in an extreme way in the Nazi regime. So, the present academic discourse produces the Other by reason of standing for conspiracy theories. In political crisis and authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, the Other is produced by conspiracy theories. Historically, the academic attitude is partly produced by the consequences of the other attitude, through triple "demystification" of the conspiracy panic of Nazism/Fascism, Stalinism and, in the West, McCarthyism. But, structurally, it is the attitude of conspiracy-theory panic, or mimicry in exclusion. We propose a different approach, one that will simultaneously avoid acceptance of conspiracy theories as "facts" and their reduction to a phenomenon of mass hysteria. They should be considered beyond the opposition between delusion and hidden truth. Therefore, we define them as an interpretation pattern, structured as a double phantasm with the possibility of being traversed. This definition is close to Sloterdijk's conception of Cynical Reason, according to which we can differentiate between cynical and kynical conspiracy theories. Cynical conspiracy theories speak in the name of totalitarian and authoritarian power trying to defend an organismic community, and preserve a phantasmatic structure. Kynical conspiracy theories are speaking from the position of particular, fragmentational and singular agents. From the periphery of discourse, they criticize the power elite by indicating the cleavages that are concealed by cynics. In that way, kynical conspiracy theories perform a positive function as a way of "exposing the dirty linen" of the political regime. Adapted from the source document.

Predmet teksta estetički su aspekti desnih totalitarnih ideologija, preciznije funkcija koju u njihovu nastanku i održavanju ima kič kao pseudoumjetnost. Budući da je sklonost k njemu, kako su teoretičari odavno utvrdili, obilježje jedne kompleksne strukture ljudskog doživljavanja i stajališta prema svijetu, autorica istražuje i načine na koji se ona eksploatirala, odnosno kako se njome manipuliralo i u drugim, strogo uzevši neestetskim sferama života u Njemačkoj i Italiji tridesetih godina proteklog vijeka. Politička simbolika, jezik politike, ponuđeni obrasci političke identifikacije i mobilizacije k projektiranom političkom cilju u centralnom dijelu rada predmet su njezine analize koju provodi iz tog istraživačkog rakursa. Savezništvo između kiča i totalitarnih političkih režima nije slučajno, nego, naprotiv, zasnovano na zajedničkim i čvrstim antropološkim osnovama. ; This text deals with aesthetic aspects of right totalitarian ideologies, or more precisely, the function that kitsch as pseudoart has in their origin and maintenance. As affinity towards kitsch, which was established by art theoreticians a long time ago, is a characteristic of a complex structure of human experience and view of the world, the author also explores the ways in which it was exploited or manipulated in other, strictly speaking non-aesthetic spheres of life in Germany and Italy of the 1930s. Political symbolism, language of politics, offered forms of political identification and mobilization towards the projected political goal are the subject of her analysis in the central part of the text, which analysis is derived from that angle of research. The author concludes that the alliance between kitsch and totalitarian political regimes is not accidental, but that it is, on the contrary, founded on common and firm anthropological bases.

The publication of a Croatian translation of Friedrich August von Hayek's "Individualism: Genuine and Fake" (1946) occasions this biographic note introducing the Austrian economist to Croatian readers. Hayek is characterized as a liberal politologist & political economist who opposed John Maynard Keynes's doctrine of state intervention in the national economy; Hayek's most representative publications & those in which he carried out his polemics with Keynesian ideas of the government influencing the market, although not eliminating it, are mentioned. Methodologically, Hayek is placed as a continuator of the empiricism & "methodological individualism" of Karl Menger's Austrian School of Economics & an elaborator of L. Mises's statistical-dynamic equilibrium approach. It is pointed out that Hayek opposed all forms of government intervention into the free market: the planned economy of the Soviet era, German national socialism, Italian & Spanish fascism, & the modern welfare state. A selected bibliography of Hayek's works is compiled. 52 References. Z. Dubiel

The author suggests that the multilayered concept of secularization should be understood as the dezideologization of culture, religion, nation, language. economy, opening the space for democratic decision-making in the European Union, & consequently the space for politics with the capacity for collectively binding decisions in the democratically generated pluralism, & not in the historically generated pluralism of the old Europe. Secularization originally meant the transfer of clergy (priests or monks) from regular to secular thereby making them secularis or laypersons. Since the Westphalian Treaty of 1647 the word secularization has meant the transfer of ecclesiastical property to civil possession or use. Secularization means a strict separation of the church & the state. It also means a secular implementation of Christian postulates of universal equality of equals among equals. Today, the concept of secularization is used metaphorically as dezideologization i.e. as the criticism of state forms such as fascism and communism which possessed only ideological & not democratic legitimacy. In that sense the thesis of the cultural or spiritual unity of Europe as its legitimizing grounds is undemocratic as it replaces & conditions democracy with a vague concept of culture or spoken communication. References. Adapted from the source document.