Suchergebnisse

Članak razmatra tri relevantna principa demokracije, inherentna suvremenom društvu: modernost, politika priznanja i sekularizam. Glavno pitanje kojim se bavi je održivost ovih principa kao temelja za zasnivanje kozmopolitske demokracije i utjecaja na daljnju demokratizaciju ljudskog svijeta. Članak (i) istražuje vezu između modernizacije i demokracije kroz perspektivu višestruke moderne kao mogućnosti za proširenje demokracije na nedemokratsko područje svijeta, (ii) analizira politiku priznanja kao temelj za kulturnu koegzistenciju i politički pluralizam, (iii) razmatra problem a) kako ideja sekularizma ugrožava (prijeti) ideju religioznosti i obratno te čine li to uopće; b) koliko je sekularizam sekularan te je li uopće (problem privatne i javne sfere); c) može li sekularizam ostati temeljni princip (kozmopolitske) demokracije. ; This paper reflects on three relevant principles of democracy which are inherent to the contemporary society. These principles are modernity, the politics of recognition, and secularism. The main question is concerned with the sustainability of these principles as the grounds for the foundation of cosmopolitan democracy, and further influence on the democratization of the human world. This paper (i) examines a relationship between modernization and democracy through the perspective of multiple modernities as a possibility for the extension of democracy over the non-democratic parts of the world; (ii) analyzes politics of recognition as a grounds for cultural coexistence and political pluralism and (iii) reflects on the issue of a) how the idea of secularism if/how the idea of secularism treats the idea of religiousness and vice versa, b) how much is secularism secular (the issue of public versus private sphere), and c) can secularism remain to be the basic principle of (cosmopolitan) democracy. ; Cet article examine trois principes pertinents de la démocratie, inhérents à la société actuelle : modernité, politique de reconnaissance et sécularisme. La principale question qu'il pose est celle du maintien de ces principes en tant que fondements pour l'établissement d'une société démocratique et de leur influence sur la démocratisation du monde humain. Cet article (i) étudie la relation entre la modernisation et la démocratie à partir de la perspective des multiples modernités comme possibilité d'étendre la démocratie dans les parties non-démocratiques du monde, (ii) analyse les politiques de reconnaissance comme fondement pour la coexistence culturelle et le pluralisme politique et (iii) réfléchit sur la question de savoir : a) si/comment l'idée du sécularisme traite de l'idée de la religiosité et inversement ; b) dans quelle mesure le sécularisme est séculaire (problème de la sphère publique vs. la sphère privée) ; c) si le sécularisme peut encore rester le principe de base de la démocratie (cosmopolite). ; Dieser Artikel reflektiert über drei relevante Demokratieprinzipien, inhärent der Gesellschaft von heutzutage: modernität, Politik der Anerkennung und Säkularismus. Die Hauptfrage, mit der es sich befasst, ist die Nachhaltigkeit dieser Prinzipien als Grundlage für die Gründung der kosmopolitischen Demokratie und für den Einfluss der weiteren Demokratisierung der menschenwelt. Aus der Perspektive der multiplen modernitäten untersucht der Artikel (i) die Beziehung zwischen der modernisierung und Demokratie als eine möglichkeit für die Ausbreitung der Demokratie auf die nicht demokratischen Gebiete der Welt, (ii) analysiert die Politik der Anerkennung als Fundament für die kulturelle Koexistenz und politischen Pluralismus, (iii) erwägt die Frage a) ob/wie die Idee des Säkularismus die Idee der Religiosität behandelt und umgekehrt; b) ob/inwieweit der Säkularismus säkular ist (das Thema der öffentlichen Sphäre vs. Privatsphäre); c) ob der Säkularismus als Grundprinzip der (kosmopolitischen) Demokratie verbleiben kann.

In the first part of the paper the conceptual framework of the political science approach to the state is outlined using some key insights of the contemporary political theory of the state. The second part of the paper contains a critical discussion about the scope & the purpose of those insights & puts forward a possible partial reconstruction of the main types of the state as methodological grounds for the developmental & comparative research of the process of the so-called transition. As the methodological basis for a contemporary reconstruction of the theory of the state, the set of basic terms (power, government, authority) -- as identified by A. Passerin d'Entreves -- can be used. A productive elaboration of these basic terms can be carried out by critically looking into the possibilities of combining the systematic approach by Passerin d'Entreves, the genealogical approach by Barret-Kriegel & the historico-political one by Q. Skinner. Also, the author points out how a full reconstruction of the concept of the state is not possible without a parallel reconstruction of the concept of society. The state as the fundamental legal/political project of modernism is possible only as a complementary process to the creation of the civic society as the fundamental politico-economic project of modernism. The state (sovereign) & the society (civic) are modern creations whose raison d'etre is the legal, economic & political subjectivization of the individual. The co-constitutive link between the state & the society -- the precondition for the possibility of the genuine process of the individual's emancipation in modernism -- is methodologically the central assumption for understanding the state & the logic of sovereignty. This reconstructed comprehensive understanding of the state enables a valid differentiation of the types of states in comparative research. The working hypothesis of this paper is to distinguish two pure types of the (modern) state: the power state (Machtstaat) & the legal state (Rechtsstaat). The reconstruction of the modern concept of the state & its major forms offers the final opportunity to identify the methodological injunction for looking into the logic of transition as the transition in the direction of the sovereign legal state in the fullness of its contemporary definition. References. Adapted from the source document.

The author reflects on Dag Strpic's book Karl Marx and the Political Economy of Modernity, in particular on the part in which Strpic laid out the scientific results of his research into the applicability of Marx's critique of political economy from the viewpoint of commodity production on the theoretical level of "capital in general". Furthermore, she draws attention to Strpic's discussion of the causes of appearance of various forms of globalizing modern totalitarianisms (political and corporate), which can also be recognized in the contemporary neo-liberal order. This is so in spite of the fact that the latter is legitimized theoretically and ideologically as liberal, and that, in principle, it has retained its form of modern development. Adapted from the source document.

The author presents MacIntyre's thematization of modernity within the frame of moral theory. His thesis is that in modern times -- the "after virtue" age, (understood from the Aristotelian-Thomistic perspective) -- emotivism remains the only way to establish morality. Rorty thinks that the Platonic way of thinking has exhausted itself & pleads for flexible hermeneutics as a mediator among different philosophical orientations without any pretension to reconcile them, as "commensurabilism" does. In spite of these thematic similarities, MacIntyre's emotivism, which ends in communitarianism & the thesis of the primacy of community in human existence, is contrary to Rorty's liberalism, which emphasizes society built on individuals. Rorty makes a step further & looks for the interspace that he finds in what John Rawls calls, in his later works, "liberal community.". Adapted from the source document.

The author presents MacIntyre's thematization of modernity within the frame of moral theory. His thesis is that in modern times -- the "after virtue" age, (understood from the Aristotelian-Thomistic perspective) -- emotivism remains the only way to establish morality. Rorty thinks that the Platonic way of thinking has exhausted itself & pleads for flexible hermeneutics as a mediator among different philosophical orientations without any pretension to reconcile them, as "commensurabilism" does. In spite of these thematic similarities, MacIntyre's emotivism, which ends in communitarianism & the thesis of the primacy of community in human existence, is contrary to Rorty's liberalism, which emphasizes society built on individuals. Rorty makes a step further & looks for the interspace that he finds in what John Rawls calls, in his later works, "liberal community.". 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.

According to the regularly conducted polls by "Globus," political rating of HDZ significantly increased after the military actions "Flash" & "Storm" while those of liberals & other parties decreased. On the basis of certain assumptions, the author concludes that this does not indicate a radical change in political attitudes & orientations of the electoral body; the changes have been caused by political conjuncture. The research has shown that political attitudes are halfway between traditionalism & modernism & that the prospects for the development of democracy in Croatia once peace has been established are notable. Adapted from the source document.

The author initiates the article with the theory that the concept of sovereignty significantly differs in the late Middle Ages & the early modern age. Bodin gave to the sovereign the competency to both legislate & command, thus creating a significant shift forward from the medieval monarchical competency. Although he connected the two competencies, he was still unable to make the sovereign master of law but only master of statutes, with some limitations. The modern age recognizes two types of sovereignty: sovereignty of the sovereign & sovereignty of the people. The first case deals with absolute monarchies, while the second is concerned with democracies. Today, only the latter case is politically relevant. The author differentiates between 'the people' as a group of autonomous individuals, & 'the people' as an organic entity. The first form of political unity comes from autonomous individuals, & sees in the government only limiting power, while the second sees the basis for political unity in the whole of the ethnic body, culture, language, religion, history, etc. The second form has its roots in the romanticism of the 19th century; since the fall of socialist systems, it is again dominant in political thought & practice. The author warns of the dangers of one-sided use of organic unity in the creation of political communities & considers a combination of national & individual elements (democratic & liberal) the only successful basis for sovereignty. Adapted from the source document.

To what extent is Marx's thought conceptually and analytically relevant for a systematic understanding of modern society -- this was the subject of the theoretical dialogue which engaged many researchers, including some of the most prominent ones. This text focuses on the theoretical critical confrontation of Dag Strpic (in the article "Market or Commodity Formation/Production of Society?", which is the third, partly reworked chapter of his book Karl Marx and the Political Economy of Modernity) with the philosophical project of reconstruction of Marx's science of history in Jacques Bidet's work What is To Be Done with "Capital"?. The discussion focused on two basic issues: the logical starting point and the character of exposition of Marx's theory of capital. Bidet advocates the thesis that commodity as Marx's starting point (Section I of Book I) is inadequate, and he demonstrates the non-dialectical ("genetic") character of the categorial exposition of the capitalist-way-of-production theory as a whole. In contrast therewith, Strpic demonstrates that the logical starting point of Marx's system is adequately apprehended as "commodity in general", if one perceives it from the viewpoint of the logic of the entire system and of the subject of his analysis as "capital in general". Bidet seeks to show that Marx, in defining the capital system logic, gradually abandoned, albeit inconsistently and only in part, the dialectical figures as epistemological obstacles. Strpic, on the other hand, shows what makes the Marxian modality of materialistic dialectics constitutive not only with regard to Marx's "critique", but also to the very reality of capitalist society and the possibility of surpassing it. Notwithstanding his agreement with Bidet and Strpic that a (truly indispensable) general theory of modernity can be constituted only through creative and interpretative relying on the great works of political thought of modernity, and his sincere commendation to both for their outstanding reading of Marx's work in this context, the author concludes in his final remarks that both are open to the following objection: their projects of a contemporary general theory of modernity, regardless of all aspects in which they differ, rely too much on further development of Marx's intention, and thereby lose from sight the fundamental "theological-political" problem, which Marx dissolves in the immanentism of the process of production/reproduction of the modern civil community. Adapted from the source document.

What is the state of consciousness of modernity presently like? Is modernity as out of date as is claimed by neoconservatism in general & the postmodernists in particular? Neoconservatists accuse modern culture of undermining the ethical foundations of social life. The author shows that neoconservatism does not understand the relation between culture & society, & that it ascribes to cultural modernity the pathological syndromes (hedonism, narcissism, loss of identity) which are, in fact, the product of capitalist modernization of economy & society. Through money & power, the systemic imperatives of market economy & of the bureaucratic state gravely endanger the world of life & the process of cultural reproduction & social integration. Thus, it is solely through distinction between societal & cultural modernization that one can also understand the pathological effects resulting from the sphere of culture itself. While societal modernization is characterized by a growing autonomy of purposefully rational activity (in market economy & administration), which leads to colonization of the world of life, cultural modernization is marked by an increasing differentiation of cultural value spheres (science, morality, art) based on varied aspirations to validity (truth, rightness, authenticity) & by a differentiation of structures of rationality (cognitive-instrumental, moral-practical, aesthetic). Conservative critics of the aporiae of modern culture reject the entire project of modernity, advocating either a return to pre-modernism, or a step forward into postmodernity, or else mere anti-modernity (philosophers such as Nietzsche, Heidegger, Bataille, Foucault, Derrida). In contrast to them, the author sees the potentials of modernity in the protection & development of the sphere of communicational rationality against the systemic imperatives of economy & of the state, in the reestablishment of links between the spheres of science, morality & art, & in connecting the corresponding expert cultures with the communicational practice of the world of life. Thus perceived, modernity is still an unfinished project, which encompasses historical emancipatory potentials only as a differentiated reactive linkage of modern culture with everyday practice, only if societal modernization can also be steered down other non-capitalist paths, if the world of life can develop out of itself institutions limited by the dynamics of the economic & administrative system. Adapted from the source document.

In searching for a consistent theoretical framework of the political science understanding of the state, one should rely on valid substantial & methodological markers. The author identifies them in this article by means of a critical & productive dialogue with three major contemporary contributions to the pertinent understanding of the state: the theory of the state by A. Passerin d'Entreves, the history of states by B. Barret-Kriegel & the history of the modern concept of the state by Q. Skinner. In the first part of the article their key insights into the (modern) state are briefly outlined. The seminal work is that by Passerin d'Entreves, in which he presents the categorial set essential for a comprehensive understanding of the state in general, & the logic of sovereignty in particular. The state as such should be understood as might or force (from the perspective of effectiveness), as power (from the perspective of legality), & finally as authority (from the perspective of legitimacy). To conceptually define the state, comprehensively & accurately, means to be able to explain & understand how force (or might), first legalized as power, gains legitimacy in the form of authority. The concept of sovereignty marks the transepochal project of the transformation of might into power through the mediation of law which subjects it to laws. These key insights are made more precise & are partly corrected by the research done by Barret-Kriegel & Q. Skinner. The sovereign state is a doubly abstract public authority & is not a transepochal category but an epochal legal-political project, modernity's distinguishing feature. The sovereign state is an epochal political novum, as it is the first organization of political power in history that self-limits its might to ensure personal security & independence of citizens as legal subjects. As a notion of the rational & legitimate power it historically affirms itself as an antithesis to oriental despotism & the ancient patrimonial-seniorical regime. References. Adapted from the source document.

The work General Theory of Modernity prompts us to reflect on & understand modernity as a fusion of two constitutive moments: the declarative moment, as an affirmation of the right to emancipation which is capable of constant revolutionary extension, & capitalism, which is simultaneously dynamic & revolutionary, a system both destructive & exploitative. There are two wrong ways of understanding this fusion. According to the liberal understanding, the declarative moment is accomplished in capitalism. According to the vulgar Marxist understanding, the emancipatory moment is a mere ideological illusion. Bidet's concept of "metastructure" offers a possibility of a more adequate understanding of the fusion. In Bidet's understanding of the metastructure of modernity, which is based on a specific reading & reconstruction of Marx's Capital, the metastructure designates a general matrix of possibilities of combining market & organization, as basic structural characteristics of modern society. The author critically disproves such an approach. It is better to start from the structure, from an analysis of capitalism, & show that capitalism also opens up emancipatory horizons which make it possible to refute capitalism. An adequate understanding of modernity requires an adequate theory of capitalism rather than a general theory of modernity. Such an approach does not reduce the normative discourse to some sort of super-structural epiphenomenon. It is logically quite possible to assert that certain principles & ideals emerge in a concrete historical context, but one can also assert that the contents of those principles & ideals transcend that context. Adapted from the source document.

Jacques Bidet's theory of modernity is a fascinating research project which confronts us in a challenging way with a series of key theoretical & practical problems. The text focuses on the concepts of metastructure, domination, class & democracy. The most important concept is "metastructure," which is to be perceived as all coordination & legitimation resources (on the economic, legal-political & cultural levels -- the overcoming of any transcendental order) at the disposal of the citizens of modernity. These resources can be combined in several different ways, in varied structures of modernity. How are we to understand the ontological status of this metastructure? A full answer confronts us with another question: is it possible to offer a scientific explanation of the genesis of this modern (meta)structure? Thus, if metastructure is some sort of general grammar of modernity, the social structures are an actualization of the possibilities of metastructure according to the spectrum ranging from the extreme of planned collectivism to the extreme of liberistic capitalism. Consequently, the duality of modernity is manifest in the fact that it is characterized, on the one hand, by universalistic legitimacy and, on the other, by the persistence of forms of (class) domination. According to Bidet, in capitalism a dominant class will be established with two poles -- property & competence -- which correspond to the interlinkage of market & organization in such a form of society. For this reason, an attempt to achieve emancipation from the domination of the proprietor, in the case of planned collectivism, developing to the full the organizational dimension in order to satisfy the social needs in a more egalitarian way, necessarily results in the organizer's domination. But the thesis that the dominant class in capitalism has two poles (property & competence) is met with the objection that simultaneously too much & not enough is said about the second pole of this class (of managers). Namely, it remains unclear how we must think the unity of capitalist domination in the plurality of spheres of social power; & if, on the contrary, we must abandon this unity, why should we limit ourselves to only two poles? The author concludes with a discussion of two questions which he deems to be decisive: to what extent can the inequalities related to property or competence be designated as class relations or forms of domination? And what is the relation between various modalities of class relations or relations of domination, & the institutions of modern poliarchic democracy which is centered on the multi-party system? Adapted from the source document.

This article presents Milan Popovic's reflections on the two most recent & important books, General Theory of Modernity, written by French alter-Marxist theoretician, Jacques Bidet, & The States on Trial, written by Croatian political theoretician, Dragutin Lalovic. The two books have been published & discussed amid the most severe & multiple crisis of the so-called "neoliberal," ie., late & ultra-monopolistic capitalist economy 2008-2009, & this great social & historical fact has largely contributed to better understanding & reception of these two critical studies. Milan Popovic shares most of the main premises & findings of these two books with their authors. Some disagreements between him & them are of minor & technical importance. So, just to illustrate this kind of disagreements, while Jacques Bidet uses the term "alter-Marxism" to describe his own intellectual position, Milan Popovic prefers the term "post-Marxism" for the same purpose. Or, while Jacques Bidet uses the term "ultimate modernity" to specify our concrete historical time, Milan Popovic prefers the term "late modernity" for the same purpose. Or, finally, while Jacques Bidet uses the term "world state" to describe the emerging global polity, Milan Popovic is much more cautious, he reserves the term "state" exclusively for the modern form of polity, & leaves the final outcome & term of the emerging global polity for further development, observation, & nomination. Some disagreements between Milan Popovic & Dragutin Lalovic are of even lesser technical & conjectural importance. The three social & political theoreticians, however, strongly agree on the most important, substantive, & essential issues of our time. So, again, just to illustrate this kind of essential agreements, they strongly agree that our time desperately needs a new global polity & governance, which would deal with the rising ecological & other technological problems of late modernity. Despite some differences about the terms & emphases, they also agree that, in the meantime, at least in several coming decades, the late modern state remains one of the most important actors in the process. Especially two of three, namely Dragutin Lekovic & Milan Popovic, starting from the concrete political experience of Croatia & Montenegro during their wartime pandemonic 1990s, persistently insist on the complex, ambiguous, & contradictory process of simultaneous de-sovereignization & re-sovereignization of the state, as a part of the process in its late modern phase. Finally, the three theoreticians share a common vision on the substance & essence of the coming global polity. They agree that the polity should be a kind of "Universal Republic.". Adapted from the source document.

It is with good reason that decisionism stresses the crucial importance of decisions in the political process. But it is necessary to evaluate critically its dramatic pretension (from Schmitt to Agamben), according to which the normality of life is juxtaposed with the pathos of the state of exception & crisis. This erases not only every distinction between normality & the state of exception, but even between democracy & dictatorship. The proper framework from which an explanation of decisionism & its dramatizing forms can be derived is the modern age as a whole. The birth of decisionism from the crisis of tradition & commonality can be observed already in the beginning of modernity: with Machiavelli & Hobbes. We find the peak of dramatisation in Schmitt's decisionism, in the use of political theology for the dramatization of politics as drama of the subject which obtains his self-willed freedom through a secularist disempowerment of God. The other strand of political philosophy advocates the political priority of discussion & discourse, as opposed to the priority of decision. The author is interested in forms of discourse which revolve in a Habermasian or Rawlsian way around the concept of deliberative democracy. The theories of deliberative democracy are mostly characterized by the following postulates: demand for equality & inclusion, for non-coercion & communicativeness, oriented towards mutual understanding. The author points out that these demands reflect too great expectations, which cannot be fulfilled by discourse & discussion (expectations of consensus & rationality, underestimating of pre-discursive assumptions). In the final section, the author concludes that both decisionism & theory of discourse resulted from the modern-age loss of tradition & commonality. Decision & discussion could be perceived as feuding brothers, although they are doing their best to negate their kinship. A mediation of opposition is possible insofar as the feuding brothers recognize the fact that they are related. Unification at least protects them from the danger of irrationalism & excessive expectation of rationalism. Adapted from the source document.