Znanje je moć - ideja progresa u istoriji političke misli

Contemporary understanding of technology, its place in society and connection to politics, had shaped together with concept of modernity itself. Starting point of this process is in the works of Francis Bacon, who was the first to establish firm relations between technology and science, as well as between knowledge and power. On the other hand, authors like Machiavelli, Hobbes and Spinoza establish modern political thought, bringing politics down to technology of power conquest or of functional organization of society. Enlightenment and positivism embrace legacy of both these lines of thought, and complement presumptions for self-reflection of modernity with faith in the power of reason, as well as emerging concept of both technological and social progress.Savremeno razumevanje tehnologije, njenog mesta u društvu i veze sa politikom uobličavalo se paralelno sa konceptom same modernosti. Početnu tačku ovog procesa čini delo Frensisa Bekona, koji je prvi uspostavio čvrste veze između tehnologije i nauke, ali i između znanja i moći. Sa druge strane, autori poput Makijavelija, Hobsa i Spinoze uspostavljaju savremeno promišljanje politike, svodeći je, u velikoj meri, na tehnologiju osvajanja vlasti ili uspostavljanja funkcionalne organizacije društva. Na zaostavštinu ove dve struje mišljenja oslanja se kasnija misao prosvetiteljstva i pozitivizma, koja zaokružuje pretpostavke za samorazumevanje modernog sveta verom u moć razuma i konstituisanjem koncepta progresa, shvaćenog kao pravolinijski tehnološki i društveni napredak

Spectres of The Harlan’s World: Structural and Interpersonal Violence in Novels and Netflix Show Altered Carbon

Намера овог рада је да кроз политиколошку призму, пре свега применом теорија о политичком насиљу, анализира три романа из серијала Дигитални угљеник Ричарда Моргана и на основу њих насталу Нетфликсову серију. Полазећи од Галтунговог разликовања структурног и интерперсоналног насиља и Камариног концепта спирале насиља, анализиране су доминантне форме насиља у романима и серији. Закључак ове анализе јесте да у романима доминира структурно, као изразито политичко насиље, док је у серији насиље пре свега интерперсонално, и произлази из личних, а не друштвених односа. Кључна хипотеза рада јесте да је ова промена тежишта – од структурног ка интерперсоналном насиљу у адаптацији романа јесте делимично последица захтева различитих медија и различитих карактеристика ових врста насиља, али да је превасходно узрокована темељном деполитизацијом литерарног предлошка.Both Richard Morgan’s Altered Carbon (alternatively Takeshi Kovacs) series and its Netflix adaptation have already attracted some academic attention, but although their political aspects are acknowledged by some scholars, this is usually not what the main focus is on. The present paper is an attempt to fill this gap in literature and analyze the novels as well as the Netflix show from the perspective of political science, specifically using theories of political violence. After a short review of literature on adaptations, especially regarding the emerging role of the showrunners as creative authors in their own right, the theoretical framework for the discussion of violence in both novels and the show is presented. It relies primarily on the notion of structural violence as social injustice, first developed by Johan Galtung, and combines it with the idea of the spiral of violence as conceptualized by Helder Camara. A key feature of structural violence is that, as the terms suggests, it stems from the social structure, and manifests as social injustice, with no identifiable perpetrator of violence. This social injustice, Camara claims in his work, is the first step of the spiral of violence, since it begets rage, either of those suffering, or of the youth that sympathizes with them, erupting in violent protest against the authorities. Authorities then respond with the use of force, thus inflicting new in- justices, and the spiral continues. This is exactly what is found in the Altered Carbon novels – the omnipresent poverty and lack of opportunities draws the father of the protagonist, the typical antihero Takeshi Kovacs, to abusive behavior. The young Takeshi then responds in kind, first by joining a street gang, and later em- barking on a military career. It is also why the Harlans World is the birthplace of a resistance philosophy and movement, led by Quellkrist Falconer. The Netflix show, however, replaces all external motivations for violent behavior of Takeshi Kovacs (and other characters) with those that are strictly personal: love, betrayal, revenge. This effectively erases structural violence present in the novel substituting it with interpersonal, non-political violence. There are three possible reasons for this: the very features of structural violence that make it harder to show through the visual medium (as opposed to the intrinsic action and drama of interpersonal violence); the process of adaptation which favors psychological over sociological narratives, focusing on internal instead on external incentives and motivations of the characters; and, finally, a creative decision made by the showrunner and the production company. Since the first two reasons can be mitigated, evaded, or overcome by the creative vision, the final conclusion is that this shift from structural to interpersonal violence is the consequence of the de-politization of the narrative, consciously made by the creators of the Netflix show

Politika i tehnologija u delu Luisa Mamforda

Relations and interactions between politics and technology is one of the central themes in the works of Lewis Mumford. Although sometimes presented in a not very systematical manner, Mumfords findings and standpoints had a big impact on formulating modern approaches to social study of technology (including research of technology in political science). This article aims to identify and systematize most important segments of Mumfords views on politics and technology: city as (political) community, status, functions, and significance of utopias, difference between authoritarian and democratic techniques, concept of mega machine as well as notion of socio-technical complex, and also to point out the influence of these views on modern research of the problem.Odnos između politike i tehnologije jedna je od centralnih tema u opusu Luisa Mamforda. Iako u nekim segmentima izloženi na nedovoljno sistematičan način, Mamfordovi stavovi izvršili su veliki uticaj na formiranje savremenih pristupa proučavanju tehnologije sa aspekta društvenih, pa i političkih nauka. Cilj ovog članka je da identifikuje i sistematizuje najvažnije segmente Mamfordovog viđenja ovog problema: grad kao političku zajednicu, status, funkciju i značaj utopije, razliku između autoritarne i demokratske tehnike, koncept mega mašine i zamisao socio-tehničkog kompleksa, kao i da ukaže na njihov uticaj na današnja proučavanja odnosa između politike i tehnologije

Tehnologija između utopije i distopije

Deep changes technology brought to everyday life in twentieth century had lead to sharp polarization of attitudes about this pervading phenomenon. In terms of interpretations of social and political implications of technology, it is hard to avoid associations with concepts of utopia and dystopia. These concepts were, from the very beginning, closely intertwined with positions on technological progress. These two extreme positions are also visible in scientific works on technology and society, and can be named technological optimism and technological pessimism. There is, however, third, more moderate position, technological realism, promoted mainly by constructivists and proponents of technology as value-neutral phenomenon.Duboke promene koje je tehnologija u dvadesetom veku izazvala u čovekovom svakodnevnom životu dovele su do oštre polarizacije stavova o ovom sveprožimajućem fenomenu. Kada je reč o interpretacijama društveno-političkih posledica tehnologije, teško je izbeći asocijacije na koncepte utopije i distopije, koji su od samih svojih početaka tesno povezani sa određenjem prema tehnološkom napretku. Ova dva ekstremna stava vidljiva su i u naučnim obradama odnosa tehnologije i društva, i mogu se odrediti kao tehnološki optimizam i tehnološki pesimizam. Prisutan je, ipak, i treći, umereniji stav, koji bi se mogao nazvati tehnološkim realizmom, a koji zastupaju autori bliski ideji vrednosne neutralnosti tehnologije i konstruktivisti

Postoji li sajberterorizam?

Expansion of Internet and Internet-based technologies, as well as their growing impact on social phenomena and processes, led to increased interest of social researchers for 'all things cyber'. Among these cyber phenomena is cyberterrorism, It occupies attention of numerous scholars and experts due to this possibly devastating consequences, but also its attractiveness for the media. Despite this interest, there is still no definition of cyberterrorism which is commonly accepted among scholars and government officials. One of the points of dissent among experts is also the proximity of cyberterrorism threat. It is not the technical feasibility of cyberterrorist attack that is contested, but rather capabitlity of present day terrorist organizations to engage in cyberterrorism. This paper aims to show that no attack carried out by now fits the definition of cyberterrorism. Threat of cyberterrorism is not immediate, so cyberterrorism is still in the domain of potential, rather than an actual political phenomenon.Ekspanzija Interneta i na njemu zasnovanih tehnologija, kao i njihov sve veći uticaj na društvene pojave i procese, doveli su do povećanog zanimanja istraživača za sve fenomene koji su proizašli iz takvog razvoja. Jedan od takvih fenomena je i sajberterorizam, koji zahvaljujući svojim potencijalno razornim posledicama, ali i medijskoj atraktivnosti zaokuplja pažnju velikog broja autora. Uprkos tome, još uvek ne postoji definicija sajberterorizma koja bi bila opšteprihvaćena, kako u akademskim, tako i u političkim krugovima. Stručnjaci se takođe spore oko toga u kojoj meri je opasnost od sajberterorističkog napada realna i bliska. Pri tome se ne dovodi u pitanje tehnička izvodljivost sajberterorističkih akata, koliko osposobljenost danas prisutnih terorističkih organizacija da ih izvedu. Cilj ovog rada je da pokaže da do danas nije bilo napada koji bi se nedvosmisleno mogao nazvati sajberterorističkim, kao i da opasnost od takvog napada nije neposredna odnosno da je sajberterorizam, kao politički fenomen, još uvek više u domenu potencijalnog, nego aktuelnog

Politics-technology relation in contemporary political theory. Умножено за одбрану

Систематично проучавање односа између политике и технологије као релативно самосталних сфера друшвене реалности почиње тек половином двадесетог века. У овом релативно кратком периоду искристалисало се неколико значајних теоријских приступа и проблемских кругова чија је систематизација и верификација циљ овог рада. Научни циљ, као и предмет рада, захтевају да се у истраживању пође од дијалектичког општефилозофског метода, уз употребу хипотетичко-дедуктивног, аксиоматског, аналитичко-дедуктивног и компаративног као општенаучних и квалитативне анализе садржаја као оперативног метода. Да би се савремена теоријска мисао о односу политике и технологије могла на одговарајући начин систематизовати и проценити неопходно је претходно анализирати њене идејне корене. Иако се неки важни елементи каснијег теоријског дискурса могу наћи већ у антици, основни оквир за разматрање ове релације поставио је Френсис Бекон у седамнаестом веку. Након њега и многи други аутори су својим идејама утицали на формирање модерног теоријског дискурса, укључујући филозофе просветитељства, као и Карла Маркса и Макса Вебера који су, сваки на свој начин, у великој мери одредили ток касније дискусије о овом проблему. Напоредо са безграничним оптимизмом и вером у технолошки напредак, пречесто идентификован са друштвеним, јављају се и суморнија виђења у којима се аутономност технологије директно супротставља аутономији личности, технолошки прогрес прогресу човечанства. Оваква перспектива карактеристична је за припаднике Франкфуртске школе, Ериха Фрома, Жала Елила и Луиса Мамфорда. Четири данас доминантна теоријска приступа односу политике и технологије су инструментализам, технолошки детерминизам, социоцентрични и системски. Инструментализам се заснива на одређењу технологије као средства, из чега произилази њена политичка неутралност. Основни постулат технолошког детерминизма је да се технологија развија аутономно, и да њен развој представља примарну детерминанту друштвеног, па и политичког система. Насупрот томе, социоцентрични приступи инсистирају на томе да се технологија развија унутар друштва, те да друштвени фактори, укључујући и политичке, играју важну и често одлучујућу улогу у коначном дизајну технолошких артефаката. Системски приступ указује на узајамно обликовање политике и технологије, тачније њихових појединих елемената. Различити теоријски приступи видљиви су и у проучавању појединих проблемских кругова, као што су однос технологије и моћи, технологије и државе, технократија, и политика у постиндустријском односно информатичком друштву. Коначно, теоријска мисао о односу политике и технологије креће се често између утопије и дистопије, то јест од некритичког одушевљења технологијом и вере у њену способност да трансформише друштво и политику у правцу боље и праведније заједнице, и апокалиптичних визија технологије која је целокупно човечанство затворила у свој „гвоздени кавез“. Ова дебата се стално изнова актуелизује, а данас су нарочито контроверзна питања која отварају биотехнологије, глобални еколошки проблеми и нове информационе технологије. Поједини аспекти односа између политике и технологије су у савременој политичкој теорији добро обрађени. Чини се, међутим, да ова област остаје и даље на маргинама интересовања политиколога, што је резултирало неким озбиљним проблемима у теоријској концептуализацији. Кључне тешкоће су повезивање микро и макро нивоа анализе, као и непостојање опште теорије која би претендовала да објасни однос ове две друштвене сфере у његовом тоталитету.A systematic study of politics-technology relation, both of them seen as relatively independent spheres of social reality, begins from mid-twentieth century. In this relatively short period of time, several significant theoretical approaches and problem circles had crystallized. Systematization and verification of these approaches is the aim of this study. Scientific goal, as well as subject of research, require application of dialectical general method, including the use of hypothetically-deductive, axiomatic, analytically-deductive and comparative scientific methods, and qualitative content analysis as operational method. In order to adequately systematize and evaluate contemporary theoretical thought on politics-technology relation, it is necessary to analyze its conceptual roots. Although some important elements of later theoretical discourses can be found in the ancient Greek thought, the basic framework for consideration of this relationship was posed by Francis Bacon in seventeenth century. After him, many other theorist have influenced the formation of modern theoretical discourse, including philosophers of Enlightenment, as well as Karl Marx and Max Weber who, each in his own way, determined, to a great, the course of later discussion about this problem. In parallel with boundless optimism and a belief in technological progress, identified too often with social progress, appears bleaker interpretation, where autonomy of technology is directly opposed to personal autonomy, and technological progress to progress of mankind. This latter perspective is represented by thinkers of the Frankfurt School, as well as Erich Fromm, Jacques Ellul and Lewis Mumford. Today, there are four dominant theoretical approaches: instrumentalism, technological determinism, socio-centric and systemic. Instrumentalism is based on definition of technology as a means, which implies its political neutrality. Technological determinism postulates, basically, that technology develops independently, and that its development stands as primary determinant of social and political systems. Conversely, socio-centric approach insists that technology develops within society, and that social factors, including political ones, play an important and often decisive role in the final design of technological artifacts. Systemic approach indicates a mutual shaping of politics and technology, or, more precisely, some of their elements. Different theoretical approaches are visible in a study of individual problem circles, such as relationship between technology and power, technology and state, technocracy, and politics in postindustrial or information society. Finally, theoretical thought about politics-technology relation frequently floats between utopia and dystopia, from uncritical enthusiasm for technology and the belief in its ability to transform society and politics in the direction of a better and fairer community, to apocalyptic visions of technology that locks mankind in the “iron cage”. This debate is continuing, and nowadays particularly controversial questions are posed by biotechnologies, global environmental problems and new information technologies. Some aspects of politics-technology relation are well explored in contemporary political theory. It seems, however, that this field still remains at the margins of interest of political scientists – fact that results in some serious problems in theoretical conceptualization. Key difficulties are linking of micro and macro levels of analysis, as well as absence of general theory that tends to explain the relationship between these two social spheres in their totality

Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism: The Case of Iain M. Banks’ Culture

The Culture series created by Scottish author Iain (M.) Banks con-sists of nine novels, one novella and a couple of short stories situated in the same fictional universe. The eponymous Culture is a space-faring (and space-dwelling) civilization, a conglomeration of several humanoid species and sentient machines, most intellectually powerful beings called The Minds. Technological advances made the Culture a post-scarcity society focused on the maximization of personal freedom. The character of its socio-political structure, however, is somewhat unclear. Based on the differences between its internal and external politics, scholars have mostly placed the Culture within the categories of Utopia and Empire. This is, as the present paper argues, a false dilemma since the Culture is simultaneously both and neither of those. The main argument is that the truly adequate label for the political complexities of the Culture civilization was coined only after the untimely death of the author himself – around 2015, when the far (or, some would say, radical) left activists on the Internet coined the phrase Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism. Using both writings of Marx and Engels on the features of communism and Ollman’s systematization of these features, I will try to show that this is indeed the case

Odnos politike i tehnologije u savremenoj političkoj teoriji

A systematic study of politics-technology relation, both of them seen as relatively independent spheres of social reality, begins from mid-twentieth century. In this relatively short period of time, several significant theoretical approaches and problem circles had crystallized. Systematization and verification of these approaches is the aim of this study. Scientific goal, as well as subject of research, require application of dialectical general method, including the use of hypothetically-deductive, axiomatic, analytically-deductive and comparative scientific methods, and qualitative content analysis as operational method. In order to adequately systematize and evaluate contemporary theoretical thought on politics-technology relation, it is necessary to analyze its conceptual roots. Although some important elements of later theoretical discourses can be found in the ancient Greek thought, the basic framework for consideration of this relationship was posed by Francis Bacon in seventeenth century. After him, many other theorist have influenced the formation of modern theoretical discourse, including philosophers of Enlightenment, as well as Karl Marx and Max Weber who, each in his own way, determined, to a great, the course of later discussion about this problem. In parallel with boundless optimism and a belief in technological progress, identified too often with social progress, appears bleaker interpretation, where autonomy of technology is directly opposed to personal autonomy, and technological progress to progress of mankind. This latter perspective is represented by thinkers of the Frankfurt School, as well as Erich Fromm, Jacques Ellul and Lewis Mumford. Today, there are four dominant theoretical approaches: instrumentalism, technological determinism, socio-centric and systemic. Instrumentalism is based on definition of technology as a means, which implies its political neutrality. Technological determinism postulates, basically, that technology develops independently, and that its development stands as primary determinant of social and political systems. Conversely, socio-centric approach insists that technology develops within society, and that social factors, including political ones, play an important and often decisive role in the final design of technological artifacts. Systemic approach indicates a mutual shaping of politics and technology, or, more precisely, some of their elements. Different theoretical approaches are visible in a study of individual problem circles, such as relationship between technology and power, technology and state, technocracy, and politics in postindustrial or information society. Finally, theoretical thought about politics-technology relation frequently floats between utopia and dystopia, from uncritical enthusiasm for technology and the belief in its ability to transform society and politics in the direction of a better and fairer community, to apocalyptic visions of technology that locks mankind in the “iron cage”. This debate is continuing, and nowadays particularly controversial questions are posed by biotechnologies, global environmental problems and new information technologies. Some aspects of politics-technology relation are well explored in contemporary political theory. It seems, however, that this field still remains at the margins of interest of political scientists – fact that results in some serious problems in theoretical conceptualization. Key difficulties are linking of micro and macro levels of analysis, as well as absence of general theory that tends to explain the relationship between these two social spheres in their totality.Sistematično proučavanje odnosa između politike i tehnologije kao relativno samostalnih sfera drušvene realnosti počinje tek polovinom dvadesetog veka. U ovom relativno kratkom periodu iskristalisalo se nekoliko značajnih teorijskih pristupa i problemskih krugova čija je sistematizacija i verifikacija cilj ovog rada. Naučni cilj, kao i predmet rada, zahtevaju da se u istraživanju pođe od dijalektičkog opštefilozofskog metoda, uz upotrebu hipotetičko-deduktivnog, aksiomatskog, analitičko-deduktivnog i komparativnog kao opštenaučnih i kvalitativne analize sadržaja kao operativnog metoda. Da bi se savremena teorijska misao o odnosu politike i tehnologije mogla na odgovarajući način sistematizovati i proceniti neophodno je prethodno analizirati njene idejne korene. Iako se neki važni elementi kasnijeg teorijskog diskursa mogu naći već u antici, osnovni okvir za razmatranje ove relacije postavio je Frensis Bekon u sedamnaestom veku. Nakon njega i mnogi drugi autori su svojim idejama uticali na formiranje modernog teorijskog diskursa, uključujući filozofe prosvetiteljstva, kao i Karla Marksa i Maksa Vebera koji su, svaki na svoj način, u velikoj meri odredili tok kasnije diskusije o ovom problemu. Naporedo sa bezgraničnim optimizmom i verom u tehnološki napredak, prečesto identifikovan sa društvenim, javljaju se i sumornija viđenja u kojima se autonomnost tehnologije direktno suprotstavlja autonomiji ličnosti, tehnološki progres progresu čovečanstva. Ovakva perspektiva karakteristična je za pripadnike Frankfurtske škole, Eriha Froma, Žala Elila i Luisa Mamforda. Četiri danas dominantna teorijska pristupa odnosu politike i tehnologije su instrumentalizam, tehnološki determinizam, sociocentrični i sistemski. Instrumentalizam se zasniva na određenju tehnologije kao sredstva, iz čega proizilazi njena politička neutralnost. Osnovni postulat tehnološkog determinizma je da se tehnologija razvija autonomno, i da njen razvoj predstavlja primarnu determinantu društvenog, pa i političkog sistema. Nasuprot tome, sociocentrični pristupi insistiraju na tome da se tehnologija razvija unutar društva, te da društveni faktori, uključujući i političke, igraju važnu i često odlučujuću ulogu u konačnom dizajnu tehnoloških artefakata. Sistemski pristup ukazuje na uzajamno oblikovanje politike i tehnologije, tačnije njihovih pojedinih elemenata. Različiti teorijski pristupi vidljivi su i u proučavanju pojedinih problemskih krugova, kao što su odnos tehnologije i moći, tehnologije i države, tehnokratija, i politika u postindustrijskom odnosno informatičkom društvu. Konačno, teorijska misao o odnosu politike i tehnologije kreće se često između utopije i distopije, to jest od nekritičkog oduševljenja tehnologijom i vere u njenu sposobnost da transformiše društvo i politiku u pravcu bolje i pravednije zajednice, i apokaliptičnih vizija tehnologije koja je celokupno čovečanstvo zatvorila u svoj „gvozdeni kavez“. Ova debata se stalno iznova aktuelizuje, a danas su naročito kontroverzna pitanja koja otvaraju biotehnologije, globalni ekološki problemi i nove informacione tehnologije. Pojedini aspekti odnosa između politike i tehnologije su u savremenoj političkoj teoriji dobro obrađeni. Čini se, međutim, da ova oblast ostaje i dalje na marginama interesovanja politikologa, što je rezultiralo nekim ozbiljnim problemima u teorijskoj konceptualizaciji. Ključne teškoće su povezivanje mikro i makro nivoa analize, kao i nepostojanje opšte teorije koja bi pretendovala da objasni odnos ove dve društvene sfere u njegovom totalitetu

Politika i tehnika u delu Mihaila Markovića

This paper aims to describe and analyze views of Mihailo Marković on techniques within its’ social context, but primarily relationship between techniques and politics. Marković’s works on definitions of techniques, role of modern techniques in society and its’ influence on changing patterns of human behaviour, organization of labour and political organization of society are, in a way, representative for the 'zeitgeist', but in some aspect they are far beyond it. Pointing out deficiencies of one-sided approaches, he provides some unique and original insights, including a detailed analysis of those traits of modern technology that open great possibilities for misuse, but also bear huge potential for emancipation. Finally, one of major contributions of Mihailo Marković in the field of politics and techniques relations is his argumentation that politics can be seen as techniques. Drawing from Machiavelli’s works, he also provides a general analysis in which he shows why such understanding of politics is possible.Cilj ovog rada je deskripcija i analiza stavova Mihaila Markovića o tehnici u njenom društvenom kontekstu, a pre svega o njenom odnosu sa politikom. Markovićevi radovi o pojmovnom određenju tehnike, ulozi savremene tehnike u društvu i njenom uticaju na promene u obrascima čovekovog ponašanja, organizacije rada i političke organizacije društva, u određenom smislu se uklapaju u 'duh vremena', ali u pojedinim aspektima ga daleko prevazilaze. Ukazujući na nedostatke jednostranih pristupa, on pruža neke sasvim originalne uvide i detaljnu analizu onih karakteristika savremene tehnike koje otvaraju velike mogućnosti za zloupotrebe, ali imaju i veliki emancipatorski potencijal. Konačno, jedan od velikih doprinosa Mihaila Markovića razmatranju odnosa između tehnike i politike jeste obrazloženje politike kao tehnike. Polazeći od Makijavelijevih dela, on daje i jednu opštu analizu u kojoj pokazuje zbog čega je ovakvo shvatanje politike moguće

Technics and power - Tadić’s reception of critical thought on technics

Љубомир Тадић има значајно место међу ретким српским мислиоцима који су своју пажњу посветили питању односа технике са друштвеном и, у оквиру ње, политичком сфером. Чврсто смештена у шири контекст његове мисли о друштву и политици, Тадићева разматрања технике везана су пре свега за једну кључну тему: однос технике и моћи. Управо повезивање технике и политичке моћи је, по Тадићевом мишљењу, један од суштинских проблема савременог друштва. Уместо да остварује своју еманципаторску функцију и допринесе успостављању темељних људских и друштвених вредности, савремена техника се претвара у инструмент доминације. На тај начин политика се из руку народа измешта у делокруг политичких стручњака. Ову тежњу ка успостављању технократске власти Тадић види као дубоко реакционарну, а технократизам као идеологију смешта недвосмислено у корпус конзервативизма. Тадићеве анализе технике, тачније техничке цивилизације, као специфичног проблема савременог друштва, ослањају се у великој мери на радове немачких филозофа: Хајдегера, Хоркхајмера и Адорна, као и Маркузеа. Његове интерпретације ових аутора, делимично систематизоване у "Парергону", несумњиво представљају врло значајан допринос нашој друштвенонаучној и филозофској мисли о техници. Циљ овог рада је да покуша да кроз анализу дела Љубомира Тадића аргументовано покаже да се друштвенонаучно разматрање технике развијало пре свега у оквиру југословенске филозофије праксе, и да се из њене перспективе може сагледати сложени однос између овог филозофског правца и критичке теорије друштва, пре свега Франкфуртске школе. Својим делом Тадић, наиме, не остаје при пуком усвајању ставова немачких аутора, већ се са њима упушта у дијалог, користећи их као подлогу за изградњу сопствених концепата и закључака о односу технике и моћи.Ljubomir Tadić is among rare Serbian authors who wrote on the topic of the technics and its relationship with social and political sphere. Firmly embedded into the wider context of his thought on society and politics, Tadić’s considerations of the technics are primarily focused on one important issue - the relation between the technics and power. This very connection between the technics and the political power, in Tadić’s view, is one of the essential problems of the modern society. Instead of fulfilling its emancipatory function and contributing to establishment of fundamentally human values as foundation of society, modern technics turns into an instrument of domination. In this manner, politics is removed from the hands of the people and turned into the field accessible to experts only. This tendency toward technocratic forms of government Tadić sees as deeply reactionary, and thus he emphatically pla- ces technocratism as an ideology deep within the conservative part of the spectrum. Tadić’s analysis of the technics, more precisely of the technical civilization as a specific problem of modern society, relies heavily on the works of German philosophers – Heidegger, Horkheimer and Adorno, Marcuse. His interpretations of these authors, partially systematized in Parergon, are undoubtedly a significant contribution to Serbian social and philosophical thought on technics. This paper shows that thought about technics in Serbia had developed primarily wit- hin Yugoslav philosophy of practice, and that it can be used as an illustration of the complex relationship between this school of thought and the critical theory of society, primarily of the Frankfurt school. Namely, in his works Tadić does not only passively adopt the ideas of other authors, but uses them as a starting point for dialogue and a foundations for his own concepts and conclusions about the relationship between the technics and the power