Intentional Communities and Liberal Policies of Cultural Support

Some theoreticians argue that the stability of liberalism is to a large extent an outcome of a continued existence of traditional and other forms of life in communities, which are able to slow down or hinder the immoderate expansion of individualism, but that liberal societies are liable to destroy that foundation of their stability. However, liberal society cannot allow the destruction of the existing forms of communal and communitarian life, because it would mean its destabilization. On the contrary, where traditional communities do not play their stabilising role, liberal societies must change their social and cultural policy in order to generate some new forms of communitarian and communal life. The article deals with some constructive and destructive influences of liberalism on the communities constituted around separate concepts of the good. It shows that modern societies may be fertile soil for a variety of cultural and other communities

Communitarianism, Charles Taylor, and the Postcommunist Transition

The legitimity of the one-party regimes in Soviet type societies was based on the guarantee of providing social security to all members of the society. As the result of the collapse of these regimes, the population of postcommunist countries was seized by the fear of pauperization, ruthless capitalist exploitation, anomie, moral degradation, crime rise, etc. It has tried to find rescue from this fear in the warm bosom of ethnic groups. The devastating consequences of postcommunist ethnic nationalisms suggest that the citizens of postcommunist countries need other cultural, normative and institutional orientations as the bases of their self-respect and self-confidence. This need can be satisfied in various types of communities. The article summarizes the communitarian arguments in tavor of this thesis. Since, according to these arguments, belonging to a community is a sine qua non of the very morality and dignity of man, modern liberaldemocratic societies have to be understood as communities of communities. In order to guarantee the cohesion of these societies, procedural rules have to be supplemented by a number of substantive core values. The understanding of modern political societies has a far-reaching impact upon the idea of civil society: its increased complexity and fragmentation, mediated interactions between citizens and the state, public sphere as the medium of discussions among communities — especially about their universalist claims and the “politics of difference”, etc. Proceeding from this argumentation, some elements of the optium type of civil society for the postcommunist countries in Europe are proposed: A broad spectrum of communities and associations, deliberations upon the criteria of priority concerning their promotion, high respect for the liberal and democratic constitution, equality of all citizens, rule of law, welfare etc. These elements promise to promote a society in which free citizens constitute a “we” including all of them, enabling them to peacefully live and act within their respective associations and communities

Liberalism, Justice and Cultural Pluralism

Classical liberalism as opposed to traditional concepts has established a notion of justice which envisages the equality of individual (negative) freedoms and (tutelary)rights. Under the influence of socialist criticism modem-day liberals have been trying to include within the concepts of justice the problems of the distribution of positive freedoms and rights. The already classic attempt of solving this probkm is the theory of justice by John Rawls. Rawls defines justice as fairness, whose basic principles are: the equiality of basic freedoms of individuals compatible with the freedom of other individuals; the distribution of goods which will most benefit the least privileged; the primacy of freedom over social equality and justice over economic efficiency. In a pluralist society these principles should facilitate the establishhment of the „overlapping consensus“ among divergent social groups on the issues of basic social structure. In his attempt to solve the problems of social equality which Rawls\u27 theory leaves open-ended, Michael Walzer postulates the principle of complex equality which requires different ways of distribution for different types of goods. These types cannot be specified in advance ; however their distribution is the most remarkable skill of liberal politics. Finally, the author claims that the problem of a just political organization of multicultural socities can be solved by applying Rawls\u27 principle of fairness on the negotiating processes and on achieving consensus among divergent cultural groups on certain issues

Liberalism, Justice and Cultural Pluralism

Classical liberalism as opposed to traditional concepts has established a notion of justice which envisages the equality of individual (negative) freedoms and (tutelary)rights. Under the influence of socialist criticism modem-day liberals have been trying to include within the concepts of justice the problems of the distribution of positive freedoms and rights. The already classic attempt of solving this probkm is the theory of justice by John Rawls. Rawls defines justice as fairness, whose basic principles are: the equiality of basic freedoms of individuals compatible with the freedom of other individuals; the distribution of goods which will most benefit the least privileged; the primacy of freedom over social equality and justice over economic efficiency. In a pluralist society these principles should facilitate the establishhment of the „overlapping consensus“ among divergent social groups on the issues of basic social structure. In his attempt to solve the problems of social equality which Rawls\u27 theory leaves open-ended, Michael Walzer postulates the principle of complex equality which requires different ways of distribution for different types of goods. These types cannot be specified in advance ; however their distribution is the most remarkable skill of liberal politics. Finally, the author claims that the problem of a just political organization of multicultural socities can be solved by applying Rawls\u27 principle of fairness on the negotiating processes and on achieving consensus among divergent cultural groups on certain issues

Some Critical Reflections on Bahro’s »Alternatives«

Jugoslavensko izdanje knjige R. Bahroa »Alternativa« (Globus, Zagreb, 1981.) izazvalo je brojne teorijske diskusije i rasprave. Časopis »Naše teme« su tim povodom u broju 7—8/1982. donijele, između ostalih, i osam kritičkih osvrta na Bahrovo djelo. Svrha ovog teksta jest dati osvrt na neke aspekte Bahrove knjige koji u spomenutoj diskusiji nisu obrađivani, kao i da prokomentira neke stavove iz rasprava koje po autorovom mišljenju leže na nedostatnoj recepciji Bahrova rada. U fokus analize stavljeni su: Bahrova analiza fenomena staljinizma, povijesna uloga realno egzistirajućeg socijalizma, problematika određenja povijesnog subjekta društvene transformacije u realnom socijalizmu, uloga saveza komunista kao organiziranog društvenog subjekta u procesu transformacije, problem državne i komunalne organizacije. Autor zaključuje da je Bahro u svom radu dao jednu uspješnu kritiku realnog socijalizma, mada je u potrazi za društvenim subjektom transformacije precijenio spremnost i mogućnosti znanstveno-tehničke inteligencije da postane vodeća grupa u tom procesu. U odnosu na socijalističku alternativu ukazao je na nekoliko nužnih uvjeta za njeno ostvarenje: kulturnu revoluciju, ukidanje podjele rada u smislu doživotne radne specijalizacije, reorganizaciju društva i njegovu rekonstituciju kao organizacije komuna. Međutim, njegova koncepcija alternative ne sadrži cjelovitu konstrukciju komunalnog društvenog uređenja.The Jugoslav edition of R. Bahro’s book »Alternative« (Globus, Zagreb 1981) has stirred up numerous theoretical discussions. In its number 7—8 of 1982, the journal »Naše teme« (»Our themes«) has, among other articles, included eight critical reviews on Bahro’s work. The aim of this paper is to deal with: a. Certain aspects of the above work which were not dealt with in the discussion and b. To comment on certain points in the discussions which — in the author’s opinion — have resulted from lack of — understanding of Bahro\u27s work. In the focus of the paper is Bahro’s analysis of the Stalinism phenomenon; the historic role of »Real socialism «; the problem of defining a historical subject of social transformation in real socialism; the role of League of Communists as an organised social subject in the transformation process; the problems of the State and communal organisation. The author concludes that Bahro has given a valuable criticism of realistic socialism, despite the fact that in his search of the social subject of transformation, he has exaggerated the readiness and capabilities of scientific and technical intelligence to become the leading factors in the process. With regard to the Socialist alternative, he has pointed to several conditions required for its realization: cultural revolution; abolition of division of labour in the sense of a life-long work specialization; reorganization of society and its reconditionalising into communal organisations. However, his concept of the alternative does not embody a comprehensive construction of a communal social system

Liberalism, Justice and Cultural Plurality

Klasični je liberalizam nasuprot tradicionalnim koncepcijama uspostavio shvaćanje pravednosti koje postulira jednakost individualnih (negativnih) sloboda i (obrambenih) prava. Pod utjecajem socijalističke kritike suvuremeni liberali pokušavaju integrirati u pojam pravednosti i problem distribucije pozitivnih sloboda i prava. Danas već klasični pokušaj rješenja problema jest teorija pravednost Johna Rawlsa. Rawls definira pravednost kao fairness, čija su osnovna načela jednakost temeljnih sloboda pojedinca kompatibilnih sa slobodom drugih pojedinaca, distribucija dobara koja najviše koriste najmanje povlaštenima, primat slobode pred socijalnom jednakošću kao i pravednosti pred ekonomskom efikasnoću. U pluralističkim društvu ova načela trebaju omogućiti uspsotavu "podudarajućeg konsenzusa" (overlapping consensus) među divergentnim socijalnim i svjetonazorskim grupama u pitanjima temeljne strukture društva. Pokušavajući riješiti pitanja socijalne jednakosti koja Rawlsova teorija ostavlja otvorenima, Michael Walzer postulira načelo složene jednakosti, koje za različite vrste dobara zahtijeva različite načine raspodjele. Vrste dobara ne mogu se unaprijed odrediti, nego se u njihovu razdvajanju nastoji sastoji najvažnije umijeće liberalne politike. Napkon, autor smatra da se pitanje pravedne političke organizacije multikulturnog društva može riješiti primjenom Rawlsova načela fairnessa na stvarne postupke pregovaranja i postizanja punktuelnog konsenzusa među divergentnim kulturnim grupama.Classical liberalism as opposed to traditional concepts has established a notion of justice which envisages the equality of individual (negative) freedoms and (tutelary) rights. Under the influence of socialist criticism modern-day liberals have been trying to include within the concept of justice the problem of distribution of positive freedoms and rights. The already classic attempt of solving this problem is the theory of justice by John Rawls. Rawls defines justice as fairness, whose basic principles are: the the equality of basic freedoms of individuals compatible with the freedom of other individuals, the distrubution of goods which will benefit most the least privileged, the primacy of freedom over social equality and justic over economic efficiency. In a pluralist society these principles should facilitate the establishment of the "overlapping consensus" among divergent social groups on the issues of basic social structure. In his attempt to solve the problems of social equality which Rawls\u27 theory leaves open-ended, Michael Walzer postulates the principle of complex equality which requires different ways of distribution for different types of goods. These types cannot be specified in advance; however their distribution is the most remarkable skill of liberal politics. Finally, the author claims that the problem of a just political organization of multicultural societies can be solved by applying Rawls\u27 principle of fairness on the negotiating processes and on achieving consensus among divergent cultural groups on certain issues