The Perception of Totalitarian Symbols — The Visual Identity of Fascism, Nazism and Communism in Light of the Branding Process

U radu se istražuje percepcija simbola triju totalitarnih režima, odnosno ideologija 20. stoljeća (fašizma, nacizma i komunizma) u svjetlu marketinških spoznaja o procesu brendiranja. Simboli totalitarizma bili su ponajprije oruđe snažne propagande i indoktrinacije, a razlike u dubini (i širini) nametanja totalitarnih ideologija spoznaju se iz međuodnosa stranačkih i državnih simbola. Nametanje ideologije i postupci totalitarnih režima utječu na promjenu izvornog značenja simbola koje su koristili. Simboli totalitarnih režima danas se zato uglavnom ne sagledavaju kroz izvorno značenje. Simboli fašizma i nacizma zabranjeni su ili nepoželjni u većini zemalja, a oni komunizma još se slobodno ističu u nizu zemalja. Tek su u rijetkim zemljama zabranjeni. To je zato što su zločini jednih javno osuđeni, a drugih nisu. Osuda postupaka učinjenih pod nekim simbolom utječe i na percepciju tog simbola u javnosti.The article examines the manner in which the symbols of the three totalitarian regimes, or rather ideologies of the 20th century (Fascism, Nazism and Communism) are perceived in light of marketing insights concerning the branding process. The symbols of totalitarianism have primarily been powerful propaganda and indoctrination tools, while the imposition of totalitarian ideologies can be discerned in its depth (and breadth) through the interrelationship between party and state symbols. The actions of totalitarian regimes and ideology enforcement practices affect a change in the original meaning of the symbols which they use. The symbols of totalitarian regimes today are therefore not viewed in light of their original meaning. Symbols of Fascism and Nazism are banned or are deemed undesireable in the majority of countries, while those of Communism are freely displayed in many lands. They are banned only rarely, the reason being that the crimes of some are publicly denounced, while those of others are not. Condemnation of actions committed under a particular symbol affects also its public perception

SOROS’ INTERPRETATION OF POPPER’S SCIENTIFIC-POLITICAL THEORY

Autor u ovom radu preispituje tezu o spoznajno-teorijskoj i znanstveno-političkoj istovjetnosti mišljenja Georga Sorosa i Karla Poppera. Iako se Poppera smatra rodonačelnikom ideje i koncepta otvorenog društva, a Georgea Sorosa praktičarom, koji je tu ideju pokušao provesti u djelo, autor između ta dva mislioca, koja su, svaki na svoj način, obilježili 20. stoljeće, pronalazi cijeli niz razlika zbog kojih tvrdi da se pretpostavljena istovjetnost ni u kojem slučaju ne može argumentirano braniti. Dapače, autor je mišljenja da je moguće pronaći više potencijalnih razloga zašto se Soros upustio u filantropsku aktivnost, od kojih želja za realizacijom upravo Popperova koncepta nije na prvom mjestu. Stoga zaključuje da se njihov blizak odnos ipak ponajprije može objasniti na razini emotivne blagonaklonosti, koja je nastala na temelju vrlo sličnih životnih iskustava.The author looks into the thesis about the cognitive-theoretical and scientific-political congruence of George Soros’ and Karl Popper’s thinking. Although Popper is considered to be the originator of the idea and the concept of the open society while George Soros is thought of as a practitioner who attempted to implement the idea, the author nevertheless points out an array of dissimilarities between these two major thinkers of the 20th century and claims that the assumed identicalness cannot be convincingly defended. On the contrary, though it is possible to glean several potential reasons why Soros took up philanthropy, the desire to put Popper’s concept into practice is not the most important one among them. Thus he concludes that their close relationship can be primarily explained at the level of emotive generosity, the result of very similar life experiences

The Critique of Totalitarianism in the Journal Hrvatska prosvjeta (1914–1940)

Časopis Hrvatska prosvjeta, navezavši se na književni časopis Prosvjeta (1892–1913), utemeljen je 1914. kao glasilo Kola hrvatskih književnika, osnovanog 1913, koje je imalo zadaću okupljati i pomagati katoličke književnike te promicati katoličku beletristiku. Časopis je izlazio do 1940. pod uredništvom Petra Grgeca (1914), dr. Ferde Rožića (1914–1919) i dr. Ljubomira Marakovića (1919–1940). Osim poezije i kraće proze, književne i scenske kritike te prijevoda stranih pisaca objavljivani su članci o povijesnim, kulturnim, socijalnim, filozofijskim i političkim pitanjima. Početkom 1920-ih časopis počinje intenzivnije pratiti međunarodnu politiku, kad o političkim pitanjima s raznih vidika pišu Mate Ujević, Ljubomir Maraković, Nedjeljko Subotić, Augustin Juretić, Juraj Šćetinec i dr. Od godine 1934. redovito je dio sadržaja posvećen političkim zbivanjima, o kojima najznačajnije članke pišu Konstantin Rimarić Volinski, dr. Marije Matulić, dr. Ivan Degrel i dr. Emilio Pallua. Dio svojih prigovora usmjerili su i protiv liberalizma i masonstva, a u više članaka prisutna je kritika totalitarnih političkih filozofija i sustava, posebice nacionalsocijalizma. Prvi članak na tu temu, naslovljen »Nacionalsocijalizam«, objavljuje Volinski 1934. godine, a sljedećih godina vodeću riječ preuzimaju Matulić, Degrel i Pallua. Marije Matulić, ujedno glavni urednik katoličkog dnevnika Hrvatske straže, 1936. i 1937. objavljuje više članaka u kojima nacionalsocijalizam i fašizam ocjenjuje kao ideologije protivne kršćanskom humanizmu. Emilio Pallua između 1937. i 1940. piše nekoliko članaka o »njemačkom pitanju« uzimajući u obzir povijesnu genezu nacionalsocijalizma te politički, vojno, kulturno, ekonomski i religijski raščlanjuje odnos snaga između država i naroda, ne krijući sklonost prema zapadnim demokracijama unatoč brojnim kritičkim primjedbama zbog njihova odnosa prema Crkvi. Ivan Degrel svoje političke komentare prožima filozofijskim objekcijama, posebice se baveći »njemačkim pitanjem«, a pripada krugu onih koji su prepoznali Hegelov i Nietzscheov utjecaj na stvaranje velikonijemstva i nacionalsocijalizma. U spomenutim je člancima razvidan kritički odmak od svih totalitarizama uz zajedničku ocjenu, utemeljenu na katoličkom socijalnom i moralnom nauku te na teološkom poimanju države i povijesti, da se radi o imperijalističkim ideologijama koje će izazvati rat, prije svega zbog slabosti liberalne demokracije da ga spriječi i zbog tada nepremostivih suprotnosti između europskih sila. Zbog obilja građe ovaj se članak većim dijelom usredotočio na propitivanje stajališta spomenutih autora o nacionalsocijalizmu.The journal Hrvatska prosvjeta, successor of the literary journal Prosvjeta (1892–1913), was launched in 1914 as a bulletin of the Kolo hrvatskih književnika [The Circle of Croatian Writers], a literary society founded in 1913 with an aim to gather and help Catholic writers and promote literary production inspired by Catholic ideas. The journal was issued until 1940, under the editorship of Petar Grgec (1914), Dr Ferdo Rožić (1914–1919) and Dr Ljubomir Maraković (1919–1940). Besides poetry, short prose, literary and theatre criticism, translations of foreign writers, the journal also published articles on a variety of historical, cultural, social, philosophical and political issues. From 1934 onwards the journal regularly devoted part of its contents to the current political issues, knowledgeably addressed by Konstantin Rimarić Volinski, Dr Marije Matulić, Dr Emilio Pallua and Dr Ivan Degrel. Among the abundantly covered themes, this article focuses on the attitudes the mentioned authors had on National Socialism. The first article on this topic, entitled “Nacionalsocijalizam” [National Socialism], was authored by Volinski in 1934, the same topic later being tackled by Matulić, Pallua and Degrel. Marije Matulić, at the same time chief editor of the Catholic daily Hrvatska straža, during 1936 and 1937 published several political articles related to the issue of National Socialism and fascism: “Borba za Rajnu” [The struggle for the Rhine], “Borba Lava i Vučice” [The struggle between Lion and She-Volf], “Evropski obračuni” [European conflicts], “Sukob blokova” [The conflict of blocks], “Kiklop usred Europe” [A Cyclop midst Europe], “Dvije evropske osovine” [Two European axes], “Anglia docet,” and “Mussolinijevi zahtjevi” [Mussolini’s demands]. In these texts he lucidly announced that Poland would be the first victim of National Socialism, and that Britain and not France would show greatest resistance to Germany. Some of the critical objections he directed against liberalism, Freemasonry and communism, but just as clearly anticipated the chauvinistic and racist nature of fascism and Nazism as ideologies contrary to Christian humanism. Between 1937 and 1940, Pallua wrote several articles on the ‘German issue’: “Anschluss i nova vanjskopolitička situacija” [Anschluss and the new situation in foreign policy], “Sudetski problem i organizacija mira u Evropi” [The Sudet issue and organisation of peace in Europe), “Nova evropska situacija nakon sporazuma u Münchenu” [New European situation after the Munich treaty), “Rasizam i Vatikan” [Racism and Vatican], “Crkva i rat” [Church and war], and “Nordijski rat” [Nordic war], taking into account the historical genesis and development of National Socialism, and analysing the political, military, cultural, economic and religious power relations. In doing so, he shows his inclination towards Western democracies despite numerous objections against their unfair treatment of the Church. Starting with the article "Njemačka – svjetski problem" [Germany – world issue] (1939), Ivan Degrel infused his political commentaries on the ‘German issue’ with philosophical objections, siding with those who ‘detected’ the influence of Hegel and Nietzsche on the formation of pan-Germanism and National Socialism. Although the criticism of the much-debated National Socialism rested not only on philosophical argumentation – and when it did, it was not in the pure forms of philosophical discourse but permeated with concepts and approaches from political economy and political history, that is, in conformity with the nature of a cultural journal and journalistic discourse – there is no doubt that the Catholic intellectuals gathered around Hrvatska prosvjeta, guided by the documents of the Teachings of the Catholic Church, mainly the papal encyclicals from Pius IX to Pius XI, along with the contemporary achievements of the neoscholastic and personalistic Catholic thought, were determined to question totalitarian political philosophies and systems from the philosophical standpoint, and agree on the opinion that the ideas of National Socialism were incompatible with the Christian world view

The Problem of Guilt and Political Responsibility in the Philosophy of Hannah Arendt and Karl Jaspers

U ovome diplomskom radu usporedit ćemo filozofske opuse Hannah Arendt i Karla Jaspersa te njihovu zajedničku korespondenciju i osvrt na određene etičke i opće filozofske probleme. Njihove refleksije postale su predmet zanimanja ne samo filozofskih krugova, već i jednog dijela javnosti, a sve posredstvom događaja kakav je bio Drugi svjetski rat, koji je uvelike odredio i tematski okvir njihova opusa. Događanja, ponajprije u Njemačkoj za vrijeme Hitlerove nacističke vlasti, osim strahota, ostavila su nam u nasljeđe brojna pitanja o ljudskoj naravi, kao i pitanja određenja terminâ poput zla, krivnje, odgovornosti i fenomena mase - sve one probleme koje je dosadašnja povijest zapadnog mišljenja shvaćala kao samorazumljiva. Imajući u vidu filozofsku tradiciju Njemačke, navedeno je bilo još veći poticaj za razmatranje u okviru onoga što nazivamo filozofskim diskursom kod njemačkih filozofa, stoga u vidu imamo dva slučaja, slučaj s Eichmannom i njegovim suđenjem posredstvom osvrta Hannah Arendt te problematiziranje pojma odgovornosti kod Jaspersa, koji također kao središnju okosnicu razmatranja problema vidi događaje Drugog svjetskog rata, među kojima i Eichmanna, i uopće sam rat u cjelini. Opisanom usporedbom namjera je ukazati na razlike i sličnosti dvaju autora, njihove prepiske o navedenoj temi, ali i na opći doprinos svega toga u odnosu na neka tradicionalna etička i filozofska pitanja, u čemu će nam ključne točke kod Arendt predstavljati pojmovi pluralnosti, amor mundi, banalnosti zla, političke moći suđenja, a kod Jaspersa pojmovi fenomena mase, sintagme 'čovjek kao šifra', samobitka te metafizičke krivnje. Temeljem tih termina pokušat će se pružiti uvid u shvaćanje novih uvjeta života i shvaćanja zbilje, koji su se pojavili događajem kakav je bio Drugi svjetski rat, odnosno koji njegovom pojavom predstavljaju izazov za dosadašnje mišljenje

Dobrovoljno ropstvo i totalitarnost u distopijskim romanima 20. stoljeća: Status književnosti u Vrlome novom svijetu, 1984. i Fahrenheitu 451

The article thematises the relationship of the will to rule and the will to be ruled in the aforementioned dystopian novels by Aldous Huxley, George Orwell and Ray Bradbury. The first part of the article points out Hannah Arendt’s observations on the nature of totalitarianism, the second part deals with the similarities concerning the status of literature in the fictitious totalitarian societies represented in the three novels, whereas the final part exemplifies Arendtʼs views through Étienne de La Boétieʼs writings on “voluntary servitude”. The conflict between those who want to be ruled and those who want to be free reflects the clash of those who want to annihilate literature and those who want to preserve it.The article thematises the relationship of the will to rule and the will to be ruled in the aforementioned dystopian novels by Aldous Huxley, George Orwell and Ray Bradbury. The first part of the article points out Hannah Arendt’s observations on the nature of totalitarianism, the second part deals with the similarities concerning the status of literature in the fictitious totalitarian societies represented in the three novels, whereas the final part exemplifies Arendtʼs views through Étienne de La Boétieʼs writings on “voluntary servitude”. The conflict between those who want to be ruled and those who want to be free reflects the clash of those who want to annihilate literature and those who want to preserve it

Between Literature and Philosophy: Existentialism of the Mediterranean Circle. Albert Camus and Antun Šoljan

Mediteranska misao Alberta Camusa i egzistencijalistički roman Antuna Šoljana pokazuju sličnosti na više razina, kako na tematsko-idejnom planu, tako i na planu strukture, a konačno i onom osobnog angažmana. Na tom tragu ćemo naznačiti pitanje odnosa prema drugim egzistencijalističkim misliocima, pitanje mogućnosti govora o mediteranskom egzistencijalizmu te pitanje mogućnosti govora o prisutnosti filozofije u suvremenoj hrvatskoj egzistencijalističkoj književnosti. Pritom se služimo analizom teksta, a problematiziramo sljedeće: odnos prema neizvjesnosti egzistencije (apsurdu), odnos prema nihilizmu i filozofiji povijesti (Povijest nasuprot Prirodi uz paralelno pitanje tzv. negativnog nihilizma) te odnos prema kurentnim ideologijama praćen vizionarskim, novim političkim rješenjima (kod Camusa idejom federacije i svjetske vlade, a kod Šoljana idejom kantonizacije Europe po uzoru na Švicarsku).Albert Camus’ Mediterranean thought and existential novels of Antun Šoljan show similarities at several levels, including theme and concept design, structure, and level of personal involvement. On this trace, we pose the question of their relation to other existentialist thinkers, the possibilities of Mediterranean existentialism, and the possibility of speaking about the presence of philosophy in contemporary Croatian existentialist literature. The primary method is textual analysis, and we problematize the following: relation to uncertainty of the existence (absurdity), attitude towards nihilism and the philosophy of history (History opposed to Nature as the question parallel to the problem of the negative nihilism), and critique of the current ideologies followed by visionary, new political solutions (in Camus’ works the idea of federation and world government, and in Šoljan’s writings the idea of cantonisation of Europe inspired by the Swiss model)

A Theoretical Definition of Totalitarianism

Totalitarizam, toliko prisutan u suvremenomu političkom diskursu, uočen između dva svjetska rata, definiranje 1950-ih godina i ponovno otkriven od sredine 1970-ih, kao teorijski koncept još uvijek izaziva rasprave, ali je mjerodavan i nezamjenjiv u politologijskoj analizi. U tom kontekstu autor razmatra izvornost i teorijska određenje totalitarizma u radovima H. Arendt, R. Arona i C. Leforta s jedne, te C. Friedricha, Z. Brzezinskog i F. Neumanna s druge strane, a napose u recentnoj politologijsko-povijesnoj studiji B. Bruneteaua.Totalitarianism, which has been widely present in the modem political discourse, was first observed between the two world wars, defined only in the fifties and rediscovered in the mid seventies. As much as it still raises disputes as a theoretical conception, it represents a relevant and irreplaceable issue in political-science analysis. It is in this context that the author analyzes authenticity and theoretical definition of totalitarianism in the works of H. Arendt, R. Aron and C. Lefort from the one side, and in the works of C. Friedrich, Z. Brzezinski and F. Neumann on the other. The author particularly refers to the recent historical and political-science study of B. Bruneteau