Within the scholarly & social marginalization of social sciences, political science is in the forefront of taking an ever more secondary role. Even though it has got some distinct structural ...advantages for successful research on not only political, but also existential social problems, it has itself showed a tendency toward more marginal social issues & an increased limitation of its competences. This can be changed even in the current world crisis, but only if conventional research strategies of political scientists change, too. An orientation toward problem solving, especially toward solving major problems, will largely improve public policies as policies of development, but only if political science as a whole becomes integrated, more well-founded, dynamically & developmentally oriented & more networked into the broader scientific system. The world crisis has got deeply segmented causes, not only financial-economic, but also constitutive, cyclical-political, political-economic & public-policy causes. This is suggested by the political cycle theory. The synergy of public policies which has directly caused the crisis can also break it, but only if the U.S. government & the contemporary world system remodernize, in addition to the development of meritocratically separate, if democratically controlled, public-policy government as the fifth (or seventh) branch of government in the separation of powers. Adapted from the source document.
Ciklusi Moderne Normale Strpić, Dag
Politička misao,
2010, Letnik:
XLVII, Številka:
4
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
The author regards his book Karl Marx and the Political Economy of Modernity, as a summerized polemical autobiography. For him, above all, Marx is an extremly successful key for a new understanding ...of the classical political and political-economic theory and for its applicability in future analysis and projections of wayouts from the actual world crisis. Even though in his book he documented and elaborated ways of completing Marx’s critique of political economy in accordance with Marx’s plan from Das Kapital, and demonstrated also the possibility of founding a critical political theory on the basis of the critique of political economy. For Dag Strpić, a critical political theory, contradictory to Marx’s planning, would be required already in building a concretized theory of markets and prices in the “competition of a multitude of capitals” on the “surface of civil society” – based on Marx’s methodology.Somewhat aside from that, in this article Strpić is focused on an extended clarification of the Modern Normal’s meaning. The Modern Normal (MN) in his book was constructed in an analysis based on a combination of classical modern and contemporary political and political-economic theory. But also on analytical use of results of all social sciences and humanities in principle, and science as a whole – especially by necessity of problem-solving public policy. With a fundamental and implementational focus on an integral political science. In this, Strpić holds on to the basic scheme of the Modern Normal, F1, from his book. Strpić’s Modern Normal in this basic form is designed as a cross-section view of a corridor of cyclical movements of changing orders and fluctuating processes in mutually structurized elements of modern nation-states and their world-system. Those orders and elements developed various foundations on classical modern political and political-economic principles. With various centers of gravity or normals and different formating dominants in a structure of sequential political/political-economic counterpoints of development in series of historically different variants of the Modern Normal. Strpić observes the conjunctures and crises of development of those processes and orders, and also the actual worldwide economic, political, social and cultural crisis, through cycles of the Modern Normal as a whole. This is most evident in semi-centenial and (multi)centenial cycles, and most striking in great crises and pics of conjunctures.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, ODKLJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
The actual recession/depression is a radicalized continuation of a cyclical forty years long transformational slowdown of growth through basically stagnant fluctuations. With this slowdown is ...connected a serial of controversial, crisis-generating and finally unsuccessful general politics- and policy-change unprecedented in the contemporary world. An analysis of the societal history through sequencies of developmental counterpoints and through the logic of great societal, political-economic and political cycles demonstrates that causes of cyclical economic and societal movements in general, and of actual stagnation and crysis especially, are mostly noneconomical. They are mainly political. In short, their political foundation is in a radical actual and previous change in the equilibrium of a dynamic tendency of the modern political space. This equilibrium is here called “modern normal”. The modern normal (MN) is for us a tendentional space/structure of equilibria in the middle of (1) the political, (2) the personal/individual, (3) the whole world space, and (4) the space of the state/society. The actual kind of that disequilibrium or denormalization of modern normal indicates a process which is usually called totalitarian. In our actual case, the focal point is moved toward financial corporations as pseudo-statal regulators of economy, politics and society. Here, this is the Matrix-capitalism as a feedback of an urban legend and an analytical pattern. Generally, in the long run it is also a process of denormalized or bad and unsuccessful public- and business-policy, especially as development-, growth- and transformation-policy. This Matrix-capitalism, which is dominated by global financial corporations, is developing itself in a cyclically denormalised tendentional space/structure between: (1) the unpolitically “economical”, (2) the unindividually “personal”, (3) the unwholly “global”, and (4) the unstately, unsocially, and anti-economically “denational”. The Matrix-capitalism is functional only in a virtual world of ideologized economics and casino-business operations with derivatives etc. Cyclically interfaced with economic, social, cultural, political, personal, and national/world’s reality, Matrix-capitalism will every time be more unsustainable even for its mega-corporative core.
U Analima HPD-a 2008. objavili ste višestruko unikatan tekst (reklo bi se, o veslanju?) autorice Mirjane Kasapović pod naslovom “Dvojac bez kormilara”. Tekst, dakako, nije unikatan sam po sebi. ...Takvih se nađe na stranicama hrvatskog i inog žutog tiska. Ili na ponekoj požutjeloj stranici kakve tiskovine koja je inače druge boje. Iako ni tamo baš ovako potvorne tvorevine nisu prečeste. Zašto se uredništvo Anala odlučilo objaviti takav tekst u znanstvenome časopisu, nije lako razumjeti. Koliko mi je poznato, takvo što nema presedana u hrvatskoj ili svjetskoj znanstvenoj publicistici. Iako bi ga se možda moglo potražiti u povijesti najrazličitije motiviranih progona kolega u olovnim vremenima raznih meridijana, pa i naših.
A Fraction of Political Science: Behind the Masks of the Discipline’s Status Revue, an Unexpected (Primordial) Question Has Arisen: A Faculty or a Political School?
The world academic literature ...shows that political science (in singular) has been in such status for centuries, within (the plural of ) political sciences preceding today’s social sciences, within which political science has also been in a permanent synergetic “duality”, as a political science among other social sciences, with close collaboration with humanistic and even all other disciplines. For political science, then, “the way out of the plural” is possible only as a way out of social sciences, which is essentially argued for by Kasapović. This is not a trend anywhere in the world – because this would imply a way out of science in general. This is suggested by the academic literature which was not analysed by Kasapović or was not analysed against established academic rules, just as she did not analyse the “status of the discipline” against the conventional rules of profession and non--fiction genre – in the full scope of standard branches of political science. Without such a scope, what we get is in fact a “fractional” instead of “singular” political science. A review of the discipline cannot be replaced by a comparative analysis of political science educational institutions, particularly not at their undergraduate level, and especially not when it is pulled out of its complex academic, historical and social contexts and the context of “the building of institutions”. It can neither be replaced by the ideological and political accusations used by the author instead of a scientific argument. The orientation of the author’s and editor’s project as a political science ideal consequently suggests the establishment of a de facto political school of some sect instead of a faculty of political science which she allegedly seeks. The Faculty at which the author works can further develop successfully only through a more intensive development of national political science which is better embedded in global political science and of mutually critical political science academic community, and not through “liberation” from purported “colonisers” and “occupiers” from other social and some humanistic sciences. It is possible only through a development that should at least maintain the Croatian and global relative academic level which the Faculty has had since its very beginning and which Croatian political science has had since its beginnings in the 17th and 18th centuries; surely not through such a designed decline under that level and the way out of the scientific community, even from the entirety of political science. In this way, the author, wittingly or not, falsely presents her discipline, her professors and fellow-scholars and her Faculty, their history, current problems and perspectives, and is misleading her and our students.
Within the scholarly and social marginalisation of social sciences, political science is in the forefront of taking an ever more secondary role. Even though it has got some distinct structural ...advantages for successful research on not only political, but also existential social problems, it has itself showed a tendency toward more marginal social issues and an increased limitation of its competences. This can be changed even in the current world crisis, but only if conventional research strategies of political scientists change, too. An orientation toward problem solving, especially toward solving major problems, will largely improve public policies as policies of development, but only if political science as a whole becomes integrated, more well-founded, dinamically and developmentally oriented and more networked into the broader scientific system. The world crisis has got deeply segmented causes, not only financial-economic, but also constitutive, cyclical-political, political-economic and public-policy causes. This is suggested by the political cycle theory. The synergy of public policies which has directly caused the crisis can also break it, but only if the U.S. government and the contemporary world system remodernise, in addition to the development of meritocratically separate, if democratically controlled, public-policy government as the fifth (or seventh) branch of government in the separation of powers.
The world academic literature shows that political science (in singular) has been in such status for centuries, within (the plural of ) political sciences preceding today’s social sciences, within ...which political science has also been in a permanent synergetic “duality”, as a political science among other social sciences, with close collaboration with humanistic and even all other disciplines. For political science, then, “the way out of the plural” is possible only as a way out of social sciences, which is essentially argued for by Kasapović. This is not a trend anywhere in the world – because this would imply a way out of science in general. This is suggested by the academic literature which was not analysed by Kasapović or was not analysed against established academic rules, just as she did not analyse the “status of the discipline” against the conventional rules of profession and non--fiction genre – in the full scope of standard branches of political science. Without such a scope, what we get is in fact a “fractional” instead of “singular” political science. A review of the discipline cannot be replaced by a comparative analysis of political science educational institutions, particularly not at their undergraduate level, and especially not when it is pulled out of its complex academic, historical and social contexts and the context of “the building of institutions”. It can neither be replaced by the ideological and political accusations used by the author instead of a scientific argument. The orientation of the author’s and editor’s project as a political science ideal consequently suggests the establishment of a de facto political school of some sect instead of a faculty of political science which she allegedly seeks. The Faculty at which the author works can further develop successfully only through a more intensive development of national political science which is better embedded in global political science and of mutually critical political science academic community, and not through “liberation” from purported “colonisers” and “occupiers” from other social and some humanistic sciences. It is possible only through a development that should at least maintain the Croatian and global relative academic level which the Faculty has had since its very beginning and which Croatian political science has had since its beginnings in the 17th and 18th centuries; surely not through such a designed decline under that level and the way out of the scientific community, even from the entirety of political science. In this way, the author, wittingly or not, falsely presents her discipline, her professors and fellow-scholars and her Faculty, their history, current problems and perspectives, and is misleading her and our students.
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 Strpić (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, Strpić 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. Strpić, 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
Strpić 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.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, ODKLJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
The problem of the fabled denominator that used to encumber classical political economy has made its appearance in the recent (political science) global political economy as a genie let out from a ...bottle by the contemporary realism and mercantilism, that the structure of the contemporary world will not let back in. The trends in the development of the globalised world cannot be reconciled with its globalisational politics without a clear liberating and harmonizing strategy of its leading national/market democracies. Without such a strategy, globalisation and democracy cannot be linked because they cannot find the classical common denominator. The mercantilist/realistic concepts of its identification cannot but fail since by definition they start from the pluperfect structure of the separate world of developed nation-states – but forget about their assumptions and the context – and, amazed, time and again they undermine their own efforts and the survival itself. The same happens with the imperial endeavours of the leading nation-state: it does not manage to be both, so eventually it may well be neither.
The alternative scenarios of the world political and politico-economic development included in our project will show that the possible successful strategy of globalisation and democratization (and its substitutes) have to start from completely novel analytical assumptions. Only one of them is formally old but substantially entirely new: an increasingly unavoidable planetary denominator whose variations enable if not entirely successful but at least viable planetary politics of human and democratic development.
Both in Croatia and abroad, the fundamental criterion of successful developments and harmonized policies will be the question: are there superfluous people, regions, ideas? If there are, then in no time all people, all regions and all ideas are going to become superfluous.
