The article examines the Slovene “progressive” political parties,
treated as the interwar heirs to the 19th century national liberal traditions, and puts forward references to similar parties from the Czech political context. It demonstrates how the dominant position of political Catholicism within the Slovene political landscape also largely determined the ideological profile and political behavior of the main opposing camp. Pronounced “anti-clerical” orientation was thus essential for Slovene (post-)liberals, marking an important difference to their counterparts in the more secularized Czech context. On other hand the appeal to the national idea remained central for both the Slovene and the Czech interwar national liberal heirs. The specificities of progressives’ national politics are discussed in the second section, where it is indicated that the complexities of their Yugoslavist course, being based not
merely on pragmatic considerations, had mostly different underpinnings than the Czechoslovakist conceptions had in the Czech (post-)liberal politics. and Článek zahrnuje poznámkový aparát pod čarou
Berlinova dichotomie pozitivní a negativní svobody je v akademickém prostředí natolik diskutovanou problematikou, že jakékoli pokusy o její novou interpretaci čelí notnému riziku rozvíjení již řečeného, a tím i možnosti ztráty argumentační síly. Cíl tohoto článku však nespočívá v přispění k debatě týkající se funkčnosti Berlinova rozdělení, ale ve zpochybnění stereotypně přijímaných ideových zdrojů, jimiž se Berlin údajně inspiroval. V rámci linie tradic liberálního myšlení, kterou identifikuje mimo jiné sám Berlin, je totiž jeho rozlišení dvou pojmů svobody běžně ztotožňováno s principy a ideovým poselstvím klasifikace francouzského osvícence Benjamina Constanta. Směšování Berlinovy polarity pozitivní – negativní s Constantovým schématem antická – moderní je pravděpodobně důsledkem četných styčných bodů obou koncepcí, jež však vedou k automatickému vnímání souladu i u těch principů, u nichž je míra koherence problematická. Za hlavní cíl této studie lze tudíž označit jednak prokázání skutečnosti, že pro důslednou komparaci Berlinovy a Constantovy dichotomie je kromě běžně analyzované příbuznosti negativní svobody se svobodou moderní nezbytné vzít v úvahu i provázanost opačných pólů spektra, a především pak obhajobu teze, že v podstatných momentech Constantovo myšlení opouští meze liberální tradice a konotuje Pettitovy republikánské principy svobody jako ne-dominance. Takový závěr vede v konečném důsledku k tomu, že Berlinovo a Constantovo dělení nelze vnímat jako homogenní., Berlin’s dichotomy of positive and negative freedom is, in academic quarters, such a well-discussed problem that any kind of attempt at a fresh interpretation confronts the real risk of developing what has already been said and, in that way, of losing argumentational strength. The aim of this article does not, however, consist in contributing to the debate about the viability of Berlin’s distinction, but in calling into question the stereotypical reception of the intellectual sources that Berlin was inspired by. In the framework of the line of traditions of liberal thinking, which, among others, Berlin himself identifies, is his distinction between two concepts of freedom, usually identified with the principles and intellectual meaning of the classification by the French enlightenment thinker Benjamin Constant. The mixing up of Berlin’s polarity positive–negative with Constant’s scheme of ancient–modern is probably a consequence of the numerous common points in the two conceptions. These, however, lead to the automatic perception of agreement even in those principles for which the level of coherence is questionable. The main aim of this study is, therefore, to indicate, firstly, the proven fact that for a consistent comparison of Berlin’s and Constant’s dichotomy one must examine, in addition to the commonly analysed relationship of negative freedom with modern freedom, the connectedness of the opposite poles in the two cases. Secondly, and more importantly, the thesis is advanced that, in its fundamental properties, Constant’s thinking goes beyond the liberal tradition and points towards Pettit’s republican principles of freedom as non-dominance. This conclusion ultimately leads to the recognition that Berlin’s and Constant’s division cannot be seen as homogenous., Jan Květina., and Obsahuje seznam literatury
This article aims to investigate the viewpoint of the
Austro-German liberal movement - both ideologically and practically - towards the arguments for Bohemian state rights made by the conservative Bohemian Great Landowners and Czech political parties in the period from 1861 to 1879. The February Patent of 1861 is a convenient starting point because it reintroduced representative bodies to the Habsburg Monarchy and facilitatedthe development of modern democratic politics. The 1879 parliamentary election is this article’s end point since it constituted a significant turning point in Austrian and Bohemian politics. The Austro-German liberals lost the majority in central parliament while the conservative Bohemian Great Landowners and Czech parties attended parliament after a sixteen-year absence, joining the conservative-Slav coalition supporting the government.
The principal argument is that while the Austro-German liberals (particularly the Bohemian-German faction) were generally opposed to Bohemian state rights, this must be qualifi ed by the genuine desire for compromise (under certain conditions), considerable tactical fl exibility and the wider Imperial context. Chronologically, the article focuses on key parliamentary debates to
illustrate the changing relations: the fluid 1860s, the crucial period from 1867 to 1871 (when there was a real possibility of Bohemian state rights) through to the turning point of 1879. and Článek zahrnuje poznámkový aparát pod čarou
This study examines the role which the Cyril-Methodius tradition played in the 19th and early 20th century in religious, national and political developments in Moravia. It takes as its starting point Masaryk's criticism of the Young Czechs' demand for the introduction of a Slavonic liturgy. It tries to answer the question of whether this criticism was justified, whether it had a wider relevance than merely that of the historical period and whether it was also relevant for Moravia. The study shows that throughout the 19th century the Cyril-Methodius idea was used both by the church (unionism) and by national and political groups and even political parties. The Moravian Young Czechs used their demand for Slavonic worship, albeit unsuccessfully, in the election campaign against the Catholic parties in 1900–1901. Masaryk's criticisms proved to be justified and to a certain extent were even prescient, as Masaryk gave supporters of political Catholicism the right to use the Cyril-Methodius idea, and following their establishment Moravian Catholic parties fully adopted this idea.
Cílem příspěvku z dějin českého politického myšlení je rekonstrukce představy ''dynamické demokracie'' Zdeňka Nejedlého. Studie chce objasnit následující otázky: Jaké formy demokracie Nejedlý rozlišuje? Jaké jsou charakteristiky, základy, výhody a nevýhody různých forem demokracie? Východiskem Nejedlého pochopení demokracie je normativní protiklad mezi demokracií a aristokratismem, z kterého vychází teorie ''dynamické demokracie''. Ta je výrazem názoru, že historický vývoj demokracie nutně vede od feudální přes měšťanskou k hospodářské a sociální demokracii i k demokracii sovětského typu, tzn. k systému sovětů. Feudální a měšťanská demokracie pro Nejedlého představovaly dobré formy, současně je však považoval za zastaralé. Měšťanská demokracie je jako taková spojena s ideologií měšťanstva, s liberalismem a s parlamentem. Nejedlý měšťanské demokracii vyčítal omezení na politiku, ztrátu vztahů mezi lidem a poslanci, a skutečnost, že neodpovídala daným společenským poměrům, což podle něj vedlo k zvrhnutí demokracie v aristokracii. Proto Nejedlý považoval za nutné rozšířit dosavadní politickou demokracii na hospodářskou a sociální úroveň. Zároveň bylo pro něj nevyhnutelné změnit dosavadní reprezentační systém, který je spojen s parlamentem. Místo parlamentu chtěl zavést systém sovětů, který byl podle něj pro 20. století vhodnější.Demokracie sovětského typu se na rozdíl od měšťanské nemůže zvrhnout v aristokracii. Nejedlého teorie ''dynamické demokracie'' popisuje rudimentární koloběh ústav. Demokratické ústavy se mohou zvrhnout v aristokracii, pokud zastupitelé lidu ztratí kontakt s lidem. Zavedením systému sovětů a rozšířením politické demokracie na další oblasti společenského života je však možné se této hrozbě vyhnout., This article is about the history of Czech political thinking reconstructs Zdeněk Nejedlý’s conception of ''dynamic democracy''. The author clarifies which concepts of democracy are distinguished by Nejedlý and which attributes, bases, advantages and disadvantages result from these forms of democracy. Nejedlý’s conception of ''dynamic democracy'' is based on a normative contradiction of democracy and aristocratism. He was convinced that the development of democracy inevitably emerges from feudal and bourgeois states of democracy to its contemporary economic and social forms but also to a democracy of the Soviet type (system of Soviets). According to Nejedlý, feudal and bourgeois types of democracy have been forms of a good quality, but they were outdated in the 20th century. The bourgeois form of democracy is based on the ideology of citizenship, on liberalism and on parliamentary principals. Nejedlý criticized its limitations - for example its strict political definition and the lack of relationships between people and their representatives. Bourgeois democracy simply did not correspond with contemporary society, which, according to Nejedlý, led to the transition from democracy to aristocracy. Therefore, he struggled for a broadening of political (bourgeois) democracy towards a more liberal form in its economic and social sense. At the same time, he advocated the transition from representative parliamentary systems to the system of soviets, which in his eyes would be more appropriate for the 20th century. Unlike bourgeois democracy, its soviet form could not be transited into aristocracy. Nejedlý’s theory of ''dynamic democracy'' describes fundamental alternations of constitutions. Democratic constitutions can be transited into aristocracy if people’s representatives lose their contact with their voters. This threat can be avoided only by introducing the soviet system and by the broadening of the political democracy. (Translated by Dirk Dalberg), and Překlad resumé: Dirk Dalberg
This paper focuses on both Masaryk's theoretical concepts and practical endeavours to establish independent democratic sates in Central Europe after World War I. Masaryk's ideas developed from his theoretical knowledge, his knowledge of history, as well as from his political experience as a parliamentary deputy. At the centre lay his belief that the existence of nations as multilayered, integrated entities was an important condition for the development of democracy, provided that smaller nations were respected by larger ones and would be given sufficient space and autonomy to develop properly. The general acceptance of democratic and humanitarian values and principles would guarantee an end to the traditional expansionism of larger nations at the expense of the freedom, standards and dignity of smaller nations. Attention is also focused on Masaryk's extensive activities during the First World War regarding the independence of democratic states in Central Europe.
Článek definuje charakteristické rysy Anněnkovovy literární kritiky. Pavel V. Anněnkov (1813–1887) patřil v padesátých letech 19. století k výrazným odpůrcům literárněkritických koncepcí radikálních demokratů. Anněnkov bývá považován za významného obhájce estetické stránky literárního díla, která podle něj nesmí být zastíněna diskusemi o politických či společenských otázkách. Avšak jeho hodnocení literárních děl nelze redukovat pouze na estetické hledisko. Autor dokládá, že Anněnkov ve svých literárních kritikách kladl důraz také na harmonii a mravní hledisko, a upravuje tak převládající zjednodušující vnímání Anněnkovova jako literárního kritika. Článek uvádí Anněnkovovy estetické a umělecké postoje do souvislostí dobového ruského liberálního myšlení a ukazuje, že vlivy evropského liberalismu je v ruském prostředí nutno hledat i mimo politickou sféru. and This study describes the characteristic features of Annenkov's literary criticism. Pavel V. Annenkov (1813–1887) was one of the key opponents of the concepts of literary criticism proposed by the radical democrats. He used to be regarded as a strong advocate of the aesthetic qualities of literature, which, in his opinion, could not be superseded by discussions about political or social issues. However, his assessment of literary works can not only be reduced to an aesthetic point of view. The author reports that in his literary criticisms Annenkov also puts emphasis on harmony and on moral viewpoint and thus he adjusts prevailing simplified perception of Annenkov as a literary critic. The study draws parallels between Annenkov's aesthetic and artistic views and the then-current Russian liberal thinking and shows that the influence of European liberalism on the Russian society can also be found outside the sphere of politics.
This material contains an attempt in comparing the Czech and the Romanian way of building a kind of opposition to the communist dictatorship with the means specific to theater. The first part of the material proposes a parallel between the Czech and the Romanian personality at national and individual level, specifying that the differences are given not only by the different origins of those two nations, but also by the specific historical conditions they passed through. It is then specified that the author is aware of the little possibilities of the Czech and Slovak people interested in the filed have to find out how things were in the world of the Romanian theater during the communist regime, whilst materials about the Polish, Russian, East-German or Hungarian oppositional activity during communism is far better known. Then a presentation of the Romanian theater world after the Second World War follows, stressing the lack of alternative to the state theaters in Romania, by difference to what was happening in Czechoslovakia. Then the possibilities of developing a kind of oppositional activity is presented for each kind of theater show in Romania, stressing that the biggest theaters were the most active. Then a parallel is suggested between the oppositional activity of theaters in Czechoslovakia (mainly in the Czech lands) and Romania, by explaining likenesses and differences.
Článek kritizuje Popperovu projekci moderních ideálů (liberalismu, rovnostářství, humanismu) do antiky. Nesnaží se hájit Platóna ani výrazněji rozporovat Popperovy normativní závěry, pouze ukazuje, že Otevřená společnost a její nepřátelé silně idealizuje athénské demokraty a představitele tzv. "velké generace". Pozornost je věnována především starořeckému pojetí rovnosti a skupinové příslušnosti, dále také způsobům legitimizace moci, jež existovaly v pátém století př. n. l. and I criticize Popper's projection of modern ideals (liberalism, egalitarianism, humanism) onto antiquity. Without attempting to defend Plato or disprove Popper's normative conclusions, the article shows that The Open Society and Its Enemies strongly idealizes Athenian democrats and the so called "Great Generation". Attention is chiefly paid to the ancient-Greek notions of equality and group-belonging, and to the fifth-century means of legitimizing power.
The author formulates the hypothesis that the key value which guides the reflections of John Stuart Mill about society is not freedom, as is traditionally assumed in connection with the liberal conception, but knowledge. The realisation of a free society is then shown to be one of the possible ways of achieving this value. On the basis of
Rawls’ and Berlin’s interpretations of Mill, the author shows that Mill’s idea of a free society rests on a certain ground of value which is constituted by Mill’s conviction about the importance of knowledge. There follows a discussion of the aspects of Mill’s conception of society in which the problematic of knowledge seems to be more or less evident. The evidence is then bolstered by attention to an analysis of Mill’s thinking undertaken by John Skorupski and David Brink. The author also indicates that emphasising the connection between the value of knowledge and liberty in society may provide us with new perspectives when we seek an answer to the question of how, in practice, we can create a free society.