Handbook za pripremu završnog ispita iz engleskog, Prijemni ispiti od Engleski jezik

Preuzmite Handbook za pripremu završnog ispita iz engleskog i više Prijemni ispiti u PDF od Engleski jezik samo na Docsity! POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES A dialectical materialism is the crude form of Marxism that dominated intellectual enquiry in the Soviet Union and other orthodox communist states. Orthodox Marxists analyse politics strictly in terms of social class and treat political ideologies as nothing more than an expression of the interests of particular classes. The balance between pragmatic and ideological considerations clearly varies from politician to politician, and also at different stages in a politician's career. Some, for example Adolf Hitlerhave been fiercely, even fanatically, committed to a clear set of ideological goals. Hitler's writings are shot through with virulent anti-Semitism and openly discuss his desire to found a German-dominated, racial empire in eastern Europe. Marxist revolutionaries such as Lenin have been dedicated to the goal of building a classless, communist society. Western states typically respect the ideas of limited and constitutional government, and also believe that government should be representative, based upon regular and competitive elections. In the same way, traditional communist political systems conformed to the principles of Marxism–Leninism. Communist states were dominated by a single party, a ruling Communist Party, whose authority rested upon Lenin's belief that the Communist Party alone represents the interests of the working class. What is ideology? Much confusion stems from the fact that, though obviously related, ‘ideology’ and ‘ideologies’ are quite different things to study. To examine ‘ideology’ is to consider a particular type of political thought, distinct from, say, political science or political philosophy. To study political ideology is to analyse the nature, role and significance of this category of thought, and to reflect on questions such as which sets of political ideas and arguments should be classified as ideologies. On the other hand, to study ‘ideologies’ is to be concerned with analysing the content of political thought, to be interested in the ideas, doctrines and theories that have been advanced by and within the various ideological traditions. David McLellan put it, ‘Ideology is the most elusive concept in the whole of the social sciences.’ Among the meanings that have been attached to ideology are the following: • A political belief system. • An action-orientated set of political ideas. • The ideas of the ruling class. • The world-view of a particular social class or social group. • Political ideas that embody or articulate class or social interests. • Ideas that propagate false consciousness amongst the exploited or oppressed. • Ideas that situate the individual within a social context and generate a sense of collective belonging. • An officially sanctioned set of ideas used to legitimize a political system or regime. • An all-embracing political doctrine that claims a monopoly of truth. • An abstract and highly systematic set of political ideams. Martin Seliger (1976), for example, defined an ideology as ‘a set of ideas by which men posit, explain and justify the ends and means of organized social action, irrespective of whether such action aims to preserve, amend, uproot or rebuild a given social order’. An ideology is therefore an action-orientated system of thought. So defined, ideologies are neither good nor bad, true nor false, open nor closed, liberating nor oppressive – they can be all these things. The word ideology was coined during the French Revolution by Antoine Destutt de Tracy (1754–1836), and was first used in public in 1796. For de Tracy, idéologie referred to a new ‘science of ideas’, literally an idea-ology. Marx's concept of ideology has a number of crucial features. First, ideology is about delusion and mystification; it perpetrates a false or mistaken view of the world, what Engels later referred to as ‘false consciousness'. Second, ideology is linked to the class system. Marx believed that the distortion implicit in ideology stems from the fact that it reflects the interests and perspective on society of the ruling class. Third, ideology is a manifestation of power and finally, Marx treated ideology as a temporary phenomenon. Ideology will only continue so long as the class system that generates it survives. Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937) The Marxist theory of ideology was perhaps developed furthest by Antonio Gramsci. He was Italian Marxist and social theorist. Gramsci joined the Socialist Party in 1913, becoming in 1921 the general secretary of the newly formed Italian Communist Party. He was elected to the Italian Parliament in 1924, but was imprisoned by Mussolini in 1926. He remained incarcerated until his death. He rejected any form of ‘scientific’ determinism by stressing, through the theory of hegemony, the importance of the political and intellectual struggle. Gramsci remained throughout his life a Leninist and a revolutionary. His stress on revolutionary commitment and ‘optimism of the will’ also endeared him to the new left. Pragmatism Pragmatism refers generally to a concern with practical circumstances rather than theoretical beliefs, with what can be achieved in the real world, as opposed to what should be achieved in an ideal world. As a philosophical doctrine (most commonly associated with philosophers such as William James (1842–1910) and John Dewey (1859–1952) pragmatism holds that the meaning and justification of beliefs should be judged by their practical consequences. Though by definition a pragmatic style of politics is non- ideological, it does not amount to unprincipled opportunism. Pragmatism suggests a cautious attitude towards change that rejects sweeping reforms and revolution as a descent into the unknown, and prefers instead incremental adjustments and, perhaps, evolutionary progress. Perspectives on … Ideology Liberals, particularly during the Cold War period, have viewed ideology as an officially sanctioned belief system that claims a monopoly of truth, often through a spurious claim to be scientific. Ideology is therefore inherently repressive, even totalitarian; its prime examples are communism and fascism. Conservatives have traditionally regarded ideology as a manifestation of the arrogance of rationalism. Ideologies are elaborate systems of thought that are dangerous or unreliable because, being abstracted from reality, they establish principles and goals that lead to repression or are simply unachievable. In this light, socialism and liberalism are clearly ideological. Socialists, following Marx, have seen ideology as a body of ideas that conceal the contradictions of class society, thereby promoting false consciousness and political passivity amongst subordinate classes. Liberalism is the classic ruling-class ideology. Later Marxists adopted a neutral concept of ideology, regarding it as the distinctive ideas of any social class, including the working class. Fascists are often dismissive of ideology as an over-systematic, dry and intellectualized form of political understanding that is based on mere reason rather than passion and the will. The Nazis preferred to portray their own ideas as a Weltanschauung or ‘world view’, not as a systematic philosophy. foster encourage or promote the development of encourage gajiti, ohrabrivati the teacher's task is to foster learning resilience the ability of a substance or object to spring back into shape elastičnost nylon is excellent in wearability and resilience ramification a consequence of an action or event, especially when complex or unwelcome consequence, aftermath, outcome razgranatost any change is bound to have legal ramifications LIBERALISM Origins and development The term ‘liberal’ has been in use since the fourteenth century but has had a wide variety of meanings. The Latin liber referred to a class of free men, in other words, men who were neither serfs nor slaves. It has meant generous, as in ‘liberal’ helpings of food and drink; or, in reference to social attitudes, it has implied openness or open-mindedness. It also came to be increasingly associated with ideas of freedom and choice. The term ‘liberalism’ to denote a political allegiance made its appearance much later: it was not used until the early part of the nineteenth century, being first employed in Spain in 1812. The nineteenth century was in many ways the liberal century. As industrialization spread throughout western countries, liberal ideas triumphed. Liberals advocated an industrialized and market economic order ‘free’ from government interference, in which businesses would be allowed to pursue profit and nations encouraged to trade freely with one another. Western political systems have also been shaped by liberal ideas and values, so much so that they are commonly classified as liberal democracies. Nevertheless, historical developments since the nineteenth century have clearly influenced the nature and substance of liberal ideology. The character of liberalism changed as the ‘rising middle classes’ succeeded in establishing their economic and political dominance. The radical, even revolutionary edge of liberalism faded with each liberal success. Central themes ∙The Individual In the feudal period there was little idea of individuals having their own interests or possessing personal and unique identities. Rather people were seen as members of the social groups to which they belonged: their family, village, local community or social class. Their lives and identities were largely determined by the character of these groups in a process. As the certainties of feudal life broke down a new intellectual climate emerged. Rational and scientific explanations gradually displaced traditional religious theories, and society was increasingly understood from the viewpoint of the human individual. Individuals were thought to possess personal and distinctive qualities: each was of special value. Individualism is the belief in the supreme importance of the individual over any social group or collective body. In the form of methodological individualism, this suggests that the individual is ∙Freedom A belief in the supreme importance of the individual leads naturally to a commitment to individual freedom. Individual liberty (liberty and freedom being interchangeable) is for liberals the supreme political value, and in many ways the unifying principle within liberal ideology. John Stuart Mill (1806–73) - Mill's varied and complex work was crucial to the development of liberalism because in many ways it straddled the divide between classical and modern theories. ∙Reason Enlightenment rationalism influenced liberalism in a number of ways. In the first place, it strengthened its faith in both the individual and in liberty. To the extent that human beings are rational, thinking creatures, they are capable of defining and pursuing their own best interests. By no means do liberals believe that individuals are infallible in this respect. Rationalism is the belief that the world has a rational structure, and that this can be disclosed through the exercise of human reason and critical enquiry. As a philosophical theory, rationalism is the belief that knowledge flows from reason rather than experience, and thus contrasts with empiricism. ∙Justice Justice denotes a particular kind of moral judgment, in particular one about the distribution of rewards and punishment. In short justice is about giving each person what he or she is ‘due’. The narrower idea of social justice refers to the distribution of material rewards and benefits in society, such as wages, profits, housing, medical care, and welfare benefits and so on. The liberal theory of justice is based upon a belief in equality of various kinds. ∙Toleration and diversity Toleration means forbearance, a willingness to allow people to think, speak and act in ways of which we disapprove. This was expressed by the French writer Voltaire (1694–1778) in his declaration that, ‘I detest what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it’. Toleration is both an ethical ideal and a social principle. Pluralism, in its broadest sense, is a belief in or commitment to diversity or multiplicity, the existence of many things. As a descriptive term, pluralism may denote the existence of party competition (political pluralism), a multiplicity of ethical values (moral or value pluralism), a variety of cultural beliefs (cultural pluralism) and so on. ∙The Social Contract In moral and political philosophy, the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. Constitutionalism Constitutionalism, in a narrow sense, is the practice of limited government brought about by the existence of a constitution. More broadly, constitutionalism refers to a set of political values and aspirations that reflect the desire to protect liberty through the establishment of internal and external checks on government power. The powers of government bodies and politicians can be limited by the introduction of external and usually legal constraints. Democracy Democracy is derived from the Greek word kratos, meaning power or rule. Democracy thus stands for ‘rule by the demos’, demos meaning ‘the people’, though it was originally taken to imply ‘the poor’ or ‘the many’. Liberal democracy is an indirect and representative form of democracy. Political office is aimed through success in regular elections, conducted on the basis of formal political equality – ‘one person, one vote; one vote, one value’. Classical liberalism Collapse an instance of a structure falling down or in. Crash, failure Success, build- up Rušenje, pad Community A group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common. Society, locality Dissimilarity Zajednica Diversity The state of being diverse; variety. Divergence, variety Similarity, uniformity raznovrsnost Encourage give support, confidence, or hope to (someone) Boost, hearten Discourage, dishearten Ohrabriti/ podstaći Excellence The quality of being outstanding or extremely good. Merit, perfection Imperfection, failure Odlika, odličnost Freedom The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. Flexibility, liberty Imprisonment, captivity Sloboda Individual A single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family. Lone, singular United, common Pojedinac Irreconcilable (Of ideas, facts, or statements) representing findings or points of view that are so different from each other that they cannot be made compatible. Impeccable, opposed Flexible, friendly Nepomirljiv Justice just behavior or treatment Authority, justness Penalty, injustice Pravda, opravdanost Liberal a person of liberal views./(noun) ; open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.(adj.) Tolerant, broad-minded Intolerant, narrow-minded Slobodnjak Liberalism A viewpoint or ideology associated with free political institutions and religious toleration, as well as support for a strong role of government in regulating capitalism and constructing the welfare state. / / Liberalizam/ Slobodoumnost Multiculturalism The co-existence of diverse cultures, where culture includes racial, religious, or Pluralism, diversity / Multikulturalizam cultural groups and is manifested in customary behaviors, cultural assumptions and values, patterns of thinking, and communicative styles. Pluralism is a belief in or commitment to diversity or multiplicity, the Existence of many things. Multiracialism, diversity / Pluralizam Reason a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.(noun) ;think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.(verb) Logic, sense Ignorance, disbelief Razlog/razum Values / Morals, standards immoralities vrijednosti CONSERVATISM Origins and development Conservatism can refer to moderate behavior, conventional life-style or refusal to change. Conservatism is first used to describe a distinctive political position in 19 century. It was a pessimistic view of public affairs. By the 1820, Conservatism was used as opposition to the principles of the 1789 Revolution. In the UK, Conservative replaced Tory as official name of opposition party, becoming the party’s official name in 1835. Conservative ideas were reaction to the political, economic and social changes that are symbolized by French Revolution. In 19 century, period of transformation of Western states, reflected in growth of liberalism, socialism and nationalism, conservatism stood in defense of a traditional social order. It has varied considerably because of different traditions and national cultures. British conservatism was not resistance to change, but a prudent willingness to change in order to conserve. During 19 century an authoritarian form of conservatism developed, which defended monarchy. Except West and North America, conservatism could strongly be seen in Japan too. Even though conservatism is the most intellectually modest of all political ideologies, it has also been remarkably resilient. Conservatism has prospered because it has been unwilling to be tied down to a fixed system of ideas. New right ideas are ideas about free market, used by Regan and Thatcher, but new right still stayed ea part of conservative ideology because of belief in order, authority and discipline. In 20 century western conservatives were divided b/w paternalistic support for state intervention and a libertarian commitment to the free market. What new right did is brought tensions to the surface that it may have threatened the very survival of conservatism. The desire to conserve – central themes It is often suggested that conservatives have a clearer understanding of what they oppose than of what they favor. In that sense, conservatism has been portrayed as a negative philosophy, its purpose being simply to preach resistance to, or at least suspicion of, change. The desire to resist change may be the recurrent theme within conservatism, but what distinguishes conservatives from supporters of rival political creeds is the distinctive way they uphold this position. Conservatism is neither simple pragmatism nor mere opportunism. It is founded upon a particular set of political beliefs about human beings, the societies they live in and the importance of a distinctive set of political values. As such, like liberalism and socialism, it should rightfully be described as an ideology. The most significant of its central beliefs are the following: • Tradition • Human imperfection • Organic society • Hierarchy and authority • Property Most conservatives, however, support tradition without needing to argue that it has divine origins. Burke, for example, described society as a partnership between ‘those who are living, those who are dead and those who are to be born’. G. K. Chesterton (1874–1936), the British novelist and essayist, expressed this idea as follows: Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes: our ancestors. It is a democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking around. Tradition, in this sense, reflects the accumulated wisdom of the past. The institutions and practices of the past have been ‘tested by time’ and should therefore be preserved for the benefit of the living and for generations to Edmund Burke. Human imperfection In many ways conservatism is, a ‘philosophy of human imperfection’. Other ideologies assume that human beings are naturally ‘good’, or that they can be made ‘good’ if their social circumstances are improved. Human imperfection is understood in several ways. In the first place, human beings are thought to be psychologically limited and dependent creatures. In the view of conservatives, people fear isolation and instability. They are drawn psychologically to the safe and the familiar, and, above all, seek the security of knowing ‘their place’. Whereas other political philosophies trace the origins of immoral or criminal behavior to society, conservatives believe it is rooted in the individual. Human beings are thought to be The New Right The ‘new right’ is a broad term and has been used to describe ideas that range from the demand for tax cuts to calls for greater censorship of television and films, and even campaigns against immigration or in favor of repatriation. In essence, the new right is a marriage between two apparently contrasting ideological traditions. The first of these is classical liberal economics, particularly the free market theories of Adam Smith, which were revived in the second half of the twentieth century as a critique of ‘big’ government and economic and social intervention. The second element in the new right is traditional conservative – and notably pre- Disraelian – social theory, especially its defense of order, authority and discipline. The liberal aspects of new right thinking are most definitely drawn from classical rather than modern liberalism, and in particular from neoliberalism. The conservative new right, or neoconservatism, is defined by its fear of social fragmentation or breakdown, which is seen as a product of liberal reform and the spread of ‘progressive’ values. Authority, in its various guises, is viewed as the solution to fragmentation and disorder because it acts as a kind of ‘social glue’, binding people together, giving them a sense of who they are and what is expected of them. Tensions within the new right Conservatism in 21. Century In 21. Century, conservatism wants to recreate itself as an ideological project, and such as create the meaning of conservatism as a strong antipathy towards state control. Conservatism appears to have succeeded in overthrowing the ‘pro-state’ tendency that has characterized government throughout much of the twentieth century, especially since 1945, and in establishing an alternative ‘pro- market’ tendency. Distancing itself from its organics, hierarchical and non ideological instincts, conservatism, in the guise of the new right, aligned itself with market individualism and social authoritarianism. Having exposed the twentieth- century ‘socialist’ mistakes of central planning and welfare capitalism, public policy in the twenty-first century looked set to be dominated by the ‘new’ conservative blend of the free market and the strong state. Despite the political and economic drawbacks of free-market neoliberalism, conservatives may find that it is more difficult to ditch new right ideas than it was to embrace them in the first place. While the adoption of new right principles may have been essentially a pragmatic response to declining conservative electoral and political fortunes, they brought with them a distinctively unconservative passion for principle and infected conservatism with the virus of ideological conviction. Ideal example are United States – even if there is no such thing on a political scene as an Conservative party, we can see all those norms of conservatism applied in American Republican Party, meaning that conservatism is surely wide more spread than people think. Word Definition Synonym Antonym Translation Conservatism The disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change. conservativene ss, traditionalism, ultraconservati sm broad-mindedness, liberalism, liberalness, open- mindedness, progressivism konzervatizam Conserve to keep in a safe or sound state (he conserved his inheritance); especially : to avoid wasteful or destructive use of (conserve natural resources) husband, safeguard dissipate, lavish, misspend, run through, throw away, waste konzervirati Autocratic of, relating to, or being an autocracy :absolute (an autocratic government) arbitrary, absolute (also autocratical), czarist (also tsarist or tzarist), despotic, dictatorial limited autokratski Monarchies a state or nation in which the supreme power is actually or nominally lodged in a monarch. monarhije Traditional a way of thinking, behaving, or doing something that has been used by the people in a particular group, family, society. convention, custom, heritage, prescription, rubric, rule abnormal different extraordinary tradicionalan Paternalistic the system, principle, or practice of managing or governing individuals, businesses, nations, etc., in the manner of očinski a father dealing benevolently and often intrusively with his children Commitment the attitude of someone who works very hard to do or support something adhesion, allegiance, attachment, fidelity, constancy disloyalty, faithlessness, falseness, falsity, inconstancy privrženost Portrayed to make a likeness of by drawing, painting, carving, or the like. picture, delineate, limn Confuse,obscure,b e orginal prikazana Rootedness The quality or state of having roots, especially of being firmly established, settled, or entrenched Entenched,esta bilished, grounded ukorenjenosti Boundless not limited in any way : having no boundaries limitless, endless, unbounded, inexhaustible, illimitable. bounded, circumscribed, confined, definite, finite, limited, restricted bezgraničan Gander involving or including many people or things : very large in scope : intended to have an important or impressive result august, baronial, epic, gallant, glorious, humble, unheroic, unimposing, unimpressive velik, obiman Rootless having no roots, esp (of a person) having no ties with a particu lar place or community Frail, wobbly, insubstantial unguarded Firm, strong, stable, steady bez korijena Equilibrium a state of rest or balance due to the equal action of opposing forces equipoise, steadiness, stability. Agitation excitement imbalance unevenness ravnoteža Abandoned to leave and never return to (someone who needs protection or help) deliver, give up, indulge, surrender, yield deny napušten Restless characterized by or showing inability to remain at rest restive, agitated, fretful calm collected composed nemiran Some would regard a discussion of socialism in the twenty-first century as pointless. Socialism is dead and the obituaries have been written. The evidence to sustain this view is all too familiar. The eastern European revolutions of 1989–91 removed the last vestiges of ‘actually existing socialism’, and where nominally socialist regimes survive, as in China, North Korea and Cuba it is only because of the willingness of communist parties to introduce market reforms. Elsewhere, parliamentary socialist parties have been in flight from traditional principles, attempting to maintain electoral credibility by demonstrating growing sympathy market-orientated economics. WORD DEFINITION SYNONYMS ANTONYMS TRANSLAT E Claimed to demand by or as by virtue of a right; demand as a righ t or as due request, bespeak, call for, quest arrogate potraživan Heritge something that comes or bel ongs to one by reason of birt h; aninherited lot or portion ancestry, culture, custom, tradition, bequest, birthright, dowry, endowment,patrim ony nasljeđe Arose appear, begin, crop up, emerge, ensue, occur, happen, derive cause, disappear, finish, end nastala Harsh ungentle and unpleasant in a ction or effect. bitter, bleak, hard, strident, coarse bland, calm, mild, pleasant, pliant Grub, oštar Dwellers to live or stay as a permanent resident; reside Inhabitant, resident, occupant, citizen Nonresident, noncitizen stanovnici Struggle to contend with an adversar y or opposing force. battle, crush, combat, conflict, strife accord , agreement, calm, idleness, peace borba Potent having great power, influence, or effect compelling, dominant, great, impressive, influential, vigorous inactive, ineffective, infirm, soft, weak, ineffectual, insignificant moćan Acquire to come into possession or ownership of; get as one's own. achieve, amass, get, collect, gain, earn disperse, fail, forfeit,lose steći Cluster a number of things of the same kind, growing or held together; a bunch array, band, bunch, bundle, clump, collection individual, one Grupa Capable having power and ability; efficient; competent able, adequate, efficient, proficient, skillful, talented, gifted clumsy, incapable, inept, ineffective, ignorant, inefficient sposoban Endeavor to exert oneself to do or effect something; make an effort; strive try, seek, attempt, effort, strive idleness, inactivity, passivity, lazzines Nastojati, truditi Pits a naturally formed or excava ted hole or cavity in the gro und crater, mine, tomb, trench, chasm Bulge, mountain jame Uphold to support or defend, as agai nst opposition or criticism defend, confirm, encourage, endorse, stand by, vindicate deny, oppose, protest, attack, halt, hinder Podržati, potvrditi Unjust Not just; lacking in justice or fair ness biased, inequitable, unfair, wrongful fair, good, honest, impartial, equitable nepravedan Fulfillment obligation of being fulfilled; completion; realization realization, gratification, attainment, achievement failure, dissatisfaction, unfulfillment ispunjenje Alienated cause (someone) to feel isolated or estranged. disaffect, divide, estranged, separate, disunite Combine, join, unite Otuđeni, otuđiti Mature fully developed physically; full-grown. sophisticate, matured, complete, cultivated, grown, mellow immature, unprepared, unripe zreo Dictum a formal pronouncement from an authoritative source. adage, aphorism, axiom, motto Poslovica, izreka Imminent likely to occur at any moment; impending immediate, impending, looming, possible, forthcoming avoidable, distant neposredno Revise to alter something already written or printed, in order to make corrections, improve, or update alter, amend, compare, cut, improve, modify, rework, update, upgrade ignore, worsen Ispraviti, preraditi Repelled to keep off or out; fail to mix with confront, rebuff, resist, hold off, fend off, chase away accept, agree, allow, approve odbijen Identity politics All forms of nationalism address the issue of identity. For the political nationalist, ‘objective’ considerations such as territory, religion and language are no more important than ‘subjective’ ones such as will, memory and patriotic loyalty. Nationalism, therefore, not only advances political causes but also tells people who they are: it gives people a history, forges social bonds and a collective spirit. Patriotism Patriotism (from the Latin patria, meaning ‘fatherland’) is a sentiment, a psychological attachment to one's nation, literally a ‘love of one's country’. The terms nationalism and patriotism are often confused. Nationalism has a doctrinal character and embodies the belief that the nation is in some way the central principle of political organization. Patriotism provides the affective basis for that belief, and thus underpins all forms of nationalism. However, not all patriots are nationalists. Not all of those who identify with, or even love their nation, see it as a means through which political demands can be articulated. Cultural nationalists view the state as a peripheral if not alien entity. Whereas political nationalism is ‘rational’ and may be principled, cultural nationalism is ‘mystical’ in that it is based on a romantic belief in the nation as a unique historical and organic whole. Typically, cultural nationalism is a ‘bottom-up’ form of nationalism that draws more on popular rituals, traditions and legends than on elite or ‘higher’ culture. As it is not possible to ‘join’ an ethnic group (except perhaps through intermarriage), ethnic nationalism has a clearly exclusive character. Nationalism and politics Political nationalism is a highly complex phenomenon, being characterized more by ambiguity and contradictions than by a single set of values and goals.Nationalism has been both progressive and regressive: it has looked to a future of national independence or national greatness, and it has celebrated past national glories and entrenched established identities. The most significant nacionalist traditions are the following: • Liberal nationalism • Conservative nationalism • Expansionist nationalism • Anticolonial and postcolonial nationalism Liberal nationalism Liberal nationalism is the oldest form of nationalism, dating back to the French Revolution and embodying many of its values. Its ideas spread quickly through much of Europe and were expressed most clearly by Giuseppe Mazzini, often thought of as the ‘prophet’ of Italian unification. Woodrow Wilson's ‘Fourteen Points’, proposed as the basis for the reconstruction of Europe after the First World War, were also based upon liberal nationalist principles. Moreover, many twentieth-century anticolonial leaders were inspired by liberal ideas. The ideas of liberal nationalism were clearly shaped by J.-J. Rousseau's defence of popular sovereignty, expressed in particular in the notion of the ‘general will’. As the nineteenth century progressed, the aspiration for popular self-government was progressively fused with liberal principles. Liberal nationalists believe that nations, like individuals, are equal, at least in the sense that they are equally entitled to the right of self-determination. The ultimate goal of liberal nationalism is, therefore, the construction of a world of independent nation-states, not merely the unification or independence of a particular nation. Conservative nationalism In the early nineteenth century, conservatives regarded nationalism as a radical and dangerous force, a threat to order and political stability. However, as the century progressed, conservative statesmen such as Disraeli, Bismarck and even Tsar Alexander III became increasingly sympathetic towards nationalism, seeing it as a natural ally in maintaining social order and defending traditional institutions. Conservative nationalism tends to develop in established nation-states, rather than ones that are in the process of nation building. Expansionist nationalism In many countries the dominant image of nationalism is one of aggression and militarism, quite the opposite of a principled belief in national self-determination. The aggressive face of nationalism became apparent in the late nineteenth century as European powers indulged in a ‘scramble for Africa’ in the name of national glory. What distinguished this form of nationalism from earlier liberal nationalism was its chauvinism, a belief in superiority or dominance, a term derived from the name of Nicolas Chauvin. Nations are not thought to be equal in their right to self-determination; rather some nations are believed to possess characteristics or qualities that make them superior to others. National chauvinism breeds from a feeling of intense, even hysterical nationalist enthusiasm. The individual as a separate, rational being is swept away on a tide of patriotic emotion, expressed in the desire for aggression, expansion and war. The right-wing French nationalist Charles Maurras called such intense patriotism ‘integral nationalism’: individuals and independent groups lose their identity within an all-powerful ‘nation’.Such militant nationalism is often accompanied by militarism. Anticolonial and postcolonial nationalism Nationalism may have been born in Europe, but it became a worldwide phenomenon thanks to imperialism. The experience of colonial rule helped to forge a sense of nationhood and a desire for ‘national liberation’ amongst the peoples of Asia and Africa, During the twentieth century the political geography of much of the world was transformed by anticolonialism. Although Versailles applied the principle of self-determination to Europe, it was conveniently ignored in other parts of the world, where German colonies were simply transferred to British and French control. The final collapse of the European empires came after the Second World War. However, decolonization in the post-1945 period was often characterized by revolution and sometimes periods of armed struggle. This occurred, for instance, in the case Algeria, 1954–62 (against France), Vietnam, 1964–75 (against USA). Liberal internationalism Liberals have rarely rejected nationalism in principle. They have usually been prepared to accept both that nations are natural entities, in that cultural similarities tend to build a sense of identity and common belonging. There are, broadly, two bases of liberal internationalism. The first is a fear of an international ‘state of nature’. The second basis for liberal internationalism implies that all human beings, regardless of race, creed, social background and nationality, are of equal moral worth. Cosmopolitanism Cosmopolitanism literally means a belief in a cosmopolis or ‘world state’. As such it implies the obliteration of national identities and the establishment of a common political allegiance, uniting all human beings. Liberal cosmopolitanism has long been associated with support for free trade, based upon the belief that it promotes both international understanding and material prosperity. ANARCHISM Origins and development The term ‘anarchism’ has been in use since the French Revolution, and was initially employed in a critical or negative sense to imply a breakdown of civilized or predictable order. Indeed, pejorative meanings continue to be attached to the term. In everyday language, anarchy is usually equated with chaos and disorder; and in the popular imagination, anarchists are not uncommonly seen as bomb-toting terrorists. Anarchists do advocate the abolition of law and government, but in the belief that a more natural and spontaneous social order will develop. As Proudhon suggested, ‘society seeks order in anarchy’. The link with violence is also misleading. At times, anarchists have openly, even proudly, supported bombings and terrorism. However, most anarchists believe violence to be mistaken and counterproductive, and many followers regard violence in any form as morally unacceptable. Anarchism is unusual amongst political ideologies in that it has never succeeded in winning power, at least at the national level. No society or nation has been modeled according to anarchist principles. Hence it is tempting to regard anarchism as an ideology of less significance than, say, liberalism, socialism, conservatism or fascism, each of which has proved itself capable of achieving power and reshaping societies. The nearest anarchists have come to winning power was during the Spanish Civil War, when they briefly controlled parts of eastern Spain and set up workers' and peasants' collectives throughout Catalonia. Consequently, anarchists have looked to historical societies that reflect their principles, such as the cities of Ancient Greece or Medieval Europe, or to traditional peasant communes such as the Russian Mir. Against the state – central themes The defining feature of anarchism is its opposition to the state and the accompanying institutions of government and law. Anarchists have a preference for stateless society in which free individuals manage their affairs by voluntary agreement, without compulsion or coercion. Anarchism thus has a dual character: it can be interpreted as either a form of ‘ultraliberalism’, which resembles extreme liberal individualism, or as a form of ‘ultrasocialism’, which resembles extreme socialist collectivism. Nevertheless, anarchism is justified in being treated as a separate ideology, in that its supporters, despite drawing upon very different political traditions, are united by a series of broader principles and positions. The most significant of these are the following: • Anti-statism • Natural order • Anticlericalism • Economic freedom. Anti – statism: In practice, the anarchist critique of authority usually focuses upon political authority, especially when it is backed up by the machinery of the modern state. All other political ideologies believe that the state fulfils some worthy or worthwhile purpose within society. For instance, liberals regard the state as the protector of individual rights; conservatives revere the state as a symbol of order and social cohesion; and socialists have seen it as an instrument of reform and the source of social justice. Anarchists, in contrast, believe that such views seriously misunderstand the nature of political authority and the state, and also fail to appreciate the negative and destructive forces that are embodied in the institutions of law and government. Natural order: The social contract arguments of Hobbes and Locke suggest that a stateless society, the ‘state of nature’, amounts to a civil war of each against all, making orderly and stable life impossible. The source of such strife lies in human nature, which according to Hobbes and Locke is essentially selfish, greedy and potentially aggressive. Only a sovereign state can restrain such impulses and guarantee social order. In short, order is impossible without law. Godwin, in contrast, suggested that human beings are essentially rational creatures, inclined by education and enlightened judgment to live in accordance with truth and universal moral laws. He thus believed that people have a natural propensity to organize their own lives in a harmonious and peaceful fashion. Indeed, in his view it is the corrupting influence of government and unnatural laws, rather than any ‘original sin’ in human beings, that creates injustice, greed and aggression. Government, in other words, is not the solution to the problem of order, but its cause. Anarchists have often sympathized with the famous opening words of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract ([1762] 1913), ‘Man was born free, yet everywhere he is in chains.’ At the heart of anarchism lies an unashamed utopianism, a belief in the natural goodness, or at least potential goodness, of humankind. From this perspective, social order arises naturally and spontaneously; it does not require the machinery of ‘law and order’. This is why anarchist conclusions have only been reached by political thinkers whose views of human nature are sufficiently optimistic to sustain the notions of natural order and spontaneous harmony. Anticlericalism: Anarchists see religion as one of the pillars of the state; it propagates an ideology of obedience and submission to both spiritual leaders and earthly rulers. As the Bible says, ‘give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's’. Earthly rulers have often looked to religion to legitimize their power, most obviously in the doctrine of the divine right of kings. Finally, religion seeks to impose a set of moral principles upon the individual and to establish a code of acceptable behavior. Religious belief requires conformity to standards of ‘good’ and ‘evil’, which are defined and policed by figures of religious authority such as priests, bishops or popes. The individual is thus robbed of moral autonomy and the capacity to make ethical judgments. Nevertheless, anarchists do not reject the religious impulse altogether. There is a clear mystical strain within anarchism. In the nineteenth century, anarchists usually worked within the working-class movement and subscribed to a broadly socialist social philosophy. Capitalism was understood in class terms: a ‘ruling class’ exploits and oppresses ‘the masses’. However, this ‘ruling class’ was not, in line with Marxism, interpreted in narrow economic terms, but was seen to encompass all those who command wealth, power or privilege in society. It therefore included kings and princes, politicians and state officials, judges and police officers, and bishops and priests, as well as industrialists and bankers. Bakunin thus argued that in every developed society three social groups can be identified: a vast majority who are exploited; a minority who are exploited but also exploit others in equal measure; and ‘the supreme governing estate’, a small minority of ‘exploiters and oppressors pure and simple’. Hence nineteenth-century anarchists identified themselves with the poor and oppressed and sought to carry out a social revolution in the name of the ‘exploited masses’, in which both capitalism and the state would be swept away. All anarchists oppose the ‘managed capitalism’ that flourished in western countries after 1945. Collectivist anarchism: The philosophical roots of collectivist anarchism lie in socialism rather than liberalism. Anarchist conclusions can be reached by pushing socialist collectivism to its limits. Collectivism is, in essence, the belief that human beings are social animals, better suited to working together for the common good than striving for individual self-interest. Collectivist anarchism, sometimes called social anarchism, stresses the human capacity for social solidarity, or what Kropotkin termed ‘mutual aid’. As pointed out earlier, this does not amount to a naïve belief in ‘natural goodness’, but rather highlights the potential for goodness that resides within all human beings. Human beings are, at heart, sociable, gregarious and cooperative creatures. In this light, the natural and proper relationship between and amongst people is one of sympathy, affection and harmony. When people are linked together by the recognition of a common humanity, they have no need to be regulated or controlled by government: as Bakunin proclaimed, ‘Social solidarity is the first human law; freedom is the second law’. Not only is government unnecessary, but in replacing freedom with oppression, it also makes social solidarity impossible. Mutualism: Mutualism is a system of fair and equitable exchange, in which individuals or groups can bargain with one another, trading goods and services without profiteering or exploitation. Social interaction is therefore voluntary, mutually beneficial and harmonious, requiring no regulation or interference by government. Anarcho – syndicalism: Although mutualism and anarcho-communism exerted significant influence within the broader socialist movement in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, anarchism only developed into a mass movement in its own right in the form of anarcho-syndicalism. Syndicalism is a form of revolutionary trade unionism, drawing its name from the French word syndicate, meaning union or group. Syndicalism emerged first in France and embraced by the powerful CGT union in the period before 1914. Syndicalist ideas spread to Italy, Latin America, the United States and, most significantly, Spain, where the country's largest union, the CNT, supported them. Anarcho – communism: From the anarcho-communist perspective, the communal organization of social and economic life has three key advantages. First, as communes are based upon the principles of sharing and collective endeavor, they strengthen the bonds of compassion and solidarity, and help to keep greed and selfishness at bay. Second, within communes decisions are made through a process of participatory or direct democracy, which guarantees a high level of popular participation and political equality. Third, communes are small-scale or ‘human-scale’ communities, which allow people to manage their own affairs through face-to-face interaction. In the anarchist view, centralization is always associated with depersonalized and bureaucratic social processes. Individual anarchism: The philosophical basis of individualist anarchism lies in the liberal idea of the sovereign individual. In many ways, anarchist conclusions are reached by pushing liberal individualism to its logical extreme. Anarchists, in contrast, believe that individuals can conduct themselves peacefully, harmoniously and prosperously without the need for government to ‘police’ society and protect them from their fellow human beings. Anarchists differ from liberals because they believe that free individuals can live and work together constructively because they are rational and moral creatures. Reason dictates that where conflict exists it should be resolved by arbitration or debate and not by violence. Egoism: the term ‘egoism’ can have two meanings. It can suggest that individuals are essentially concerned about their ego or ‘self’, that they are self-interested or self-seeking, an assumption that would be accepted by thinkers such as Hobbes or Locke. Self- interestedness, however, can generate conflict amongst individuals and justify the existence of a state, which would be needed to restrain each individual from harming or abusing. In Stirner's view, egoism as a philosophy that places the individual self at the centre of the moral universe. Individualism: For Thoreau, individualism leads in the direction of civil disobedience: the individual has to be faithful to his or her conscience and do only what each believes to be right, regardless of the demands of society or the laws made by government. Thoreau's anarchism placed individual conscience above the demands of political obligation. In Thoreau's case, this led him to disobey a US government he thought to be acting immorally in both upholding slavery and waging war against other countries. Extreme individualists such as Josiah Warren and Benjamin Tucker believed that this could be achieved through a system of market exchange. Warren thought that individuals have a sovereign right to the property they themselves produce, but are also forced by economic logic to work with others in order to gain the advantages of the division of labor. Anarcho – capitalism: They argue that government can be abolished and be replaced by unregulated market competition. Property should be owned by sovereign individuals, who may choose if they wish to enter into voluntary contracts with others in the pursuit of self-interest. The individual thus remains free and the market, beyond the control of any single individual or group, regulates all social interaction. Anarcho-capitalists go well beyond the ideas of free-market liberalism. Liberals believe that the market is an effective and efficient mechanism for delivering most goods, but argue that it also has its limits. Some services, such as the maintenance of domestic order, the enforcement of contracts and protection against external attack, are ‘public goods’, which must be provided by the state because they cannot be supplied through market competition. Anarcho-capitalists, however, believe that the market can satisfy all human wants. For example Rothbard (1978) recognized that in an anarchist society individuals will seek protection from one another, but argued that such protection can be delivered competitively by privately-owned ‘protection associations’ and ‘private courts’, without the need for a police force or a state court system. Anarchism in the twenty-first century It would be easy to dismiss the whole idea of anarchism in the twenty-first century as a mere fantasy. After all, anarchism cannot be said to have existed as a significant political movement since the early twentieth century, and even then it failed to provide the basis for political reconstruction in any major society. However, the enduring significance of anarchism is perhaps less that it has provided an ideological basis for acquiring and retaining political power, and more that it has challenged, and thereby fertilized, other political creeds. Anarchists have highlighted the coercive and destructive nature of political power, and in so doing have countered statist tendencies within other ideologies, notably liberalism, socialism and conservatism. In fact, in this sense, anarchism has had a growing influence upon modern political thought. Both the new left and the new right, for instance, have exhibited libertarian tendencies, which bear the imprint of anarchist ideas. WORD DEFINITION SYNONYM ANTONYM TRANSLATION Anarchism The term ‘anarchism’ has been in use since the French Revolution, and was initially employed in a critical or negative sense to imply a breakdown of civilized or predictable order. - - Anarhizam Anarchy The word ‘anarchy’ comes from Greek and literally means ‘without rule’ Chaos, confusion , disorder, disorganization , nongovernment, unrest, misrule , disregard Lawfulness, order, rule Anarhija Clericalism Clericalism is policy of maintaining or increasing the powe od a religious hierarchy - Anti – clericalism Klerikalizam terms of the Versailles peace settlement, for example Italy and Japan. In addition, the experience of war itself had generated a particularly militant form of nationalism and imbued it with militaristic values. Strength through unity – central themes Fascism is a difficult ideology to analyze, and it is sometimes doubted if fascism can be regarded, in any meaningful sense, as an ideology. Lacking a rational and coherent core, fascism appears to be, ‘an ill- assorted hodge-podge of ideas’ (inharmonious mixture of ideas). Hitler, for instance, preferred to describe his ideas as a Weltanschauung, or ‘world view’, rather than a systematic ideology. In this sense, a world view is a complete, almost religious set of attitudes that demand commitment and faith, rather than invite reasoned analysis and debate. Fascism may thus be better described as a political movement or even political religion, rather than an ideology. Fascists put emphasis upon action not ideas, on the soul not the intellect, and this can be observed as s product of an important intellectual and philosophical shift, namely a backlash against the rationalist ideas of the Enlightenment. Also, Fascists have often been clearer about what they oppose than what they support. Fascism thus appears to be ‘anti-philosophy’ – it is anti- rational, anti-liberal, anticonservative, anti-capitalist, anti-bourgeois, anti-communist and so on. In this light, some have portrayed fascism as an example of nihilism, literally a belief in nothing, a rejection of established moral and political principles. These are the reasons why it is very difficult to accept that any single-sentence formula can sum up a phenomenon as resolutely shapeless as fascist ideology, so the best way to explain and define fascism is to identify a collection of themes that, when taken together, constitute fascism's structural core. The most significant themes and ideas include: 1. Anti-rationalist (anti- Enlightenment) ideas - Fascists drew upon ideas and theories that had been circulating since the late nineteenth century, most notably counter-Enlightenment thinking in general, and the rejection of the Enlightenment gave fascism a predominantly negative or destructive character. The Enlightenment, based upon the ideas of universal reason, natural goodness and inevitable progress, was committed to liberating humankind from the darkness of irrationalism and superstition. It was reflected in the ideas of the French Revolution and was embodied, more generally, in liberalism and socialism. In the late nineteenth century, however, thinkers had started to highlight the limits of human reason and draw attention to other, perhaps more powerful, drives and impulses. Counter-Enlightenment thinkers believed that communities are organic or natural entities, shaped not by the calculations and interests of rational individuals but by innate loyalties and emotional bonds forged by a common past. In fascism, this idea of organic unity is taken to its extreme. The national community, as the Nazis called it, the Volksgemeinschaft, was viewed as an indivisible whole, all rivalries and conflicts being subordinated to a higher, collective purpose. The strength of the nation or race is therefore a reflection of its moral and cultural unity. This prospect of unqualified social cohesion was expressed in the Nazi slogan, ‘Strength through Unity.’ 2. Struggle - The ideas that the UK biologist Charles Darwin developed in The Origin of Species had a profound effect upon social and political thought. The image of species developing through a process of ‘natural selection’ was developed by the liberal philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer into the idea of the ‘survival of the fittest’, the belief that competition amongst individuals would reward those who work hard and are talented, and punish the lazy or incompetent. Social Darwinism had a considerable impact upon emerging fascism. In the first place, fascists regarded struggle as the natural and inevitable condition of both social and international life - only competition and conflict guarantee human progress and ensure that the fittest and strongest will prosper. Darwinian thought also invested fascism with a distinctive set of political values, which equate ‘goodness’ with strength and ‘evil’ with weakness which is despised and elimination of the weak and inadequate is positively welcomed: they must be sacrificed for the common good, just as the survival of a species is more important than the life of any single member of that species. This was most graphically illustrated by the programme of eugenics, or selective breeding, introduced by the Nazis in Germany, whereby mentally and physically handicapped people were first forcibly sterilized and then, between 1939 and 1941, systematically murdered. The attempt by the Nazis to exterminate European Jewry from 1941 onwards was, in this sense, an example of racial eugenics. Finally, fascism's conception of life as an ‘unending struggle’ gave it a restless and expansionist character. National qualities can only be cultivated through conflict and demonstrated by conquest and victory. This was clearly reflected in Hitler's foreign policy goals, as outlined in Mein Kampf. 3. Leadership and elitism – Fascism also stands apart from conventional political thought in its radical rejection of equality. Fascism is deeply elitist and fiercely patriarchal; its ideas were founded upon the belief that absolute leadership and elite rule are natural and desirable. Fascists believe that human beings are born with radically different abilities and attributes, a fact that emerges as those with the rare quality of leadership rise, through struggle, above those capable only of following. Fascists believe that society is composed, broadly, of three kinds of people. First and most importantly, there is a supreme, allseeing leader who possesses unrivalled authority. The fascist approach to leadership, especially in Nazi Germany, was crucially influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche's idea of the Übermensch, the ‘over-man’ or ‘superman’, a supremely gifted or powerful individual. Fascist leaders styled themselves simply as ‘the Leader’ – Mussolini proclaimed himself to be Il Duce, while Hitler adopted the title Der Führer – precisely in order to emancipate themselves from any constitutionally defined notion of leadership. In this way, leadership became exclusively an expression of charismatic authority emanating for the leader himself. Second, there is a ‘warrior’ elite, exclusively male, distinguished by its heroism, vision and the capacity for selfsacrifice (in Germany, this role was ascribed to the SS, which originated as a bodyguard but developed during Nazi rule into a state within a state). Third, there are the masses, who are weak, inert and ignorant, and whose destiny is unquestioning obedience. 4. Socialism – At times both Mussolini and Hitler portrayed their ideas as forms of ‘socialism’. Mussolini had previously been an influential member of the Italian Socialist Party and editor of its newspaper, while the Nazi Party espoused a philosophy it called ‘national socialism’. To some extent, undoubtedly, this represented a cynical attempt to elicit support from urban workers. Nevertheless, despite obvious ideological rivalry between fascism and socialism, fascists did have an affinity for certain socialist ideas and positions. In the first place, lower middle-class fascist activists had a profound distaste for capitalism, reflected in a resented of the power of big business and financial institutions. Second, fascism, like socialism, subscribes to collectivism and places the community above the individual. Fascists also despise the materialism that capitalism fosters: the desire for wealth or profit runs counter to the idealistic vision of national regeneration or world conquest that inspires fascists. Third, fascist regimes often practiced socialist-style economic policies designed to regulate or control capitalism - Fascism is a system by which the nation uses capital for its own purposes.’ However, the core objective of fascism was to seduce the working class away from Marxism and Bolshevism, which preached the insidious, even traitorous, idea of international working-class solidarity and upheld the misguided values of cooperation and equality. Fascists were dedicated to national unity and integration, and so wanted the allegiances of race and nation to be stronger than those of social class. 5. Ultranationalism – Fascism embraced an extreme version of a tradition of chauvinistic and expansionist nationalism that had developed before the First World War, expressed in European imperialism and forms of pan-nationalism. This tradition regarded nations not as equal and interdependent entities, but as natural rivals in a struggle for dominance. Fascist nationalism did not preach respect for distinctive cultures or national traditions, but asserted the superiority of one nation over all others. In the explicitly racial nationalism of Nazism this was reflected in the ideas of Aryanism, the belief that the German people are a ‘master race’. Fascism embodies a sense of messianic or fanatical mission: the prospect of national regeneration and the rebirth of national pride. Indeed, the popular appeal that fascism has exerted has largely been based upon the promise of national greatness. Fascism and the state First and foremost, nazism is considered to be one form of fascism and although it is possible to identify a common set of fascist values and principles, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany nevertheless represented different versions of fascism and were inspired by distinctive and sometimes rival beliefs. Fascist regimes and movements have therefore corresponded to one of two major traditions: one, following Italian Fascism, emphasizes the ideal of an all-powerful or totalitarian state; the other, reflected in German Nazism or national socialism, stresses the importance of race and racialism. Though both Nazism and fascism reject the ideologies of liberalism, Marxism and democracy, these two are different in many aspects. Fascism believes in the ‘corporatism’ of all elements in society to form an ‘Organic State’. They were not racial and had no strong opinion of any race. For Fascists, the state was the most important element. The Doctrine of Fascism, which is the authoritative document of the fascism, emphasis on nationalism, corporatism, totalitarianism and militarism. According to this Doctrine the State is all embracing and no human or spiritual value exists beyond it. On the other hand, Nazism put emphasis on racism. While fascism considered state as important, Nazism considered ‘Aryanism’ as more important. The Nazism doctrine believed in the superiority of the Aryan race. While fascism was based on certain political ideology, Nazism was blindly based on racial hatred. Nazism considered class based society as enemy and stood for unifying the racial element. But fascism wanted to preserve the class system. The fascists almost accepted the concept of social mobility, while Nazism was against it. Nazism considered state as a means for the advancement of the master race. But fascism considered state to be a form of nationalism. Fascists considered nationalism as something related to national culture as opposed to other cultures. Coming to the etymology, fascist comes from fascio, an Italian word, meaning a union of bundle. Nazi comes from the first two syllables of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, which is the German language name of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Anti-Semitism By tradition, Semites are descendants of Shem, son of Noah, and include most of the peoples of the Middle East. Anti-Semitism refers specifically to prejudice against or hatred towards the Jews. In its earliest systematic form, anti-Semitism had a religious character, reflecting the hostility of Christians towards the Jews, based on their complicity in the murder of Jesus and their refusal to acknowledge him as the Son of God. Economic anti-Semitism developed from the Middle Ages onwards, expressing distaste for the Jews as moneylenders and traders. The nineteenth century saw the birth of racial anti-Semitism in the works of Wagner and H. S. Chamberlain, who condemned the Jewish peoples as fundamentally evil and destructive. Such ideas provided the ideological basis for German Nazism and found their most grotesque expression in the Holocaust. Fascism in 21st century Fascist regimes were not overthrown by popular revolt or protest but by defeat in the Second World War. Since 1945, fascist movements have achieved only marginal success, encouraging some to believe that fascism was a specifically interwar phenomenon, linked to the unique combination of historical circumstances that characterized that period. Others, however, regard fascism as an ever-present danger, seeing its roots in human psychology, or ‘the fear of freedom’. Modern civilization has produced greater individual freedom but with it the danger of isolation and insecurity. At times of crisis, individuals may therefore flee from freedom, seeking security in submission to an all-powerful leader or a totalitarian state. Political instability or an economic crisis could therefore produce conditions in which fascism could revive. Key words Word/Phrase Meaning B/H/S translation demagogue a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and demagog personal relationships have normally been thought to be part of a ‘private sphere’, and therefore to be ‘non- political’. Modern feminist, on the other hand, insist that politics is an activity that takes place within all social groups and is not merely confined to the affairs of government or other public bodies. Feminists argue that sexual inequality has been preserved precisely because the sexual division of labor that runs through society has been thought of as ‘natural’ rather than ‘political’. Traditionally, the public sphere of life, encompassing politics, work, art and literature, has been the preserve of men, while women have been confined to an essentially private existence, centered upon the family and domestic responsibilities. If politics takes place only within the public sphere, the role of women and the question of sexual equality are issues of little or no political importance. Women, restricted to the private role of housewife and mother, are in effect excluded from politics. Feminists have therefore sought to break down the divide between ‘public man’ and ‘private woman’. Feminists have not always agreed about what it means to break down the public/private divide, about how it can be achieved, or about how far it is desirable. Radical feminists have been the keenest opponents of the idea that politics stops at the front door, proclaiming, instead, that ‘the personal is the political’. Female oppression is thus thought to operate in all walks of life and in many respects originates in the family itself. Radical feminists have therefore been concerned to analyze what can be called ‘the politics of everyday life’. This includes the process of conditioning in the family, the distribution of housework and other domestic responsibilities, and the politics of personal and sexual conduct. Liberal feminists, however, object to the public/private divide on the grounds that it restricts women's access to the public sphere of education, work and political life, but warn against the dangers of politicizing the private sphere, which, according to liberal theory, is a realm of personal choice and individual freedom. Patriarchy - Feminists believe that gender, like social class, race or religion, is a significant social cleavage. Indeed, radical feminists argue that gender is the deepest and most politically important of social divisions. Conventional political theory has traditionally ignored sexual oppression and failed to recognize gender as a politically significant category. As a result, feminists have been forced to develop new concepts and theories to convey the idea that society is based upon a system of sexual inequality and oppression. Feminists use the concept of ‘patriarchy’ to describe the power relationship between men and women. The term literally means ‘rule by the father’, and can refer narrowly to the supremacy of the husband–father within the family, and therefore to the subordination of his wife and his children. Liberal feminists, to the extent that they use the term, use it to draw attention to the unequal distribution to rights and entitlements in society at large. The face of patriarchy they highlight is therefore the under- representation of women in senior positions in politics, business, the professions and public life. Socialist feminists tend to emphasize the economic aspects of patriarchy. In their view, patriarchy operates in tandem with capitalism, gender subordination and class inequality being interlinked systems of oppression. Some socialist feminists, indeed, reject the term altogether, on the grounds that gender inequality is merely a consequence of the class system: capitalism not patriarchy is the issue. Radical feminists, on the other hand, place considerable stress upon patriarchy. They see it as a systematic, institutionalized and pervasive form of male power that is rooted in the family. Patriarchy thus expresses the belief that the pattern of male domination and female subordination that characterizes society at large is, essentially, a reflection of the power structures that operate within domestic life. Sex and gender - The most common of all anti-feminist arguments, most commonly advanced by conservatives, asserts that gender divisions in society are ‘natural’: women and men merely fulfill the social roles that nature designed them for. A woman's physical and anatomical make-up thus suits her to a subordinate and domestic role in society; in short, ‘biology is destiny’. The biological factor that is most frequently linked to women's social position is their capacity to bear children. However, in no way do such biological fact necessarily disadvantage women nor determine their social destiny. Women may be mothers, but they need not accept the responsibilities of motherhood: nurturing, educating and raising children by devoting themselves to home and family. The link between childbearing and child-rearing is cultural rather than biological: women are expected to stay at home, bring up their children and look after the house because of the structure of traditional family life. Feminists have traditionally challenged the idea that biology is destiny by drawing a sharp distinction between sex and gender. ‘Sex’, in this sense, refers to biological differences between females and males; these differences are natural and therefore are unalterable. The most important sex differences are those that are linked to reproduction. ‘Gender’, on the other hand, is a cultural term; it refers to the different roles that society ascribes to men and women. Gender differences are typically imposed through contrasting stereotypes of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’. Patriarchal ideas blur the distinction between sex and gender, and assume that all social distinctions between men and women are rooted in biology or anatomy. Feminists, in contrast, usually deny that there is a necessary or logical link between sex and gender, and emphasize that gender differences are socially, or even politically, constructed. Most feminists believe that sex differences between men and women are relatively minor and neither explain nor justify gender distinctions. As a result, human nature is thought to be androgynous, incorporating the characteristics of both sexes. All human beings, regardless of sex, possess the genetic inheritance of a mother and a father, and therefore embody a blend of either female and male attributes or traits. Such a view accepts that sex differences are biological facts of life but insists that they have no social, political or economic significance. Establishing a concept of gender that is divorced from biological sex had crucial significance for feminist theory. Not only did it highlight the possibility of social change – socially constructed identities can be reconstructed or even demolished – but it also drew attention to the processes through which women had been ‘engendered’ and therefore oppressed. Equality and difference - Traditionally, women have demanded equality with men, even to the extent that feminism is often characterized as a movement for the achievement of sexual equality. However, the issue of equality has also exposed major faultines within feminism: feminists have embraced contrasting notions of equality and some have entirely rejected equality in favor of the idea of difference. Liberal feminists champion legal and political equality with men. They have supported an equal rights agenda, which would enable women to compete in public life on equal terms with men, regardless of sex. Equality thus means equal access to the public realm. Socialist feminists, in contrast, argue that equal rights may be meaningless unless women also enjoy social equality. Equality, in this sense, has to apply in terms of economic power, and so must address issues such the ownership of wealth, pay differentials and the distinction between waged and unwaged labor. Radical feminists, for their part, are primarily concerned about equality in family and personal life. Equality must therefore operate, for example, in terms of childcare and other domestic responsibilities, the control of one's own body, and sexual expression and fulfillment. Despite tensions between them, these egalitarian positions are united in viewing gender differences in a negative light. Egalitarian forms of feminism link ‘difference’ to patriarchy, seeing it as a manifestation of oppression or subordination. From this viewpoint, the feminist project is defined by the desire to liberate women from ‘difference’. Difference feminists regard the very notion of equality as either misguided or simply undesirable. To want to be equal to a man implies that women are ‘male identified’, in that they define their goals in terms of what men are or what men have. The demand for equality thus embodies a desire to be ‘like men’. For many feminists, liberation means the desire to develop and achieve fulfillment as women; in other words, to be ‘woman identified’, meaning that women should recognize and celebrate the distinctive characteristics of the female sex; they should seek liberation not as sexless ‘persons’ but as developed and fulfilled women. Sex and politics The rival traditions of feminism have largely emerged out of established ideologies or theories, most obviously liberalism and socialism, but also, more recently, ideas such as postmodernism and psychoanalysis. Such ideologies and theories have served as vehicles for advancing the social role of women because they are generally sympathetic towards equality. Hierarchical or elitist ideologies or theories, in contrast, are more commonly associated with anti-feminism. The major traditions within feminism are: Liberal feminism, Socialist feminism, Radical feminism and New feminist traditions. Liberal feminism - Early feminism, particularly the ‘first wave’ of the women's movement, was deeply influenced by the ideas and values of liberalism and it argued that women should be entitled to the same rights and privileges as men on the ground that they are ‘human beings’. ‘Second-wave’ feminism also has a significant liberal component. Liberal feminism has dominated the women's movement in the United States; its major spokesperson has been Betty Friedan, whose The Feminine Mystique marked the resurgence of feminist thought in the 1960s. The philosophical basis of liberal feminism lies in the principle of individualism, the belief that the human individual is all important and therefore that all individuals are of equal moral worth. Individuals are entitled to equal treatment, regardless of their sex, race, color, creed or religion. If individuals are to be judged, it should be on rational grounds, on the content of their character, their talents, or their personal worth. Liberals express this belief in the demand for equal rights: all individuals are entitled to participate in, or gain access to, public or political life. Any form of discrimination against women in this respect should clearly be prohibited. In particular, liberal feminists generally do not wish to abolish the distinction between the public and private spheres of life. Reform is necessary, they argue, but only to ensure the establishment of equal rights in the public sphere: the right to education, the right to vote, the right to pursue a career and so on. Finally, the demand for equal rights, which lies at the core of liberal feminism, has principally attracted those women whose education and social background equip them to take advantage of wider educational and career opportunities. For example, nineteenth-century feminists and the leaders of the suffrage movement were usually educated, middle-class women who had the opportunity to benefit from the right to vote, pursue a career or enter public life. The demand for equal rights assumes that all women would have the opportunity to take advantage of, for example, better educational and economic opportunities. In reality, women are judged not only by their talents and abilities, but also by social and economic factors. If emancipation simply means the achievement of equal rights and opportunities for women and men, other forms of social disadvantage – for example, those linked to social class and race – are ignored. Liberal feminism may therefore reflect the interests of white, middle-class women in developed societies, but fail to address the problems of working- class women, black women and women in the developing world. Socialist feminism - Although some early feminists subscribed to socialist ideas, socialist feminism only became prominent in the second half of the twentieth century. In contrast to their liberal counterparts, socialist feminists do not believe that women simply face political or legal disadvantages that can be remedied by equal legal rights or the achievement of equal opportunities. Rather, socialist feminists argue that the relationship between the sexes is rooted in the social and economic structure itself, and that nothing short of profound social change, some would say a social revolution, can offer women the prospect of genuine emancipation. That is why socialist feminism focuses upon both the public and private spheres of a woman's life and argues that liberation can only be achieved by working to end both the economic and cultural sources of women's oppression. Socialist feminism is a two-pronged theory that broadens Marxist feminism's argument for the role of capitalism in the oppression of women and radical feminism's theory of the role of gender and the patriarchy. Socialist feminists reject radical feminism’s main claim that patriarchy is the only or primary source of oppression of women. Rather, socialist feminists assert that women are unable to be free due to their financial dependence on males in society. Women are subjects to the male rulers in capitalism due to an uneven balance in wealth. They see economic dependence as the driving force of women’s subjugation to men. Further, socialist feminists see women’s liberation as a necessary part of larger quest for social, economic and political equality. Socialist feminists thus consider how the sexism and gendered division of labor of each historical era is determined by the economic system of the time. Those conditions are largely expressed through capitalist and patriarchal relations. Socialist feminists, thus reject the Marxist notion that class and class struggle are the only defining aspects of history and economic development. Marx asserted that when class oppression was overcome, gender oppression would vanish as well. According to socialist feminists, this view of gender oppression as a sub-class of class oppression is naive and much of the work of socialist feminists has gone towards specifying how gender and class work together to create distinct forms of oppression and privilege for women and men of each class. For example, they observe that women’s class status is generally derivative of her husband’s class or occupational status, e.g., a secretary that marries her boss assumes his class status. Radical feminism - Radical feminism is a movement that believes sexism is so deeply rooted in society that the only cure is to eliminate the concept of gender completely. As the main culprit for gender inequality radical feminists blame patriarchy , as the entire system of male authority over women; of male rulers, military men, men of industry, men of religion, men of science and men of culture. Radical feminists argue that the entire traditional family system is sexist. Men are expected to work outside the home while women are expected to care for children and clean the house. Radical feminists note that this traditional dichotomy maintains men as economically in power over women, and therefore, the traditional family structure should be rejected. Radical feminists believe that women can achieve emancipation by transcending their biological nature and escaping the ‘curse of Eve’ thanks to modern technology that opened up the prospect of genuine sexual equality by relieving women of the burden of pregnancy and childbirth. Pregnancy can be avoided by contraception or be terminated by abortion, but also, the new technology creates the possibility of avoiding pregnancy by artificial reproduction and the transfer of childrearing responsibilities to social institutions. In other words, the biological process of reproduction can be carried out in laboratories by use of cybernetics, • Holism The term ‘holism’ was coined in 1926 by Jan Smuts, a Boer general and twice prime minister of South Africa. He used it to describe the idea that the natural world could only be understood as a whole and not through its individual parts. Smuts believed that science commits the sin of reductionism: it reduces everything it studies to separate parts and tries to understand each part in itself. In contrast, holism is based upon the belief that ‘the whole’ is more important than its individual ‘parts’; indeed, it suggests that each part only has meaning in relation to other parts, and ultimately in relation to the whole. A systems view of the world concentrates not upon individual building blocks, but upon the principles of organization within the system. It therefore stresses the relationships within the system and the integration of its various elements within the whole. • Sustainability From an ecocentric perspective, however, the promise of unlimited prosperity and material affluence, ‘growth mania’ as Herman Daly (1974) called it, is not only misguided but also a fundamental cause of environmental disaster. Ecologists argue that the human species will only survive and prosper if it recognizes that it is only one element of a complex biosphere, and that only a healthy, balanced biosphere will sustain human life. Policies and actions must therefore be judged by the principle of ‘sustainability’, the capacity of a system, in this case the biosphere itself, to maintain its health and continue in existence. Sustainability sets clear limits upon human ambitions and material dreams because it requires that production does as little damage as possible to the fragile global ecosystem. Sustainability, however, requires not merely the more enlightened use of natural resources, but also an alternative approach to economic activity. • Environmental ethics Ecological politics, in all its forms, is concerned with extending moral thinking in a number of novel directions. This is because conventional ethical systems are clearly anthropocentric. An alternative approach to environmental ethics involves applying moral standards and values developed in relation to human beings to other species and organisms. • Self-actualization The growth of concern about environmental issues since the 1960s is commonly associated with the phenomenon of postmaterialism. It is loosely based upon Abraham Maslow's (1908–70) ‘hierarchy of needs’, which places the need for esteem and self-actualization above material or economic needs. Ecologism can be seen as one of the ‘new’ social movements that sprang up in the second half of the twentieth century, broadly committed to a new left agenda that rejected the hierarchical, materialist and patriarchal values of conventional society. Ecologism has indulged in radical and innovative thinking about the nature of human sensibilities and selfrealization. Nature and politics Deep ecologists typically dismiss conventional political creeds as merely different versions of anthropocentricism, each embodying an anti-nature bias. They claim to have developed an entirely new ideological paradigm (although many reject the term ‘ideology’ because of its association with human- centred thinking), developed through the radical application of ecological and holistic principles. Nevertheless, other ecological or environmental thinkers have drawn inspiration, to a greater or lesser extent, from established political traditions. Ecologism can be regarded as a cross-cutting ideology. The most significant sub-traditions within ecologism are the following: • Right-wing ecologism The earliest manifestations of political ecology had an essentially right-wing orientation. This was most dramatically demonstrated by the emergence of a form of fascist ecologism during the Nazi period in Germany. On the ‘soft’ right, conservatives have also evinced sympathy for environmental issues. Ecoconservatism reflects a romantic and nostalgic attachment to a rural way of life threatened by the growth of towns and cities. • Ecosocialism There is a distinct socialist strand within the green movement, and this is particularly pronounced amongst the German Greens, many of whose leaders have been former members of far-left groups. Ecosocialism often draws upon Marxist analysis, and has usually sought to distance itself from the quasi-religious ideas that are influential elsewhere in the environmental movement. Capitalism is characterized not only by class conflict but also by the destruction of the natural environment. Any attempt to improve the environment must therefore involve a radical process of social change, some would say a social revolution. Ecosocialists argue that socialism is naturally ecological. • Eco-anarchism Perhaps the ideology that has the best claim to being environmentally sensitive is anarchism. Many in the green movement also acknowledge a debt to nineteenth-century anarcho-communists, particularly Peter Kropotkin. Bookchin (1977) has suggested that there is a clear correspondence between the ideas of anarchism and the principles of ecology, articulated in the idea of ‘social ecology’, the belief that ecological balance is the surest foundation for social stability. Bookchin therefore likened an anarchist community to an ecosystem, and suggested that both are distinguished by respect for the principles of diversity, balance and harmony. • Ecofeminism The idea that feminism offers a distinctive and valuable approach to green issues has grown to such a point that ecofeminism has developed into one of the major philosophical schools of environmentalist thought. Its basic theme is that ecological destruction has its origins in patriarchy: nature is under threat not from humankind but from men and the institutions of male power. Modern ecofeminists highlight the biological basis for women's closeness to nature, in particular the fact that they bear children and suckle babies. Ecological destruction and gender inequality are therefore part of the same process in which ‘cultured’ men rule over ‘natural’ women. Ecologism in the twenty-first century The prospects for ecologism in the twenty-first century would appear to be firmly linked to the state of the environmental crisis and the general level of understanding about environmental issues and problems. The fluctuating fortunes of green parties and single-issue environmentalist groups provide no reliable indication of the strength of ecological ideas and values. One of the problems confronting green parties is that their mainstream and much larger rivals have taken up ‘eco-friendly’ positions that were once exclusively theirs. Similarly, the membership and activist base of single-issue environmental groups does not reflect the number of fellow-travellers in society at large nor the wider adoption of ecological practices such as recycling and the use of organic foods. It is also notable that environmental groups and ecological activists have been prominent within the emergent anti- globalization movement. A number of problems confront ecological theory, however. In the first place, it is difficult to see how ecologism can become a global ideology. Second, industrialism and its underpinning values, such as competitive individualism and consumerism, have become more deeply entrenched as a result of economic globalization. Third, difficulties surround the anti-growth message of Ecologism. Fourth, greenism may simply be an urban fad, a form of postindustrial romanticism. Perhaps the most daunting challenge facing ecologism is the very scale of the changes it calls for. Word Definition Synonym Antonym Translation Ecologism Is a new political ideology based on the position that the non- human world is worthy of moral consideration, and that this should be taken into account in social, economic, and political systems. Conservation, preservation, biomics. Destructio n Ekologizam Environmentalis t a person who is concerned about protecting the environment. Ecologist, preservation, greenie, naturalist, tree-huger. Za zaštitu životne sredine Postmaterialism In sociology, post- materialism is the transformation of individual values from materialist, physical and economic to new individual values of autonomy and self-expression. Postmaterijaliza m Hitherto Until now or until the point in time under discussion. Attending, available, in this direction, present. Do sad Harnesses a set of straps and fittings by which a horse or other draught animal is fastened to a cart, plough, etc. and is controlled by its driver. Trappings, belt, strap, tackle. Iskoristiti Pollution Is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change.Pollution can take the form of chemical substances of energy. Taint, dirtying, soiling, spoliation, corruption Sterility Purificatio n Cleanliness Zagađenje