Ko iščemo koncepte za novo politično slovnico, ki omogoča artikulacije radikalne alternative obstoječemu, imamo dve možnosti. Bodisi kujemo nove bodisi prevzamemo in posodobimo obstoječe. V prvem primeru tvegamo, da se zlepa ne bodo prebili v vernakularni jezik. Koncept multitude na primer, ki smo ga pri Časopisu za kritiko znanosti v zanosnih časih alterglobalističnih gibanj vrgli v diskusijo že pred kar nekaj časa, nikoli ni zares postal referenčni koncept na novo nastajajočih družbenih gibanj. Ta so morda tudi zato vedno znova z naivnim veseljem odkrivala že preizkušene in neuspele recepte poenotenja, homogenizacije in integracije, ki so značilni za buržoazno predstavniško politiko. Spomnimo se samo vstaj leta 2012/2013 s tako motečo heterogenostjo in mrežnostjo, ki sta jih lahko osmislila zgolj redčenje diskurzov in utemeljevanje političnih projektov hegemonije, ki so neizogibno požrli radikalni potencial množičnega vrenja in tako pripomogli k postvstajniški depresiji, ko so politične izbire zožene na liberalni konstitucionalizem in populistični nacionalizem. Če se po drugi strani lotimo reapropriacije uveljavljenih konceptov, tvegamo, da bodo ostali ujeti v kognitivne matrice, ki jih želimo preseči. Kljub tveganju smo se lotili poskusa takšne reapropriacije, in sicer smo se lotili koncepta samoodločbe.
The notion of “self-determination” is enshrined in the founding documents of international law and most state constitutions as a means of legitimating the current state and supranational order. However, its precise definition and parameters are the subject of debate—both when understood from within the logic of the state system as well as from outside it. This article aims to unearth a “rhizomatic” reading of self-determination, informed by critical political theory, wherein its particular relationship to the state system and the total notion of sovereignty is relaxed. The article then applies this thinking to four case studies in order to demonstrate how this conception can help to understand the possibilities created by recent political movements as manifestations of boundless constitutive power and collective imagination that unleash new vectors of political possibility.
This text offers a historical and critical review of genuine political development in modern Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). In a nutshell, it is the idea of political and social organization developed in deliberations between Josip Broz Tito, the leader of the Yugoslav anti-fascist movement, and prominent communist intellectuals and leaders of Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. This political model exceeded the classic single-nation-single-state bourgeois model on one side, but the author posits that it also surpassed usual communist federalist solutions. Based on the historical experience of Bosnian "stasis" (Wachtel) but also the revolutionary experience of numerous People’s Liberation Councils (Narodno-oslobodilački odbori), a vision of a plural historical community has been articulated that not only seemed to have operated successfully for decades bringing unseen material, cultural and political prosperity to its citizens, but is also poised to gain much more importance for the future of BiH and also Europe, which in itself faces the process of exceeding the single-nation-single-state model. By drawing from the Bosnian political experience, the author identifies three principles for the reconstruction of modern polity and the production of new forms of plural political co-existence.
From Hegemony to Statehood: The State-Society Complex in Slovene and Catalan Sovereignty Processes
(
The paper analyses social conditions and political operations within two sovereignty processes in Europe’s recent history: the Slovene case, successfully completed between 1991 and 1992, and the case of Catalonia, carried out between 2012 and 2017, when Spanish institutions administratively intervened in its autonomy. Departing from a critical neo-Gramscian approach of international relations, the study portrays statehood as the result of the reproduction of a social formation that is successfully projected onto political institutions; namely, as the product of a hegemony. In contrast to institutionalist perspectives, which limit social reality in order to adapt fragmented narratives, critical approaches can be used to tackle the existing incommensurability between apparently similar contemporary political developments and to contextualise statehood processes as part of broader political and social changes that foster them and of the international context that constrains them. While the Catalan ruling elites sought to follow the Slovene path to independence, results could not have been more different. In terms of social structure, the Slovene process took place while underpinning a previously existing class coalition, whereas the Catalan process was developed in the middle of a breakdown in the social formation. Politically, the Slovene process was articulated as the aggregation, ideological transformation, and homogenisation of ruling groups, while the Catalan experience was a consequence of competition between nationalist actors. The hegemony achieved in Slovenia gives an account of the capacity to reproduce a social formation and to project it onto the state dimension, thus limiting the questioning of state coercion.
The text deals with the recent situation in Catalonia and Spain and is structured in two parts. In the first part, the author analyses the post-referendum situation in Catalonia and Spain. The second part is a translation of the third chapter of the author’s book Clase, pueblo y nación en la crisis del Estado español. Nacionalismos, populismos y nuevos bloques históricos antisistémicos en la coyuntura actual. The chapter discusses the topics of sovereignty, form of state, territory, and nation in the context of the present crisis in Spain and Catalan separatist tendencies. The discussion is informed by radical political innovations of the post-Fordist class on both the local and EU levels.
The article tries to narrow the gap between Social Movement Theories (SMT) and the actual events during the 2011 uprisings in the Middle East. The 2011 uprisings did not only open the Pandora’s box of Political Islam in the Middle East, but also facilitated many other oppositional movements, from the Tunisian General Labour Union (UGTT) to the Egyptian workers’ movements, from the People’s Democratic Party (HDP) in Turkey to the democratic autonomy, theorised by Abdullah Öcalan and put in practice in Syrian Kurdistan.
After decades of progressive governments, social movements have undergone significant changes, especially in regards to practices that are labeled as “autonomous”. The reason for this is the spread of state-sponsored social policies. Even though they have a detrimental effect on autonomy and self-management, they remain a presence in almost all movements, coexisting with institutional connections that are supported by many and not perceived as contradictory.
The Yugoslav experiment from the beginning of the second half of the twentieth century achieved excellent starting results, mostly due to international circumstances like the strategic relations with both the East and the West. Political and economic decisions such as the focus on consumer goods contributed as well. However, incomplete implementation of the theory in practice resulted in the stagnation of economic progress and the political crisis at the beginning of the 1960s, which prompted the ruling establishment to implement reforms. While strikes and protests were already present before 1968, the year saw Yugoslav students join their colleagues from around the world and organize demonstrations demanding a return to the country’s fundamental values. In this text, the author presents a historical overview of the happenings and tries to understand the reasons for the June 1968 student protests in Zagreb with the help of certain theories on collective agency.
GETACHEW, ADOM (2019): Worldmaking after Empire: The Rise and Fall of Self-determination. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
V zadnjem desetletju je bila napisana kopica del o dekolonizaciji, transnacionalnem povezovanju na svetovnem jugu in političnih teorijah, ki so napajale te procese. A ti poskusi preseganja hladnovojnih in evrocentričnih zgodovinopisnih perspektiv so se v ponovnem odkrivanju gibanja neuvrščenih, konference v Bandungu in protikolonialne solidarnosti od spodaj kljub novim glediščem in historiografski bogatosti pogosto iztekli v (tragične) mitomanije o velikih voditeljih in precenjevanje moči nekdanjih kolonialnih metropol, kar je zatajilo notranja protislovja protikolonialnih projektov. Adom Getachew v svoji izvrstni prvi monografiji ubere drugačno pot in pri pisanju (koščka) intelektualne zgodovine protikolonialnih bojev sledi napotku Roberta Vitalisa, da naj bodo pri proučevanju dekolonialnega povezovanja in bojev svetovnega juga kot glavni analitični teren prepoznani raznoliki projekti graditve novih nacionalnih držav, vpeti v regionalne državno-sistemske logike (Vitalis, 2013: 271). Adom Getachew prek rekonstrukcije razumevanja načela in pravice do samoodločbe v intelektualnem prostoru »črnega Atlantika« (Gilroy, 1993), to je anglofonske podsaharske Afrike in Karibov, pove zgodbo, ki omogoča boljše razumevanje vzpona in (vsaj delnih) neuspehov protikolonialnih emancipacijskih bojev, ki niso zgolj preprosta posledica apriorne zgrešenosti njihovega etatizma in nacionalizma, kot trdijo nekatere sodobne radikalne in internacionalistične kritike.