|
|
Post by pjotr on Apr 6, 2011 0:12:48 GMT 1
The Polish Intelligentsia
The Polish intelligentsia played a unique and vital role in several phases of Polish history. During the partition period of the nineteenth century, the intelligentsia was the chief repository ofnational consciousness. Containing the last vestiges of the landed gentry that had led the country during its heyday as an independent commonwealth, the intelligentsia was the chief means by which new and progressive ideas entered the fabric of partitioned Poland's society. As such, the class became the chief repository of a romanticized, idealistic concept of Polish nationhood. Well into the twentieth century, the roughly 50 percent of the intelligentsia that had roots in the landowning class maintained the aristocratic values of their ancestors. Although those values conferred a distinctly higher social status on the intelligentsia in everyday life, they also included the cultural heritage that all Poles recognized.
In the first part of the twentieth century, the intelligentsia was diversified and enriched as more middle- and lower-class Poles attained education and upward mobility. At this point, the intelligentsia divided philosophically into conservative idealizes of the past (whose landholdings gave them a vested interest in maintaining the status quo) and liberal reformers advocating development of capitalism. In the interwar period, Poland's social structure was further complicated by the rise of a vigorous, practical upper middle class. After the war, however, socialism drastically reduced the influence of this entrepreneurial class.
Facing a severe shortage of educated citizens, in 1945 the communists expanded opportunities for political loyalists to advance through education into the professions and the bureaucracy. Of the 300,000 college graduates produced by the education system between 1945 and 1962, over 50 percent were from worker or peasant families. The introduction of these groups sharply diversified the class basis of the postwar intelligentsia. In the late 1960s, however, the policy of preferential treatment in education ended. The percentage of working-class university admissions dropped to below 25 percent. Because the chief means of entry into the professional classes remained educational achievement, the drop in university admissions drastically slowed mobility from the working classes into the intelligentsia. In the postwar years, the intelligentsia diversified into several categories of employment: highly educated professionals, government and party officials, senior civil servants, writers and academics, and toplevel economic managers.
Especially in the 1970s, many members of the intelligentsia established careers in the ruling party or its bureaucracy, joining the cause of the socialist state with varying degrees of commitment. By 1987 all but one of the forty-nine provincial PZPR first secretaries had at least a bachelor's degree. The strong presence of the intelligentsia in the party influenced the policy of the ruling elite away from standard Soviet practice, flavoring it instead with pragmatic nationalism. Then, as that force exerted subtle influence within the establishment, other elements of the intelligentsia joined with worker and student groups to express open dissent from the system. They objected to the system as a whole and decried the increasingly stressful conditions it imposed on Polish society in the 1970s and 1980s. The most salient result of this class alliance was the Solidarity movement, nominally a workers' movement that achieved broad support in the intelligentsia and finally toppled the last communist regime.
In the 1980s, the activist elements of the intelligentsia resumed the traditional role as protectors of national ideals from outside political interference. In this role, the Polish intelligentsia retained and gradually spread the values it had inherited from its nineteenth-century predecessors: admiration for Western society, disdain for contact with and reliance on Russia and the Soviet Union, and reverence for the prepartition commonwealth of the nobility and the romantic patriotism of the partition era.
As it had after Poland regained its independence in 1918, however, the intelligentsia reverted to its naturally fragmented state once the common enemy fell. In the early 1990s, the official communist leadership elite had disappeared (although in reality that group continued to control powerful economic positions), and no comparably identifiable and organized group had taken its place. In this atmosphere, a wide variety of social and political agendas competed for attention in the government, reflecting the diverse ideas proposed by the intelligentsia, the source of most of Poland's reformist concepts in the early 1990s.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjotr on Apr 6, 2011 0:32:11 GMT 1
What was and is the role of the Polish intelligentsia in the Post-communist, democratic and free Poland after 1989. Was their role marginal like in some Western-European countries, where economical, financial and so materialistic skills were more important than the skills of the theory of the mind? Or did you get a new generation of Polish intellectuals which came from the Polish universities, literairy societies, art academies, Polish cultural scenes from the various cities and towns. Was it a merger of the old Underground (Solidarnosc/KOR) intelligentsia with the new generation who never experianced Communism? And how about the Communist intelligentsia from the Peoples Republic. Did it merge with their former dissident enemies, or did they create a differant "old left" scene?
Is the new intelligentsia connected to the Market economy, the ideas and ideals of Capitalism, free enterprise, trade, libertarian values like Laissez faire or radical freedom, secularism (in a state with the presence and strong influence of the church and Catholic believers). Tufta, mentioned the emerging new left, and you have the devided right in the centre and more to the right. Is the Polish intelligentsia devided or is there a common sense of their responsability to Poland and Poland role and position in Europe and the world?
|
|
|
|
Post by tufta on Apr 6, 2011 8:55:47 GMT 1
What was and is the role of the Polish intelligentsia in the Post-communist, democratic and free Poland after 1989. The role was among crucial and basic. Today it is marginal - just like in western EU. The more, the faster Poland becomes western-type, consumer society state, the less important is the role of intelligentsia. Or - the quicker intelligentsia's major part aim is achieved: Poland culturally and politically back in the West, the quicker intelligentsia as a group vanishes. |
|
|
|
Post by pjotr on Apr 6, 2011 23:52:11 GMT 1
What was and is the role of the Polish intelligentsia in the Post-communist, democratic and free Poland after 1989. The role was among crucial and basic. Today it is marginal - just like in western EU. The more, the faster Poland becomes western-type, consumer society state, the less important is the role of intelligentsia. Or - the quicker intelligentsia's major part aim is achieved: Poland culturally and politically back in the West, the quicker intelligentsia as a group vanishes. Tufta, I don't know what to think of it. The tiny minority of the cultural and politcial intelligentisa has a role in the Netherlands in the fact that they influence the educated people in the Netherlands via their minority quality press, which is read by the minority of University educated, autodidacts and fellow intellectuals. The majority read the simplistic and largest newspaper de Telegraaf, simplistic in it's sensation news, rightwings simplisity, and addapting to the taste of the orginal middle class and working class masses. The same people watch the sensational Commercial chanals (without any research journalism, objective news coverage or quality journalism), or the dumbest of the Public chanals (and unfortunately we have a lot of these brainless public and commercial chanals, with for instance Dutch schlager music, games and shows without content). The media stars of these media without a message, are in their own news. How they live, whom they date, scandals, divorces, new jobs, pregnancies and births. They form a bling bling class of nouveau riche people who are adored and followed by the brainless masses. Probably you have the same in Poland, Germany and the USA (I don't know). That's why in the evenings and sometimes at night (in the weekend) I escape to the Flemish-Belgian tv (quality political news show - I am interested in Flemish and Belgian news, in the developments in Belgium), TV5 (French language chanal with Dutch subtitles; good movies and French detectives), the BBC, CNN and yes, the German tv too. They have qood literary programs and I think the Germans are exellent cinematographers and TV series producers. I love German cinema as part of the larger European cinema family and next to the American quality cinema. Not everything in my country is bad ofcourse, thank god there are a few good Public chanals left and even one commercial one. But quality is scarse, the intellectuals and the cultural people (not all artists for instance are intellectuals) are experiancing a difficult time, because the rightwingers dominate and in the same time the Populist from left, who moved to the right or distantiate themselves from the good old left. The left that stood for culture, tolerance, development, a middle road between etatism and laissez faire. That wonderful old, West-European left (which was anti-totalitarian, anti-East-Block communism, and in the same time resisted itself against rightwing militairy dictatorships) is week now. Maybe in Poland that left has emerged out of the ashes of the old communist mummy, and the social democratic element in the dissident movement (the Polish socialists in KOR and Solidarnosc). The greatest people today are people who were firm in one's principles. The centre-left free thinking (pragmatic) liberals (right from the social-democrats and the socialists and left from the rightwing conservatives and rightist Populists). These people stand ground in a time of simplistic thought, stereotypes, anti-elitism, xenophobia/islamophobia, fear, hatemongers, oneliner politics. They stay nuanced, intellectualy sincere and transparent, pure and resist against the simplistic images from left and right and from the majority of the media. So these quality press/media, intelligensia, cultural world and scientific world forms a minority in the ocean of a simplistic and consumerist majority. The New Right in it's dogmatism, fanatism, rejection of the left (the leftwing church as they call it) and mirgants, create a climate of polarisation, simplification and monism. This minority of brave and balanced people in the centre of centre-left and centre-right persuasion are an important group to counterballance the simplisity of the right and the left (who increasingly looks like the old right). It's complicated, but I think that the total dominance of the Free market, consumerism, the right, leads to the degradation of society towards a passive environment with people who are only followers. The Modern Western society and it's system of consumerism has the dangers of the old Communist systems, if the corporations become to large and influential that they don't have competition anymore. Then they look like the old communist SAM in the Peoples republic. If the media are controled by a few large Media groups the freedom of expression and gathering of information will be endangered due to commercial and private interests. The public interest will be neglected in that case. In Europe the new intelligentsia of the 21th century should write about, debate about, philosophise, and propagate pluriformity, diversity, quality, anf the transparency of politics, policies, products, systems, structures and networks in our society. They have a independant political, cultural, and media role in our societies as Research journalists, essaysists, publishers of investigations and as controle mechanisms of our democracies, legal systems and societies. My ideal of the future intellectual is that he with his colleages creates a seperate class, segregated from politics, culture, the economy and even the media. Intellectuals should have to look as outsiders towards their own societies, cultures, economies and political systems as independant people, as people who say, write and publish unpopular things that have to be said. They should monitor the politicians and their political parties very closely, and be fiercly critical towards them. They should point at injustices in their society and abroad. They should even be self critical and judge their own past. The mistakes, errors and even wrongs the intelligentsia has made in the past (those who followed or propagated Communism, Fascism, Nazism or abject regimes). The intellectual of today and the future does not have the exclusive right to be the moral just ones, the caretakers of justice, ethics, law, theoretical correctness, philosophical purity in the Utopic or Messianic sense - and in the Twentieth century Marxism-leninism and Neo-Marxism in the West were Utopic/Messianic movements. Marxism was a religion to some an absolute atheist truth to others -. These intellectuals with their indepedant role as critics, thinkers (Philosophers, Sociologists), writers, idea devellopers, should be critical watched by other ciritcs, people they judge, harass, criticize and debate. The intellectuals should be judged and repudiated, questioned or challanged by other intellectuals, politicians, journalists and the people who read their stuf or debate their teachings, critics and statements. So these Western intellectuals have a role in society, to control society without becoming the Jean-Paul Sartre's, Rudi Dutchke's or Daniel Cohn-Bendits of the past. My ideal intellectuals are not European but American. My example of the Western intellectual is Susan Sontag, Richard Rorty, Robert Kaplan and Martha Nussbaum. (I have no idea where they are talking about, but this Polish professor fascinates me, as a 20th century polish intellectual, who changed from a young communist to a " dissident voice") Pieter |
|
|
|
Post by pjotr on Apr 7, 2011 18:15:34 GMT 1
In communist Poland, and during the first years after 1989 intelligentsia did virtually form a seperate class, just as you wish for Netherlands when you say: My ideal of the future intellectual is that he with his colleages creates a seperate class, segregated from politics, culture, the economy and even the media The difference was that it was not seperated from politics, in this meaning that in the subdued country hardly anything is seperated from politics. Frankly, I think your ideal is a little bit unrealistic. Such separation (from culture, economy, media) means instant intellectual degradation into something void, unrelated to real existance of a given society. Ethos of intelligentsia, at least in Poland, was first of all to serve your society. Against all odds, against personal long-term interest even. It still exists (watch Bo, for instance) but is now severely reduced comapared to times of national dependance. Tufta, With a seperate class I meant that intellectuals or the intelligentsia form a differant group even within the ranks of politics, culture and the media. They create time to be bussy with the philosophical side of politics, culture, society and science (for instance the ethical side of some sciences). That class doesn't have a name, because the term intelligentsia is seldom used. Many people in the West don't even know that it exists. We never had an intelligentsia, the collective or network of groups of intellectuals like in France, Poland and Germany. In the Netherlands the protestant priests and the merchants were the people of thought, politics, science, trade and literature. There is a lack of theorists, people who know the classics, people who are bussy with a long term perspective of society of life. In this hectic times where everything is short time and in a rush. There are people needed who follow politics, culture and society, even by being part of it, but who are allowed, are chosen or are made to be the critics, thinkers and idea-givers of that society. They exist in Poland, in the Netherlands, the USA, and other parts of the world, but we don't see them, because they get lost in the information overload. There are a few people who have a deeper insight into society, because they managed to obtain knowledge in the sphere's of life sciences, philosopphy, theology, art history, psychology, sociology, mixed with cultural, political and economical knowledge. Because everybody has or has had a job in life in the public sector or in the commercial world of companies. The 21th intellectual and intelligentsia stand firm in the new society of Capitalism, advanced technology, scientific progress. They have to know everything, to understand the society they live in. They are part of that society. Pieter |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Apr 7, 2011 20:53:24 GMT 1
The intelligentsia played an ambiguous role during communism. Some members were against and they manifested it openly, joined the opposition etc. Some were for the system, they supported the regime and were even ministers etc. In many cases they were for at first, later switched sides and became against. A very prominent example is Leszek Kołakowski, famous philosopher:
In his youth, Kołakowski was a precocious intellect and became a devout communist. In the period 1947-1966, he was a member of Polish United Workers' Party. His intellectual promise earned him a trip to Moscow, where he observed the future and found it repulsive. He broke with Stalinism, becoming a "revisionist Marxist" and advocating a humanist interpretation of Marx. This led to his losing his job at Warsaw University, and his expulsion from the Polish United Workers' Party - ejected from the Communist Party in 1966 and expelled from academic life in 1968. One year after the 1956 Polish October, Kołakowski published a four-part critique of Soviet-Marxist dogmas, including historical determinism, in the Polish periodical Nowa Kultura.[5]
Eventually, Kołakowski came to believe that the totalitarian cruelty of Stalinism was not an aberration, but instead the logical end product of Marxism, whose genealogy he examined in his monumental Main Currents of Marxism, his major work published in 1976-1978, which won him international renown [4]
Ethos of intelligentsia, at least in Poland, was first of all to serve your society. Against all odds, against personal long-term interest even. It still exists (watch Bo, for instance) but is now severely reduced comapared to times of national dependance. Me as an example? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by tufta on Apr 8, 2011 6:58:26 GMT 1
The intelligentsia played an ambiguous role LOLOL just joking. ;D ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by tufta on Apr 8, 2011 7:02:01 GMT 1
Me as an example? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Seriously now Although you are getting comercialized a bit, yes why not? Do you know anything I don't know which does not entitle yoy to the title? ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by tufta on Apr 8, 2011 7:18:29 GMT 1
Pieter, I think you are decribing the class of professionals, now. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProfessionalThis class is indispensable and growing in Poland too. The main pragmatic difference between professional and intelligentsia is money and idea. Member of Polish intelligentsia often worked 'for the idea' of helping society, with lousy pay, etc, etc. Many, but not all simply whores, who sold their potential to the commies for the monnies. Yet another part did actually believe in communism at first, were on their way to become apparatchiks, and then changed sides.Leszek Kołakowski is one of the most shining examples. Yet, he was much more then intelligentsia representant. He was an intellectual of rare value, a thinker, a sage man. Being intelligentsia member is much less requiring  |
|
|
|
Post by pjotr on Apr 8, 2011 19:12:45 GMT 1
Pieter, I think you are decribing the class of professionals, now. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProfessionalThis class is indispensable and growing in Poland too. The main pragmatic difference between professional and intelligentsia is money and idea. Member of Polish intelligentsia often worked ' for the idea' of helping society, with lousy pay, etc, etc. Many, but not all simply sleepers, who sold their potential to the commies for the monnies. Yet another part did actually believe in communism at first, were on their way to become apparatchiks, and then changed sides. Leszek Kołakowski is one of the most shining examples. Yet, he was much more then intelligentsia representant. He was an intellectual of rare value, a thinker, a sage man. Being intelligentsia member is much less requiring Tufta, We are getting close, I think my type of intellectual is the merger of the professional with the intellectual: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional+ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual= " Pieters" intellectual I don't know how to describe it, " the professional intellectual", Specialist in a field of knowledge, thinking professional? Pieter |
|
|
|
Post by tufta on Apr 9, 2011 8:04:16 GMT 1
I think my type of intellectual is the merger of the professional with the intellectual Got your point! |
|
|
|
Post by tufta on Apr 9, 2011 9:07:30 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by pjotr on Apr 9, 2011 10:32:52 GMT 1
Tufta,
I read your posts of today, and will respond later, because I am heading to the West, have a train to catch to Amsterdam. I think we understand eachother. Bonobo and you mentioned Leszek Kołakowski, and yes he fits the description. But there are not many like him.
An Amsterdam weekend it will be!
Pieter
P.S.- I take my laptop with me so I will be able to check the Forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjotr on Apr 10, 2011 0:36:37 GMT 1
Tufta, The Guardian article mentiones " the blending of patriotism, romanticism and religion" and " old-style patriotic-religious martyrology" (in connection to the Aircrash and Katyn), what is that? A sort of National ideology with differant brands, a particular mindset of parts of the population or a conditionne humaine in general? A PiS version, a PO version, a centrist PSL version and a new Leftist Polish Patriotic SLD version and a Polish Roman Catholic church version and a dissident Radio Maryja/TTelewizja Trwam version? A part of the answer is in the Guardian article: " For much of modern history, Poland's central narrative was a heroic-tragic story of struggles for freedom." and " In the past, Poland created its brand by mounting an armed insurrection against Russian rule, and then having romantic poets such as Adam Mickiewicz immortalise the martrydom of this "Christ among nations"". Another quote: " My friends from years back, members of what used to be known as the intelligentsia (a class that is rapidly ceasing to exist), may be doing well, but many Poles are not." What is this former intelligentsia today? Did these intellectuals become journalists, writers, entrepreneurs, professors and universities, teachers or professionals in other fields than their former position (as "official intellectuals, whatever that meant"). For me the only good old Polish intellectuals were the dissidents, wether they were leftist, rightist, centrist or Roman Catholic? Not the official Marxist intellectuals in the Peoples Republic or in the West. These intellectuals were dead theorists, because they consolidated the Communist statues quo, delivered nothing new or progressive towards future developments, reforms or changes which the society needed at that time. Interesting to me is the question; " Was there one united group of intellectuals of the opposition of the Underground, or was there a cooperation between various groups of intellectuals."? I can imagine that you had within Solidarnosc Roman-catholic intellectuals (from intellectual priests, to Catholic professors and students) next to atheist or secular Polish socialists, liberals, conservatives and Nationalists. The strenght of Poland was that merger of Polish Nationalism or Patriotism, the Polish culture (Polish poetry, literature, philosophy, theatre and sciences) with the Polish faith (the Polish brand of Roman-Catholicism - the Polish church, the Polish believers and the inspiring Polish priests who influenced new generations). So there must have been a differance between leftwing intellectuals and rightwing intellectuals. Like in the West the Christian democratic thinkers the Polish Roman Catholic intellectuals from the church and outside the church (Layman intellectuals). Today maybe the influence of the church is getting lesser, because also in Poland the process of secularisation is taking place. Cheers, Pieter P.S.- This reaction is largely about the past, because I think first of all that Poland is changing fast. Secondly I don't know that much about the country I last saw in 2006. In nearly five years a lot can change. You two, Tufta and Bonobo can say more about it than I do. You know what the 21th century Polish intellectual looks like, and probably are Polish intellectuals yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonobo on Apr 10, 2011 0:58:15 GMT 1
Tufta and Bonobo can say more about it than I do. You know what the 21th century Polish intellectual looks like, and probably are Polish intellectuals yourself. I am not one. I only take photos and post them here. Not too intellectual activity. ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by pjotr on Apr 10, 2011 1:49:17 GMT 1
Dear Tufta and Bonobo,
My parents view of an intellectual was nearly an artistocratic or elitist one. A true intellectual in their view is an educated man or woman. University level. Intellectuals in their view come from cities or towns with universities. In their view an intellectual has a classical background. Next to a profound knowledge of his national language, the literature, poetry and philosophers of his country, the culture of his country and the history of his country, the intellectual knows Latin and Greek and the literature of the Western world in French, English and German.
Central- and Eastern-European literature, art, science and culture is in their view part of that world literary canon. The Russian, Polish and Hungarian writers and thinkers next to the French, German, English and American ones.
The intellectual reads the books in the language it was written in (the original), not the translations (if possible). The intellectual reads the quality press, and especially the indepth essays, works of research journalism, and knows exsactly what is going on his own country and abroad. Due to his classical gymnasium and university education and his own autodidact development in life the intellectual of my parents is superior to ordinairy people. In my mothers old fashionate, nearly pre-war vision, this professional intelligentsia was an example to the Polish people, how to be civilized, how to have good taste, and what was moral right and wrong. Ofcourse in ideal sense these intellectuals were Polish Patriots, Roman Catholic, with a good family background (God forbid no proletarians, peasants or other awful people, who dominated the Polish Peoples republic, that terrible country, because it opressed the civilized and benefited the brainless stupid masses).
My father did not agree with the modern levelled image or reality of the intellectual of the second half of the 20th century, these terrible leftist bearded Marxist left-intellectuals with their glasses. These intolerant, doctrinairy, dogmatic, orthodox (in political ideological sense), blind fanatic, collectivist, useless fools. Again, these people are not my ideal or practical (pragmatic) examples or versions of intellectuals. My vision is closer to my parents one, but less strict. In my view a professional intellectual does not have to come from an aristocratic family, went to a Gymnasium and university. Why? Because you have highly intelligent, civilized, educated people from working class and peasent background, who socially and intellectually moved upwards, out of their class of origin, and became middle class in one or maybe two generation. Part of these people progressed due to the Socialist parties and Unions in the 20th century. They became skilled militants, party officials, politicians, theorists, Union leaders or activists. Due to these movements they got educated. Form that new political class, the kids of these working class kids went to better schools, to universities and to better postions in society. Their kids did have nothing in common with the working class of their ancesters. Part of these people are the present Nouveau riche, part of them were nouveau riche that due to their knowledge, civilization and qualities were accepted by the Ancien riche and merged with it. New blood of the nouveau riche always makes the ancien riche stronger. Both my parents families are of the old highclasses of Poland and the Netherlands. In my fathers case the old Dutch merchant class, in my mothers case partly the Polish old merchant class and partly Schlachtza. My father due to that old class upbringing and ideals never liked the working class and the nouveau riche in the Netherlands. But he told me the theory of the "New Blood". That the civilized Ancien riche of nobility and the merchant class, if it will not want to go down by inbreeding, it should accept the "New Blood" of the accepteble, civilized and reliable part of the Nouveau riche. And that was difficult for the old elite with their rules, class codes and exclussive culture. The Dutch intelligentsia in the past often originated in that Ancien riche class. People of common background in the past did not study. That was only for the elite. And the elite dominated the economy, the politics and the culture. The pilarisation diversified that elite along religious and cultural lines. Therefor in the 20th century you had a Protestant intelligentsia, a Roman Catholic intelligentsia, a secular Socialist intelligentsia,
a secular (conservative) liberal intelligentsia and a general humanist intelligentsia (the independants). Jewish intellectuals often were part of the socialist and liberal intelligentsia. Since there was not such a class of intelligentsia like in Poland, France or Germany (with its influential writers, poets, artists and philosophers), the Dutch intellectuals were more a kind of professionals. They were teacher, professor, lecturer, scientist or political theorist.
The intellectual of my parents was an unreachable goal for me! The parental intellectual comes near to the Friedrich Nietzsche's Übermensch from his book Thus Spoke Zarathustra (German: Also Sprach Zarathustra [1883]).
Zarathustra presents the Übermensch as the creator of new values. In this way, it appears as a solution to the problem of the death of God and nihilism. If the Übermensch acts to create new values within the moral vacuum of nihilism, there is nothing that this creative act would not justify. Alternatively, in the absence of this creation, there are no grounds upon which to criticize or justify any action, including the particular values created and the means by which they are promulgated.
I would never say this or tell this to my parents, because first of all they as Anglophile and Francophone people, who don't like Nietsche and his ideas would not accept this vision of mine. That rediculous and insane German philosopher they would say. I say it though, because in their view of "the intellectual" he is the bright light, the ideal of Western civilization. The man who knows the literature of the world, all the great philosophers of the past and today, political science and practical politics, psychology, ethics, sociology, economics, law, the principles of research journalism, his society, the human spirit, foreign politics (geo-politics), history, geography, culture, fine arts, music, maths, Physics, Chemistry and Human nature, Human behavior and even management.
Their intellectual is an allrounder, a brave man (he dares and has to criticize the rulers, the powerful and the influential, if he is in danger or not. It is his moral and ethical duty to be critical, constructive, and an example to others), a developer and inventor of new ideas, theories, concepts, plans, useful quality products, a right way to live (etiquette, right behavoir, good stile, refiend manners), inventions, conventions, opinions, views, critical reviews which are a benefit for society. The reality is that such men/women do not exist or are rare. Very few people are brave, professional intellectuals who are independant, can earn a living, by writing influential works, participate in influential national or international debates and conferences, and really in effect change the world. I don't know people like that in the modern world, accept from a few philosophers and activists!
Cheers,
Pieter
P.S.- Today I have long discussions with my parents during weekends and holidays, we discuss the Dutch society, politics, history, art and culture, literature, foreign politics and sometimes Poland if the country is in the news. They read a lot, they like quality television (it has to have quality, to be cultural, nature or art house cinema. They prefer European cinema above American). Belgium and France played an important part in our family life, because we spend our holidays in the French part of Belgium. My parents watch Wallon and French tv a lot (with Dutch subtitles). The French culture is more philosophical and cultural than the Dutch one, so maybe their their idea about the role of the intellectual comes from the French influence.
Their idea is interesting and it influenced me. I am a progressive liberal with a conservative (traditional) fundament (the family roots and genes I guess).
|
|
|
|
Post by tufta on Apr 10, 2011 13:36:42 GMT 1
The Guardian article mentiones " the blending of patriotism, romanticism and religion" and " old-style patriotic-religious martyrology" (in connection to the Aircrash and Katyn), what is that? The author (Timothy Garton Ash) probably means exactly the prolongation of "Jesus of the nations" thing. And subseqential cherishing of the misfortunes. Which you cite as well: But he exaggerates of course. In spite of being married to a Polish wife, he is only a Brit, a non-papist most probably. It's not his fault, don't blame him. The former intelligentsia is mostly busy earning big money. The country is now in the hands of foo--, er, I mean politicians and technocrats. We have become normal mature democracy. Whenever a politcian want expertise from what used to be intelligentsia, he orders and pays for an analysis. We have become normal mature liberal economy! Wow. You are now talking about intellectuals, not intelligentsia. It's not the same imo. Intellect knows no morality. So - I could call even a hardline communist an intellectual, if I could find an intellectual who was a communist. Or better - still a communist after 1956, or even better: lets be merficful, after 1968. |
|
|
|
Post by tufta on Apr 10, 2011 13:40:21 GMT 1
Dear Pieter, thank you for super interesting reading. In large part I agree with your parents - as long as we are talking about the usual backround of an intellectual. Usual background does not exlude less usual background i.e. self- education, social roots in formed working or peasant class, etc. etc etc. |
|
|
|
Post by pjotr on Apr 10, 2011 22:16:52 GMT 1
I don't blame him, he is not just a Brit, but a British historian which focus is the late modern and contemporary history of Central and Eastern Europe. He has specifically worked on the Communist dictatorships of that region, the origins of the Revolutions of 1989 in that region and their immediate aftermath, i.e. the transformation of the former Eastern Bloc states from their totalitarian, Soviet-dominated past towards their integration into the European Union and the West, and adoption of market economies.
And he received the Order of Merit from Poland. I don't think you you just get that for nothing. But you are right in the perspective of the past that Poles and Poland have to watch out with Brits and Great-Britain, because British national interest was not always Polish national interest, and the British history is slightly differant than the Polish history, in the sense of how many Poles and Brits see history.
Now, ofcourse you have honest Brits next to the ones who falsified history, minimalizing the Polish role and effort at the Western side of the allied forces in the Second World War.
|
|
|
|
Post by tufta on Apr 10, 2011 22:33:20 GMT 1
next to the ones who falsified history, minimalizing the Polish role and effort at the Western side of the allied forces in the Second World War. Not this one. Was it you who liked ironical Polish-English humour, Pieter? |
|
|
|
Post by pjotr on Apr 10, 2011 22:46:53 GMT 1
You are now talking about intellectuals, not intelligentsia. It's not the same imo. Intellect knows no morality. So - I could call even a hardline communist an intellectual, if I could find an intellectual who was a communist. Or better - still a communist after 1956, or even better: lets be merficful, after 1968. Tufta, It might be my lack of knowledge and information about the past and present of the intelligentsia. I don't know a lot of members of the Dutch and/or Polish intelligentsia. But I thought that intellectual was the singular form of the plural or collective form Intelligentsia. A member of the intelligentsia in my limited Western-European, Dutch corner of Europe view (again lacking the Intelligentsia class, mcvement or groups Poland, Germany, France and Italy traditionally had, due to their seize, amount of cities, universities and the range of their languages as national and world languages - Poland had and has large influential diaspora like the Germans and French -) is a writer with influence in society - through his novels, ideas, and his influence as guest in literairy programs on tv and radio, and in polticial or cultural debates, if he takes a cultural, subjetive, political or a social stance, a university professor, who is visible outside the university -the same reasons as the writer- , because he plays a significant role in society as a critic, voice in a special field of interest ( Leszek Kołakowski is an example of such sort of professor), and then the professional intellectual influencial and independant research journalist, who influences society through his indepth essays in newspapers and magazines, tv and radio programs ans serious (web) blogs. A Film director can be a member of the intelligentsia, because he influences society through his documentries or movies. He takes a subject which needs comment, research, criticism, counterveiling powers and attention and he makes that subject public, where that subject was hidden, camouflaged or put under sensorship of a regime, government or pressure out of a society. |
|
|
|
Post by pjotr on Apr 11, 2011 17:27:44 GMT 1
Tufta & Bo, Ofourse there are more professions, subjects and spheres the intelligentsia is occupied with or has an interest or stake in. The ideological, ethical, practical, scientific and social-cultural side of politics. The political thinktanks of the differant political parties and Non Governmental Organisations ( NGO's) and the grassrootsmovements of the differant political movements and interest groups in society. Organised artists can be a cultural intelligentsia as art critics, curators, art collectors, art historians and culture philosophers who develop a cultural philosopphy are part of that segement of society. There are conceptual thinking, influential artists, who are in the border region between the cultural world, the society in general (their art: sculptures in public spaces, their work and person become part of the debate about the design of public space. The debate about architecture and sculptures, design and the shape of infrastructure can be both esthetical and ethical/moral. In the sense that ugly, mass, collective, dull architecture also shapes a depressed grey concrete and rusty metal city, town or subburb and indirect a grim country if all these cities have the same worn out, desolate, vandalized and graffiti spraid neughbourhoods) and politics. The arists who are part of the Intelligentsia are multi-taskers. They create work, but in the same time are critics of the work of colleages (and in the same time receive critics from the colleages they criticize) and have a view on the art world and the great cultural world and culture in society around it. They have a certain authonomy in their field of work, because they are part of the art they create and the greater world of fine- and contemporary arts and know that that art is part of a financial world -the art trade, art commerce and the role art collections play in Banks, insurrance companies and other financial firms.- Next to that the influence of a certain part of the Intelligentsia is important in shaping the society, that is the Education Intelligentsia. The teachers who are more than ordinairy teachers. The teachers who have the gift of bringing and internalising the knowledge and information to their pupils. These are the more intelligent and bright teachers. The ones who inspire kids and teenagers with their knowledge of history, literature, culture, poetry, music, society, the human nature, theatre (great teachers at my highschool guided me in our schooltheatre and open my eyes for theatre playrights and the tradition of theatre and the classical plays - The Greek mythology, Shakespeare, Modern 20th century theatre and cinema-, my German, English and French teachers tought me the richness of these languages, their literature and poetry - I had to read German and English novels for my exams. I dropped the subject French unfortunately -stubborn and lazy teenager I was-, and I chose history in staid of French. - You have to make choices in life-. The German teacher was very good, because he showed us German art house video's in class, was an exellent story teller and could lure us into the difficult world of German, because German was ofcourse more difficult to me than English or Dutch, the two other languages I had. And the Dutch teacher was an nearly 19th century type of man, Sideburns (Baczki [rodzaj zarostu]), a sort of professional intellectual teacher teacher who would have been part of the old Dutch literairy circles if he had lived in the twentees or thirtees. This was an old fashionate Intelligentsia member, seldom in his sort. A guy who tought us old and modern Dutch literature, the roots and origin of our Dutch language, philosophy (we don't have the subjects philosophy in Dutch highschools), and next to that Dutch grammer, words, sentances and text analysis. A lot of good, nice, civilized, concerned, enthousiast and sincere teachers, coaches, guides and professors are part of this educational and cultural Intelligentsia. Older students and some of the good and exellent pupils become part of these cirlces, because they are a sort of desciples. It's like the Greek philosophers, masters and pupils. The Student Intelligentsia in a lot of countries played and play a role in the dissident movements, Underground groups, the Samizdat press, against totalitarian, authoritarian leftwing, rightwing, militairistic and theocratic dictatorships. Examples are Iran, Burma, Serbia, the Ukraine and Belarus where Student Intelligentsia are (or were) resisting the opressive regimes. In Poland the Student resistance was part of KOR and Solidarnosc, the succes of the Polish Intelligentsia was that it was succesful in building a bridge between the workers and the Intelligentsia members. Their united strength was unbeatable and the end of the communist rulers in the Peoples republic Poland. The Round table talks were a collaboration and negociation between the Dissident intelligentsia and partly Communist intellectuals and rulers. Other intelligentsiaOther Intelligentsia groups are scientist circles, in which there is a professional intellectual debate about the ethics around certain scientific developments and fields like Gen- and clone technology, Nano-technology, Bio-science (modified- vetgetables, "the diversity of nature is at stake"), tele-robotocs (robotica). You have philosophers like the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk, with his Genetics dispute.  The German philosopher Peter SloterdijkShortly after Sloterdijk conducted a symposium on philosophy and Heidegger, he stirred up controversy with his essay Regeln für den Menschenpark ( Rules for the Human Park). In this text, Sloterdijk regards cultures and civilizations as " anthropogenic hothouses," installations for the cultivation of human beings; just as we have established wildlife preserves to protect certain animal species, so too ought we to adopt more deliberate policies to ensure the survival of Aristotle's zoon politikon. " The taming of man has failed", Sloterdijk lamented. " Civilisation's potential for barbarism is growing; the everyday bestialisation of man is on the increase." Since Friedrich Nietzsche, no one spoke so plainly about the decline of the human race. Because of the eugenic policies of the Nazis in Germany 's recent history, such discussions carry a sinister load. Breaking a German taboo on the discussion of genetic manipulation, Sloterdijk suggested that the advent of new genetic technologies required more forthright discussion and regulation of " bio-cultural" reproduction. In the eyes of Habermas, this made Sloterdijk a " fascist". Sloterdijk thought this was a resorting to " fascist" tactics to discredit him.  The German philosopher Jürgen Habermas The core of the controversy was not only Sloterdijk's ideas but also his use of the German words Züchtung (" breeding", "cultivation") and Selektion (" selection"). Sloterdijk rejected the accusation of Nazism, which he considered alien to his historical context. Still, the paper started a controversy in which Sloterdijk was strongly criticized, both for his apparent usage of a fascist rhetoric to promote Plato's vision of a government with absolute control over the population, and for committing a non-normative, simplistic reduction of the bioethical issue itself. This second criticism was based on the vagueness of Sloterdijk's position on how exactly society would be affected by this genetic development. After the controversy multiplied positions both for and against him, Die Zeit published an open letter from Sloterdijk to Habermas in which he vehemently accused Habermas of " criticizing behind his back" and espousing a view of humanism that Sloterdijk had declared dead. You have certainly a primarily Political intelligentsia of political scientists who created the Political science. Political scientists are concerned with the theory and practice of politics and the analysis of political systems and political behavior. They " see themselves engaged in revealing the relationships underlying political events and conditions. And from these revelations they attempt to construct general principles about the way the world of politics work." The Dutch philosopher Hans Achterhuis also thought about the ethics in science. His ideas add up to a philosophy of things (objects) and a plea for a morality of machines. Rather than being morally neutral, things guide our behaviour (barriers in the subway forcing us to buy a ticket). This is why they are capable of exerting moral pressure that is much more effective than imposing sanctions or trying to reform the way people think. Utopia has been superseded but the world can still be improved, if we take seriously our moral ties to the machines and devices that surround us. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_achterhuis The Dutch philosopher Hans AchterhuisIn the political intelligentsia there are politica scientists, philosophers, strategists, developpers, spin doctors, managers (planners & organisors), parlaimentarians, senators, party leaders, ministers, state secretaries, top civil servants, mayors and alderman, governers of provinces and the advise sector (former politicians who have their own commercial buro's, who advice national, regional and local governmental bodies). The Modern Intelligentsia is very integrated into society, because it is rooted in the political system, in the culture of a country, in the differant levels of society and in it's technical possibilities, it's government, it's legal system and economy. Judges, prosecutors and lawjers are a sort of legal intellectuals who are part of the intelligentsia, because they have university level education and are often loosly connected to the cultural, political and scientific intelligentsia. For evidence the prosecutor often has to rely on Modern crime investigation techniques which are developped by scientists with a physics and chemistry background. In their courtrooms and in their cases they are connected with the society. And often cases with a lot publicity and public indignation become National or regional ethic and moral debates or cause that! They in the same time have to guard the " Trias Politica" fundament of the legal system and also have to take the public interest in account, because they represent that. In the media and democratic time we live in the legal system and court cases also have become public, and in that there is public pressure on the people who represent that people. From parlaiment, to Intelligentsia clubs to the street there is discussion about the system. They have to guard the objectivity, the neutrality and the factuality of their system and to struggle in each case to remain in that position. The Modern 21th century Intelligentsia is cosmopolitan, International, pluriform/hetrogenous, holistic, advanced in training, skills, knowledge, experiance and it's pragmatism. Collective ideologies like Fascism, Nazism, Communism and socialism are of the past in this " open" world in which everybody is connected to everybody else, in which in theory, due to the Universal declaration of human rights, morality, ethics, and increasing international networks and the internationalisation of politics (EU, UN, NATO and etc.). The World has become more important than it was in the devided past due to diplomacy, crossing border debate, expanding trade zones, a growing mobility of the world population, faster means of transportation, international online internet connections and live video contact. In the same time new forms of isolationalism, modern tribal thinking in narrow minded Populist and chauvinist nationalism fight that cosmopolitan and internationalist Globalism. Neoliberalism (some call it Neoconservatism) hasn't died nor did it's oponents. Sometimes I think that we live in a Post-Capitalist society. You had Pre-history, Feodalism, Absolutist monarchy, some sorts of socialism, Capitalism. And today I see that huge companies merge with other large companies, forming huge cartels or monopolies (like Wallmart in the USA or Mc Donalds and IKEA in the world). I see the merger of technocatic solutions due to the ICT revolution merging with the Capitalist free market ideology and some elements of democratic socialism and technical free enterprice. Fiar trade, environmental clean products and microcredit are becoming increasingly popular. In the same time the old corporations, networks and mulit-national maintain their position, expand or merge with others. After the explosion of the Internetbubble and the New Economy at the end and beginning of this century, the New Economy is back. Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Skype, Twitter and companies like Windows and Apple stil rule the world. Internet, electronic technocatic capitalism and the Internet democracy are the future. The camera, modern software and hardware have opened the world. The Arab and the future Asian and African revolutions are Facebook, Twitter and Skype revolutions and transformations. The Intelligentsia of today are also the Bloggers of the revolutions, the civil journalists, the intelligent unknown reporters with modern skills, views, analysis, designs and news. Cheers, Pieter |
|
|
|
Post by pjotr on Apr 12, 2011 9:36:19 GMT 1
next to the ones who falsified history, minimalizing the Polish role and effort at the Western side of the allied forces in the Second World War. Not this one. Was it you who liked ironical Polish-English humour, Pieter? Yes, I am! Maybe there is a differance between reading a text and seeing people speak, see their faces, and their facial expression and body language when they are humoristic, ironical, just telling jokes and etc. But I know what you mean. |
|
|
|
Post by pjotr on Apr 12, 2011 9:42:02 GMT 1
Me as an example? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Seriously now Although you are getting comercialized a bit, yes why not? Do you know anything I don't know which does not entitle yoy to the title? ;D ;D Bonobo, You could be a member of the Educational Intelligentsia, if you are a teacher who fit's the description. I don't know how your lessons are. I read you teach in highschool and university. Are you creating future Polish professional intellect in the sense that your pupils and students become members of the future Krakow Intelligentsia. First they would become members of the large student world in Krakow (nearly 126 thousand Krakovians students are part of the Krakow University student world. 126 thousand of the 800.000 Krakovians) and in that a " member" of the Student Intelligentsia, with it's Student Corps ( korporacja akademicka), literairy student circles, philosophical debate groups, students who are political active and all the variety of subjects and organisations students are active in with a link to society, culture and science. Due to the students a university city is a vibrant, dynamic place with theatre's, Art house movie cinema's, music, live debate clubs, pubs and certain restaurants, fine art, quality books shops and Used bookstores, Campuses with a lot of human (Intelligentsia) activity. The Intelligentsia is always a quality minority at an university or a society. But they have a positive influence in my view, because they create the quintessence, the (refined) quality of life certain places have. I think cities with universities have more intelligentsia than cities or towns without universities. In the Netherlands I see that the level of a city is higher in cities with universities than cities without universities. In my region the university city Nijmegen has a higher cultural and social level than Arnhem. Arnhem has preparatory middle-level vocational education and vocational universities next to primary schools and highschools. Due to the lack of high educated people, and a lot of low and uneducated the general level is lower. But the city has citizens who studied at universities abroad and came back ( the educated elite of Arnhem), and the import people like me. People from Amsterdam, Nijmegen, Utrecht, Rotterdam and other cities and towns who came to work and live here. They created new cirlces, theatres, horeca, galleries, and supported the Museum of Modern art here. But Arnhem will never become Nijmegen, because it does not has the Nijmegen Catholic university. In Poland a lot of cities have universities and that is good! The cultural literairy, cultural, economical, political, medical, and educational elite of Krakow is the heart of Polish culture! (Together with the Intelligentsia of the other Polish university cities ofcourse. Warsaw is bigger and growing!) Biblioteka Jagiello?skaA good old University library is important for historical research, up to date scientific information and professional literature. It is also a source for writers, scientists, and researchers next to the university students. A quality university library and the intelligent research use of the internet (archive skills and knowing the largely unused or invisible internet) is important for the Intelligentsia. That is never mentioned, because these are the tools, the daily practice of many professionals. They use libraries, the internet and books differant than ordinairy people. I loved the University libraries of Amsterdam and Groningen. The university's Jagiellonian Library ( Biblioteka Jagiellonska) is one of Poland's largest, with almost 6.5 million volumes. It has a large collection of medieval manuscripts, including Copernicus' De Revolutionibus and the Balthasar Behem Codex. The library also has an extensive collection of underground literature (so called drugi obieg or samizdat) from Poland's period of Communist rule (1945–89). Cheers, Pieter |
|
|
|
Post by pjotr on Apr 12, 2011 10:35:43 GMT 1
You are now talking about intellectuals, not intelligentsia. It's not the same imo. Intellect knows no morality. So - I could call even a hardline communist an intellectual, if I could find an intellectual who was a communist. Or better - still a communist after 1956, or even better: lets be merficful, after 1968. What is the description or word for a single member of the Intelligentsia? Are all members of the Intelligentsia moral or ethical just? You have IMO Communist who can be a member of the largely Non-Communist Intelligentsia of a country, because despite their lack of morality or lack of political intelligence ( ), there are great Communist writers, philosophers, sociologists. I sometimes even think, these people made great works, but the quality and content of their work has nothing in common with Communism. You have very intelligent people on one subject or two, but who are socially less intelligent, who lack emotional intelligence (EQ). These are the blind left-intellectuals in West-Europe, Central-Europe and Eastern-Europe. Bookwurms, dry- unpractical theoretical people, who have no idea how reality works. Good members of the Intelligentsia know the theoretical basis of study, research, empirical knowledge, experiance, and interhuman understanding and exchange. These communist intellectuals are stuck in the theoretical level, live in a vague abstraction of ideas, and did not manage to built a bridge between theory and practical reality. They got stuck in the Communist practice. Forcing theory in dogmatic partical experiments which lasted to long, and damaged societies, communities and cultures. Pieter |
|
|
|
Post by pjotr on Apr 12, 2011 10:44:59 GMT 1
Tufta, The former intelligentsia is mostly busy earning big money. The country is now in the hands of foo--, er, I mean politicians and technocrats. We have become normal mature democracy. Whenever a politcian want expertise from what used to be intelligentsia, he orders and pays for an analysis. We have become normal mature liberal economy! Wow. Welcome to the West (ironical remark) Tufta, this is the reality in most democratic, Capitalist societies. Yes, the politicians and technocrats rule, have the power, and they need counterveiling powers, The Trias Politica must work, the quality press should do it's job propperly and controle these politicians and technocrats. If people are unhappy or dissatisfied they should create new political movement or parties and shake & shock the old Policians, like the Populists did in Western-Europe. People should be awake, and not take democracy and freedom for granted. Hold politicians accountable for what they promised and for the policies and measures they take. Cheers, Pieter |
|
|
|
Post by pjotr on Apr 12, 2011 10:52:45 GMT 1
But the author Timothy Garton Ash exaggerates of course. In spite of being married to a Polish wife, he is only a Brit, a non-papist most probably. It's not his fault, don't blame him. Terrible, he might be a heretic Presbyterian (Calvinist), Methodist, Baptist or even worse Anglican or Jewish. How can a Polish woman ever marry such a devil. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by pjotr on Apr 12, 2011 16:43:55 GMT 1
The former intelligentsia is mostly busy earning big money. The country is now in the hands of foo--, er, I mean politicians and technocrats. We have become normal mature democracy. Whenever a politcian want expertise from what used to be intelligentsia, he orders and pays for an analysis. We have become normal mature liberal economy! Wow. Welcome to the West (ironical remark) Tufta, this is the reality in most democratic, Capitalist societies. Yes, the politicians and technocrats rule, have the power, and they need counterveiling powers, The Trias Politica must work, the quality press should do it's job propperly and controle these politicians and technocrats. If people are unhappy or dissatisfied they should create new political movement or parties and shake & shock the old Policians, like the Populists did in Western-Europe. People should be awake, and not take democracy and freedom for granted. Hold politicians accountable for what they promised and for the policies and measures they take. Cheers, Pieter Tufta, A few years back in a critical mood and fed up with old politics I thought about creating or founding a new, centrist party in the tradition of the Polish Centrolew movement. I did not feel represented witth the old left, new left and contemporary left, nor by the moderate centrist parties, nor by the centre-right and rightist parties. Locally I even once voted for a Christian (Protestant biblical party, who also attracts Catholic priests really), but that was once. I missed a political party who was in the same time firm in one's principles, but on the other side flexible, dynamic, pragmatic, Modern and not dogmatic and orthodox. The Christian party is to orthodox and dogmatic (doctrinairy) to be a real serious option for me to vote in the National and regional elections. I wanted to have a secular progressive pragmatic and patriotic party in which the Dutch Intelligentsia has a dominant role, in which it is OK to be a influential and important minority, and who takes it's role as opposition party or possible government coalition partner serious. Why do I do not feel at home in the present parties with a large intelligentsia membership, Groenlinks ( Greenleft) on the lefthand side and D66 in the centre-left? First because they are to weak and internally divided. Secondly, because they are to libertarian, cosmopolitan, Internationalistic, Europe minded, leftist and moderate in some cases. In my party Dutch Patriotism would get a place (in opposition to present day Chauvinist rightwing Nationalism and Populism), Dutch culture and history, and the historical bond with Dutch speaking relatives (Belgian-Flanders, the Afrikaans speaking people in South-Africa - both the White Boers and the Colored people-, the black, colored, red -Indian-, asian people of Suriname and the Black people of the Dutch Antilles and even Indonesia -a lot of old Indonesians stil speak or understand Dutch. A sort of Dutch commonwealth does exist) abroad. In my Political party, Culture, Art, History, ethics, Philosophy as a subject for highschools -like in France-, would play an important role next to the important financial-economical, agricultural, public space (infrastructure), technology and science, education & Research & Development, internal affiars, Justice, foreign affiars and the department of general affairs (the prime ministers department). You have single issue parties in the Netherlands like the Party for animals ( www.partyfortheanimals.nl/ ) and the party for pensioners ( 50pluspartij.nl/ ). Why could not I found an Art & Culture party, which was more than simply an art party and representative body of Dutch artists and the cultural world. Because it is one sided, because it is elitarian, because it is to much focussed on one part of society? In my opinion or view it was because I missed a dominant and sensable force of reason, stability, with a clear future vision, and a party which represents a minority who is important for shaping and implementing the world of ideas, civilization, culture and visible forms of progress, good architecture, good institutions, good markets, new ways of communication and a new economy. The Old parties and their networks are to strong and the new parties to one sided or simplistic. I think that on the short term Pim Fortyn and Geert Wilders were needed to break the status quo of the old politics, the power of the old political correct elite, the unions and the compromise culture of our Polder model ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polder_Model ). We needed polarisation, clear differances between political parties and movements, and new ideas, reforms, new ways of governing, cut backs, less government, decentralisation, privatisations, a clear view and debate (discussion) on what the core business of the government is. The Dutch state, government and society is slowly moving from a continental Rhineland model (German social capitalist) model towards an anglosaxon model. Rhine Capitalismen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine_CapitalismAnglo-Saxon modelIn England and the United States, liberal values like autonomy, individual initiative and freedom is not comprehensive to social security. So there they have the Anglo-Saxon model. The government gives priority to a good business environment: training wage will be left to the market and a flexible labor market gives impetus to employment, with many problems for any dropouts.
People in general work very hard over there. The government has a modest role in health and education. These are considered as capital goods. The benefits are mostly short and if you want a paid benefit that has a lot of demands. The public sector is much smaller than in the Rhineland and the Scandinavian model (so less tax is paid). The management of the company in the Anglo-Saxon model is formed by a board. This contains both active and supervisory directors.Translated from the Dutch wikipedia page by Pieter ( Source: Wikipedia) In my political view you should merge the two systems into an new one and get the best elements of both systems in the new system, leaving the less beneficial elements out of it. For instance in the US the taxes sometimes are to low and as a result of that some public spending which is necessary to maintain a good infrastructure and public transport is to limited. Bad roads, electricity, and public transport can cause troubles due to that and large traffic jams cost a lot of time, energy and pollution. you have to find a ballance between Laissez Faire (stil my favorite direction) and etatism (state interfearance in the economy). In that way I am inbetween Keyenes and Smith, and not a supporter of the Chicago school ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_%28economics%29 / pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szko%C5%82a_chicagowska_%28ekonomia%29) or Ayn Rand. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand / pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand ). My political party never was founded, because my ideology cultural pragmatism, would evolve towards a normal ideology and political movement and in time would be part of the old political spectrum. New movements first start as counterveiling powers, who bring in checks and ballances, new blood, changes and breaks in the old political system, but gradually they become incorporated and infiltrated by the old system they are now part of. Soon they are part of the Parlaimentarian world of old politics, compromises, deals in back rooms, lobby groups and political business as usual. I did not give up the idea, but also found kindred spirits in the existing parties and movements that are in or outside the Dutch parlaiment. A merger of the Greenleft and D66 should be a possibility to create a Dutch 21th century Centrolew. I certainly would be a Dutch Intelligentsia party, because they Dutch intelligentsia is a tiny minority in a sea of specialists, yuppies, ICT-people, civil servants, middle class and working class who are not members of the Intelligentsia and who dominate this country. In the larger parties like Labour and the Dutch PO, the VVD there are minorities of Dutch intelligentsia, centre-left intelligentsia and centre-right intelligentsia. They can get along well even if the polarisation, left versus right, gives andother impression. The ideal Intelligentsia is a mix of leftist and rightist professionals who attent the same clubs, meetings and debates. Fortunately in the present Dutch circumstances, rightist and centre-right politicians and intellectuals can stil visit debates or party meetings of the left and the centre-left and vice versa. In that perspective I have hope for the future. That my political movement does not exist is not a disaster, but if in the long term politics does not change I will try to get some influence and participate in political debates and movements. Pieter |
|
|
|
Post by pjotr on Apr 14, 2011 6:59:12 GMT 1
Part of the Polish intelligentsia in the 19th and 20th century were the Polish Jewish intelligentsia. Think about Adam Michnik, Bronisław Geremek and Marek Edelman.
The tasks of the Polish Jewish intelligentsia
In 1890 Nahum Sokolow, the leading Jewish journalist in Poland during the 1880-90s, published a series of articles in the Polish-Jewish periodical, Izraelita, which was printed a year later as a book entitled Zadania inteligencji zydowskiej (The Tasks of the Jewish Intelligentsia). In these articles, he presented a list of demands that were aimed at the circle he defined as the Jewish Intelligentsia. This circle, he believed, bore a responsibility to drive Polish Jewry towards modernization by increasing their involvement in the life of the nation. This was not the first time that Sokolow addressed this intellectual circle. Between the years 1881-1890 he dedicated much of his writing in Hebrew and a great deal in Polish to this effort, which in 1890 was brought together into an integrated and organized program. This program focused upon five principal areas; preaching, the role of rabbis in Jewish life, the intelligentsia as communal leaders, hadarim and popular Jewish literature. With this program Sokolow hoped to influence the components of the multinational mosaic of Polish society at the end of the nineteenth century. The program and its application to the Jewish intelligentsia were heavily influenced by the Polish intellectual climate of the time. A close examination of this program can help clarify the role of the different strata of intelligentsia, Russian, Polish and Jewish, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjotr on Apr 14, 2011 7:01:18 GMT 1
Nahum Sokolow Nahum Sokolow (Nahum ben Joseph Samuel Sokolow, Hebrew: נחום ט' סוקולוב Nachum ben Yoseph Shmuel Soqolov, Yiddish: סאָקאָלאָוו, 1859 - 1936) was a Zionist leader, author, translator, and a pioneer of Hebrew journalism. Born to a rabbinic family in Wyszogród, Poland (then Russian Empire), Sokolow began writing for the local Hebrew newspaper, HaTzefirah, when he was only seventeen years old. He quickly won himself a huge following that crossed the boundaries of political and religious affiliation among Polish Jews, from secular intellectuals to anti-Zionist Haredim, and eventually had his own regular column. Over the years, he would eventually become the newspaper's senior editor and a co-owner. In 1906 Sokolow was asked to become the secretary general of the World Zionist Congress. In the ensuing years, he crisscrossed Europe and North America to promote the Zionist cause. During World War I, he lived in London, where he was a leading advocate for the Balfour Declaration of 1917, in which the British government declared its support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. In 1931 he was elected President of the World Zionist Congress, and served in that capacity until 1935, when he was succeeded by Chaim Weizmann. He also served as President of the Jewish Agency for Palestine between 1931 and 1933 and was succeeded by Arthur Ruppin. Sokolow was a prolific author and translator. His works include a three-volume history of Baruch Spinoza and his times, and various other biographies. He was the first to translate Theodor Herzl's utopian novel Altneuland into Hebrew, giving it the name Tel Aviv (literally, " An Ancient Hill of Spring"). In 1909, the name was adopted for the first modern Hebrew-speaking city: Tel Aviv. Sokolov came to Rome to gain support for the plan of a Jewish state in Palestine, where he spoke to Monsignor Eugenio Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII. That Pope Benedict XV had vehemently condemned anti-semitism a year before was seen as a good omen. He died in London in 1936. The kibbutz Sde Nahum is named for him.
|
|
