Blagoje Grahovac - Geopolitički rebus Vijesti Podgovrica 2013. 148 strana. Odlično očuvana knjiga, posveta na prvom predlistu. Geopolitički rebus Sva DPS politička elita Crne Gore i većina današnje političke elite Srbije, 90-ih godina prošlog vijeka, bili su u istom stroju Kada je 1868. godine ubijen srpski knez Mihailo Obrenović, njemački ujedinitelj, kancelar i veliki državnik, Oto fon Bizmark je izgovorio rečenicu: „Nečija idiotska glupost na Balkanu kad-tad će izazvati rat u Evropi”. Tako je i bilo. I to više puta. Politička glupost naroda ostala bi samo naša glupost i naša šteta da nema onu geoplitičku dimenziju. Narod je vjekovima raspolućen i društveno i politički i duhovno, pa čak i civilizacijski. Kako sve to jednostavno objasniti? Od kada su se Srbija i Crna Gora („dva oka u glavi“) razdvojile, rješavanje tog geopolitičkog rebusa je daleko jednostavnije. Neko kaže „dva oka u glavi“, a ja češće koristim sintagmu „dva đavola“ i pri tome ne mislim na Srbe i Crnogorce, koji se zaista prijateljski slažu, nego mislim na većinu njihovih političkih elita. Model rješavanja rebusa nije tako komplikovan. Sva DPS politička elita Crne Gore i većina današnje političke elite Srbije, 90-ih godina prošlog vijeka, bili su u istom stroju. Onom radikalskom. Bolje reći pašićevskom, koji je, uz pomoć Rusa, Timočkom bunom, krajem XIX vijeka, krenuo na uništenje proevropske dinastije Obrenović. Kada su DPS-ovci zaključili da im, zbog međunarodne pozicije, nije unosno biti uz radikale, uzeli su otklon. Ali, samo formalno. I SPS je to radila, ali samo povremeno. I tada i sada svima njima je isti politički otac. KGB. I duhovni otac im je isti – ruska crkva. Samo su im varijacije u lokalu nešto drugačije. I službe su im iste. I mafije su im iste. Isti su im čak i lobisti – oni sa Zapada. Kada je ekstremizam SRS otišao predaleko, po nalogu „političkog tate“, prvaci DPS su briljantno odradili zadatak. Otcijepili su jedno veće krilo od SRS, koje je drugačijim (umivenijim) imenom nazvano. Istine radi, ima jedan broj njih koji su zaista uzeli svakojaki otklon od radikala. Slagalica rebusa ide po utvrđenom gantogramu. Ne smanjuje se bučna priča o evropskim i evroatlantskim integracijama. Ispod te priče isti protagonisti uvode KGB-ovske snage, koje okupiraju privredne resurse i Srbije i Crne Gore. „Politički (bolje reći, geopolitički) otac“ može biti veoma zadovoljan kako Tomislav Nikolić i Milo Đukanović odrađuju njihove zadatke. Ali, na tom njihovom putu potkrale su se neke „sitnice“. Da li političkim preumljenjem, nesvjesno ili potpuno svjesno, Aleksandar Vučić je, u odnosu na prethodno opisanu slagalicu, otišao daleko, ali u pravom smjeru. Zbog njegove borbe u čišćenju Srbije od korupcije i organizovanog kriminala i zbog borbe za njenu evropsku integraciju, založio je svoj život. Odustajanje od te borbe, jednako kao i istarajavanje na istoj, može ga koštati glave. „Crna ruka“ je odvajkada sprečavala Srbiju da se integriše u prostor gdje geografski i civilizacijski pripada – a to je Evropa. I Tomislav Nikolić je dosljedan na putu svoje političke opcije. Sadašnje srastanje državnog trona, oltara i baksuzne krune je put u građenju kleronacionalno- teokratske države. Da „geopolitički tata“ ne bi posumnjao u lojalnost mogu pripomoći i znamenja. Dodijeljena najviša odlikovanja Srbije svim predsjednicima država, nastalih od SSSR-a (osim tri baltičke, koje su u EU i u NATO), važan je parametar u rješavanju geopolitičkog rebusa. A ko su zapravo odlikovane ličnosti na čelu tih dražava? Čak i po labavim kriterijumima demokratije, njihovo vladanje se cijeni autokratskim, a neko od njih i diktatorskim. Posljednje istraživanje u tim zemljama pokazuje da 44-55% građana smatra da je Staljin najistaknutija istorijska ličnost. Šta to pokazuje? Da njihovi sadašnji vladari liče upravo na Staljina. I posmrtno odlikovanje predsjednika Venecuele (inače ultra radikalnog ljevičara) ukazuje na geopolitičku dimenziju ovog postupka. A kako će se završiti prividno politička idila u odnosima Nikolića i Vučića? Vrlo skorim i veoma grubim političkim razlazom. Istorijsko svađanje Srba i Srbije, s jedne, i Albanaca i Albanije, sa druge strane, nije ništa drugo nego je geopolitička zamka. Njom se Balkan (a time i Evropa) vjekovima drži u stanju ili hladnog rata ili vrućeg mira. Formula permanentne zategnutosti štima. I to je jedan od razloga zbog čega Vučić i Dačić (koji su odlučni rješavati vjekovni problem) moraju biti oprezni. „Crna ruka“ je u stalnom dežurstvu. Sprega vlasti, državnih službi i kriminogenih struktura, dugogodišnji je znak prepoznavanja Crne Gore, na širokom prostoru. Godinama upozoravam da DPS rizikuje da bude označena kao kriminalna (čak i zločinačka) organizacija. Upozoravam i na onu njenu neofašističku dimenziju. Materijale afere „Snimak“, koje javnosti, vjerovatno, dostavlja neko iz zdravog tkiva te partije, ukazuju na tipičan politički banditizam u njenim redovima. Šta veže Nikolićevo moralno-političko „čistunstvo“ i svekoliko posrnuće vrha DPS Crne Gore? „Geopolitički tata“ im je isti. I izvorna ideologija im je ista. Ona srpska, radikalska. Institucije međunarodne zajednice i crnogorska javnost konačno imaju sinergiju u rješavanju gorućeg crnogorskog problema koji je vezan za korupciju i organizovani kriminal. Bosovi te svekolike nedaće znaju da su, u tim procesima, upravo svjedoci najskuplja roba. Zbog toga treba očekivati brojne likvidacije istih, čime će oni postati najjeftinija roba. “Gazda“ ne voli svjedoke, a članovi mreže znaju ko je on. Ima samo jedna formula da, oni koji su u tu mrežu svjesno ili nesvjesno upleteni, sačuvaju živu glavu sebe i svoje porodice. Da se što prije, kao svjedoci-saradnici, predaju državnim organima neke druge države i da otkriju sve radnje i sva lica tih mreža. Prijavljivanje aktuelnim državnim organima Crne Gore, ili državama koje kontroliše „geopolitički tata“, samo bi produžilo agoniju njih i njihovih porodica. Za njih je odbrojavanje štopericom otpočelo. Dijelu vašingtonske i briselske lobistički korumpirane birokratije ističe vrijeme da se konačno svrsta na pravu staranu u balkanskoj drami. Dok balkanski narodi pate, oni predugo tolerišu prljave geopolitičke igre. Ili možda čekaju neizbježnu rusku revoluciju. Demokratska hrabrost i u Srbiji i u Crnoj Gori je toliko narasla da obezbjeđuje izlazak iz geopolitičke zamke obje ove države i oba naroda. Ne pridruže li se ovom procesu Albanija i Albanci, mogli bi ostati posljednja geopolitička žrtva na Balkanu. Evidentno je da i Srbi i Albanci konačno počinju priželjkivati međusobno prijateljstvo. Koje, do sada, nikada nijesu probali.

Posveta autora Retka knjiga Nikaragvanska revolucija (šp. Revolución Nicaragüense), poznata i kao Sandinistička revolucija (šp. Revolución Popular Sandinista‎‎) je bila oružana pobuna koju su tokom 1960-ih podigli nikaragvanski levičari okupljeni oko Sandinističkog fronta. Glavni cilj pobune je bio svrgavanje sa vlasti diktatorske porodice Somoza koja je tom zemljom vladala autokratski decenijama. U tome su i uspeli, te je Somoza svrgnut 1979. godine, ali novom represijom stanovništva su izgubili popularnost, čime su 1981. izazvali pobunu nacionalističkih desničarskih snaga poznatih kao Kontraši. Pozadina[uredi | uredi izvor] Nakon okupacije Nikaragve od strane Sjedinjenih Država 1912. godine tokom Banana ratova, politička dinastija porodice Somoza došla je na vlast i vladala je Nikaragvom od 1937. do njihovog svrgavanja 1979. tokom Nikaragvanske revolucije. Dinastiju Somoza činili su Anastasio Somoza Garsija, njegov najstariji sin Luis Somoza Debaile i na kraju Anastasio Somoza Debaile. Eru vladavine porodice Somoza karakteriše rastuća nejednakost i politička korupcija, snažna podrška SAD-a vladi i njenoj vojsci,[1] kao i oslanjanje na multinacionalne korporacije sa sedištem u SAD-u.[2] Uspon FSLN-a[uredi | uredi izvor] Godine 1961. Karlos Fonsela Amador, Silvio Majorga i Tomas Borhe Martinez osnovali su FSLN (Sandinistički nacionalni oslobodilački front) sa ostalim studentskim aktivistima na Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Nikaragva (UNAN) u Managvi. Za članove osnivače FSLN-a ovo nije bilo prvo iskustvo sa političkim aktivizmom. Amador, prvi generalni sekretar organizacije, radio je sa drugima u novinama „široko kritičnim“ prema vladavini Somoze pod nazivom Segovija.[3] Sastojeći se od približno 20 članova tokom 1960-ih, uz pomoć studenata, organizacija je prikupila podršku seljaka i antisomoza unutar nikaragvanskog društva, kao i komunističke kubanske vlade, socijalističke panamske vlade Omara Torijosa i socijalista venecuelanske vlade Karlos Andres Pereza.[4] Do 1970-ih koalicija studenata, farmera, preduzeća, crkava i mali procenat marksista bila je dovoljno jaka da pokrene vojne napore protiv režima dugogodišnjeg diktatora Anastasija Somoze Debajla. FSLN se gotovo odmah usredsredio na gerilsku taktiku, inspirisan kampanjama Fidela Kastra i Če Gevare. Prodirući na severnu obalu Nikaragve, kampanja Rio Koko / Bokaj-Raiti uglavnom je bila neuspeh: „kada su gerilci naišli na Nacionalnu gardu, morali su da se povuku... sa velikim gubicima.“[3] Daljnje operacije uključivale su razoran gubitak u blizini grada Matagalpa, tokom kojeg je Majorga ubijen, što je Amadora dovelo do „dužeg perioda razmišljanja, samokritičnosti i ideološke rasprave.`[3] Za to vreme FSLN je smanjio napade, umesto da se usredsredio na učvršćivanje organizacije u celini. Rušenje režima Somoze[uredi | uredi izvor] Sedamdesetih godina prošlog veka FSLN je započeo kampanju otmica koja je dovela do nacionalnog prepoznavanja grupe u nikaragvanskim medijima i učvršćivanja grupe kao sile koja je u suprotnosti sa režimom Somoze.[1] Režim Somoza, koji je uključivao Nikaragvansku nacionalnu gardu, silu koju je visoko obučila američka vojska, proglasio je opsadno stanje i nastavio da koristi mučenje, vansudsko ubistvo, zastrašivanje i cenzuru štampe u borbi protiv FSLN napada.[1] To je dovelo do međunarodne osude režima i administracija američkog predsednika Džimija Kartera 1978. godine koja je ukinula pomoć režimu Somoze zbog kršenja ljudskih prava (Bolandov amandman). Kao odgovor, Somoza je ukinuo opsadno stanje kako bi i dalje dobivao pomoć.[5] 10. januara 1978, urednik novina Managva La Prensa i osnivač Unije za demokratsko oslobođenje (UDEL), Pedro Hoakin Čamoro Kardenal ubijen je od strane osumnjičenih iz režima Somoze, a izbili su neredi u glavnom gradu Managvi, ciljajući da sruše režim Somoze.[6] Nakon nereda, generalni štrajk 23. i 24. januara zahtevao je kraj režima Somoze i, prema rečima osoblja američkog Stejt departmenta u američkoj ambasadi, uspeo je da zatvori oko 80% preduzeća ne samo u Managvi, već i prestonice provincija Leon, Granada, Činandega i Matagalpa.[6] 22. avgusta 1978. FSLN je izveo masovnu operaciju otmice. Predvođene Edenom Pastorom, snage Sandinista zauzele su Nacionalnu palatu dok je zakonodavno telo zasedalo, uzevši 2.000 talaca. Pastora je zahtevao novac, puštanje zatvorenika Sandinista i, „sredstvo za objavljivanje Sandinista.`[5] Posle dva dana, vlada se složila da plati 500.000 dolara i da pusti određene zatvorenike, što je označilo veliku pobedu za FSLN.[1] Pobune protiv države nastavile su se dok su Sandinisti dobijali materijalnu podršku od Venecuele i Paname. Dalja podrška bi potekla od Kube u obliku „savetovanja u vezi sa oružjem i vojskom.`[5] Početkom 1979. Organizacija američkih država nadzirala je pregovore između FSLN-a i vlade. Međutim, ovi su se slomili kada je postalo jasno da režim Somoze nije nameravao da dozvoli održavanje demokratskih izbora. Do juna 1979, FSLN je kontrolisao svu zemlju, osim glavnog grada, a 17. jula predsednik Somoza je podneo ostavku i FSLN je ušao u Managvu,[1] imajući punu kontrolu nad vladom revolucionarnim pokretima. Vlada Sandinista[uredi | uredi izvor] Neposredno nakon pada režima Somoze, Nikaragva je uglavnom bila u ruševinama. Zemlja je pretrpela i ratnu i, ranije, prirodnu katastrofu u razornom zemljotresu u Nikaragvi 1972. godine. 1979. približno 600 000 Nikaragvaca bili su beskućnici, a 150 000 bilo izbeglica ili su bili prognani,[1] od ukupne populacije od samo 2,8 miliona.[7] Kao odgovor na ova pitanja, proglašeno je vanredno stanje. Predsednik Karter poslao je pomoć od 99 miliona američkih dolara. Zemljište i preduzeća iz režima Somoze su eksproprisana, stari sudovi su ukinuti, a radnici organizovani u odbore civilne odbrane. Novi režim je takođe izjavio da su „izbori nepotrebni“, što je, između ostalih, dovelo do kritika Katoličke crkve.[5] Ekonomske reforme[uredi | uredi izvor] Nikaragvanska revolucija donela je ogromno restrukturiranje i reforme sva tri sektora privrede, usmeravajući ga ka sistemu mešovite ekonomije. Najveći ekonomski uticaj imao je na primarni sektor, poljoprivredu, u obliku agrarne reforme, koja nije predložena kao nešto što se može unapred planirati od početka revolucije, već kao proces koji će se pragmatično razvijati zajedno sa ostalim promene (ekonomske, političke itd.) koje bi nastale tokom perioda revolucije.[8] Sveukupne ekonomske reforme trebale su da spasu neefikasnu i bespomoćnu nikaragvansku ekonomiju. Kao zemlja „trećeg sveta“, Nikaragva je imala i ima ekonomiju zasnovanu na poljoprivredi, nerazvijenu i podložnu protoku tržišnih cena svojih poljoprivrednih dobara, poput kafe i pamuka. Revolucija se suočila sa ruralnom ekonomijom koja je zaostala u tehnologiji, a istovremeno je opustošena gerilskim ratom i građanskim ratom koji je uskoro usledio protiv kontraša. 1985. godine, Agrarna reforma podelila je seljaštvu 950 km² (235.000 hektara) zemlje. To je predstavljalo oko 75 procenata celokupne zemlje podeljene seljacima od 1980. Prema Projektu, agrarna reforma imala je dvostruku svrhu, da poveća podršku vladi među kampusinima i garantuje obilnu dostavu hrane u gradove. Tokom 1985. održane su ceremonije širom sela u kojima je Danijel Ortega svakom seljaku davao zemlju i pušku da je brani.[9] Kulturna revolucija[uredi | uredi izvor] Nikaragvanska revolucija donela je mnoga kulturna poboljšanja i razvoj. Bez sumnje, najvažnije je bilo planiranje i sprovođenje Nikaragvanske kampanje za opismenjavanje. Kampanja opismenjavanja koristila je srednjoškolce, studente, nastavnike kao dobrovoljne nastavnike. U roku od pet meseci smanjili su ukupnu stopu nepismenosti sa 50,3% na 12,9%.[10] Kao rezultat toga, u septembru 1980. godine, Unesko je Nikaragvi dodelio nagradu „Nadežda K. Krupskaja“ za uspešnu kampanju opismenjavanja. Usledile su kampanje za opismenjavanje 1982, 1986, 1987, 1995 i 2000, koje je takođe nagradio Unesko.[11] Revolucija je takođe osnovala Ministarstvo kulture, jedno od samo tri u Latinskoj Americi u to vreme, i uspostavila je novi uređivački brend, nazvan Editorial Nueva Nicaragua, i na osnovu njega počela je da štampa jeftina izdanja osnovnih knjiga koje su Nikaragvci retko viđali. Takođe je osnovala Institut za studije Sandinizma, gde je štampala sva dela i radove Avgusta C. Sandina i one koji su takođe cementirali ideologije FSLN-a, kao što su Karlos Fonseka, Riardo Morales Aviles i drugi. Ključni veliki programi sandinista dobili su međunarodno priznanje za svoj napredak u pismenosti, zdravstvenoj zaštiti, obrazovanju, brizi o deci, sindikatima i zemljišnoj reformi.[12][13] Kršenje ljudskih prava[uredi | uredi izvor] Fondacija Heritedž, konzervativni američki list s bliskim vezama sa Reaganovom administracijom,[traži se izvor] optužila je sandinističku vladu za brojna kršenja ljudskih prava, uključujući cenzuru štampe i represiju nad Miskitima i jevrejskim stanovništvom u zemlji. Fondacija Heritedž takođe je kritikovala vladu zbog lošegtretmana naroda Miskito, navodeći da je preko 15.000 Miskita prisiljeno da se preseli, njihova sela su uništena, a njihove ubice unapređene, a ne kažnjene.[14] Los Anđeles Tajms je takođe primetio da su... Miskiti počeli da se aktivno suprotstavljaju Sandinistima 1982. godine kada su vlasti ubile više od desetak Indijanaca, spalile sela, prisilno regrutovale mladiće u vojsku i pokušale da presele druge. Hiljade Miskita je prešlo preko reke Koko u Honduras, i mnogi su uzeli oružje koje su isporučile SAD kako bi se suprotstavili vladi Nikaragve.` [15] Heritedž tvrdi da su, nakon dolaska FSLN-a na vlast, nikaragvanski Jevreji bili meta diskriminacije i suočeni sa fizičkim napadima, oduzimanjem imovine i proizvoljnim hapšenjima.[14] Međutim, istrage koje su sprovele Ujedinjene nacije, Organizacija američkih država i Pak Kristi između 1979. i 1983. opovrgle su navode o antisemitizmu. Nekim Jevrejima je imovina eksproprisana zbog saradnje sa režimom Somoze, ali ne zato što su bili Jevreji. Istaknuta Sandinista Herti Levites, koja je bila ministar turizma 1980-ih i gradonačelnik Managve 2000-ih, bila je jevrejskog porekla. [16][17][18] Amnesty International takođe je primetio brojna kršenja ljudskih prava od strane sandinističke vlade. Među onim što su pronašli jeste da su oni tvrdili da su civili „nestali“ nakon njihovog hapšenja, da su „građanska i politička prava“ suspendovana, da su pritvorenici uskraćeni za postupak, mučenje pritvorenika i „izveštaji o ubistvu onih koji su osumnjičeni da podržavaju vladine snage kontraša.`[19] Kontra rat[uredi | uredi izvor] Iako je Karterova administracija pokušala da sarađuje sa FSLN-om 1979. i 1980. godine, desničarska Reganova administracija podržala je snažnu antikomunističku strategiju za bavljenje Latinskom Amerikom, pa je pokušala izolovati Sandinistički režim.[1] Već 1980–1981, anti-sandinistički pokret, Kontrarevolucija ili samo Kontras, formirao se duž granice sa Hondurasom. Mnogi od početnih Kontraša bili su bivši pripadnici jedinice Nacionalne garde režima Somoze, a mnogi su i dalje bili odani Somozi, koji je živeo u izgnanstvu u Hondurasu.[1] Pored jedinica Kontraša koje su i dalje bile lojalne Somozi, FSLN je takođe počeo da se suočava sa protivljenjem pripadnika etničkih manjinskih grupa koje su naseljavale udaljenu Nikaragvu, regiju Obala komaraca duž Karipskog mora. Ove grupe su zahtevale veći udeo samoopredeljenja i / ili autonomije, ali FSLN je to odbio da odobri i počeo je da koristi prinudna premeštanja i oružanu silu kao odgovor na ove pritužbe.[1] Po stupanju na dužnost u januaru 1981. godine, Ronald Regan otkazao je širenje ekonomske pomoći Nikaragvi, [20] i 6. avgusta 1981. godine potpisao je Odluku o nacionalnoj bezbednosti broj 7, kojom se odobrava proizvodnja i otprema oružja u region, ali ne i njegovo razmeštanje.,.[21] Dana 17. novembra 1981. godine, predsednik Regan je potpisao Direktivu o nacionalnoj bezbednosti 17, odobravajući prikrivenu podršku anti-sandinističkim snagama.[22] Do 1982. godine kontrapke snage započele su izvršenje atentata na članove vlade Nikaragve, a 1983. godine kontraši su započeli veliku ofanzivu i CIA im je pomagala da postave mine u lukama Nikaragve kako bi sprečili dolazak stranih pošiljaka oružja.[23] Afera Iran-Kontra iz 1987. godine ponovo je Reganovu administraciju stavila u središte tajne podrške kontrašima. Izbori 1984. godine[uredi | uredi izvor] Izbori 1984. održani su 4. novembra. Od 1.551.597 građana registrovanih u julu, glasalo je 1.170.142 (75,41%). Ništavni glasovi su bili 6% od ukupnog broja. Međunarodni posmatrači proglasili su izbore slobodnim i poštenim,[24] uprkos tome što je Reganova administracija to proglasila „lažnom sovjetskom prevarom.`Na izborima je pobedio Danijel Ortega. Eskuipulas[uredi | uredi izvor] Mirovni sporazum iz Eskvipulasa bio je inicijativa sredinom 1980-ih za rešavanje vojnih sukoba koji su dugo godina mučili Centralnu Ameriku, a u nekim slučajevima (naročito Gvatemalu) decenijama. Izgrađen je na temeljima koje je postavila grupa Kontadora od 1983. do 1985. Sporazum je dobio ime za Eskvipulas, Gvatemala, gde su se održali inicijalni sastanci. Napore za lobiranje u američkom Kongresu pomogao je jedan od najboljih lobista Kapitol Hila, Vilijam C. Čejsi. U maju 1986. godine održan je sastanak Eskvipulas, kome je prisustvovalo pet predsednika Centralne Amerike. Dana 15. februara 1987, predsednik Kostarike, Oskar Arijas, podneo je Mirovni plan koji je evoluirao od ovog sastanka. Tokom 1986. i 1987. uspostavljen je Eskvipulasov proces, u kojem su se šefovi država Centralne Amerike dogovorili o ekonomskoj saradnji i okviru za mirno rešavanje sukoba. Sporazum Eskuipulas 2 proizašao je iz njega i potpisan je u Gvatemali od strane petorice predsednika 7. avgusta 1987. Eskvipulas 2 definisao je niz mera za promociju nacionalnog pomirenja, okončanje neprijateljstava, demokratizaciju, slobodne izbore, ukidanje svake pomoći neregularnim snagama, pregovore o kontroli naoružanja i pomoć izbeglicama. Takođe je postavio osnovu za međunarodne postupke verifikacije i obezbedio vremenski raspored za sprovođenje.

Harold Laski THE SOCIALIST TRADITION IN THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 1930 Retko Lepo očuvano Socijalistička tradicija u francuskoj revoluciji Harold Joseph Laski (30 June 1893 – 24 March 1950) was an English political theorist and economist. He was active in politics and served as the chairman of the British Labour Party from 1945 to 1946 and was a professor at the London School of Economics from 1926 to 1950. He first promoted pluralism by emphasising the importance of local voluntary communities such as trade unions. After 1930, he began to emphasize the need for a workers` revolution, which he hinted might be violent.[3] Laski`s position angered Labour leaders who promised a nonviolent democratic transformation. Laski`s position on democracy-threatening violence came under further attack from Prime Minister Winston Churchill in the 1945 general election, and the Labour Party had to disavow Laski, its own chairman.[4] Laski was one of Britain`s most influential intellectual spokesmen for Marxism in the interwar years.[citation needed] In particular, his teaching greatly inspired students, some of whom later became leaders of the newly independent nations in Asia and Africa. He was perhaps the most prominent intellectual in the Labour Party, especially for those on the hard left who shared his trust and hope in Joseph Stalin`s Soviet Union.[5] However, he was distrusted by the moderate Labour politicians, who were in charge[citation needed] such as Prime Minister Clement Attlee, and he was never given a major government position or a peerage. Born to a Jewish family, Laski was also a supporter of Zionism and supported the creation of a Jewish state.[6] Early life[edit] He was born in Manchester on 30 June 1893 to Nathan and Sarah Laski. Nathan Laski was a Lithuanian Jewish cotton merchant from Brest-Litovsk in what is now Belarus[7] and a leader of the Liberal Party, while his mother was born in Manchester to Polish Jewish parents.[8] He had a disabled sister, Mabel, who was one year younger. His elder brother was Neville Laski (the father of Marghanita Laski), and his cousin Neville Blond was the founder of the Royal Court Theatre and the father of the author and publisher Anthony Blond.[9] Harold attended the Manchester Grammar School. In 1911, he studied eugenics under Karl Pearson for six months at University College London (UCL). The same year, he met and married Frida Kerry, a lecturer of eugenics. His marriage to Frida, a Gentile and eight years his senior, antagonised his family. He also repudiated his faith in Judaism by claiming that reason prevented him from believing in God. After studying for a degree in history at New College, Oxford, he graduated in 1914. He was awarded the Beit memorial prize during his time at New College.[10] In April 1913, in the cause of women`s suffrage, he and a friend planted an explosive device in the men`s lavatory at Oxted railway station, Surrey: it exploded, but caused only slight damage.[11] Laski failed his medical eligibility tests and so missed fighting in World War I. After graduation, he worked briefly at the Daily Herald under George Lansbury. His daughter Diana was born in 1916.[10] Career[edit] Academic career[edit] In 1916, Laski was appointed as a lecturer of modern history at McGill University in Montreal and began to lecture at Harvard University. He also lectured at Yale in 1919 to 1920. For his outspoken support of the Boston Police Strike of 1919, Laski received severe criticism. He was briefly involved with the founding of The New School for Social Research in 1919,[12] where he also lectured.[13] Laski cultivated a large network of American friends centred at Harvard, whose law review he had edited. He was often invited to lecture in America and wrote for The New Republic. He became friends with Felix Frankfurter, Herbert Croly, Walter Lippmann, Edmund Wilson, and Charles A. Beard. His long friendship with Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was cemented by weekly letters, which were later published.[14] He knew many powerful figures and claimed to know many more. Critics have often commented on Laski`s repeated exaggerations and self-promotion, which Holmes tolerated. His wife commented that he was `half-man, half-child, all his life`.[15] Laski returned to England in 1920 and began teaching government at the London School of Economics (LSE). In 1926, he was made professor of political science at the LSE. Laski was an executive member of the socialist Fabian Society from 1922 to 1936. In 1936, he co-founded the Left Book Club along with Victor Gollancz and John Strachey. He was a prolific writer and produced a number of books and essays throughout the 1920s and the 1930s.[16] At the LSE in the 1930s, Laski developed a connection with scholars from the Institute for Social Research, now more commonly known as the Frankfurt School. In 1933, with almost all the Institute`s members in exile, Laski was among a number of British socialists, including Sidney Webb and RH Tawney, who arranged for the establishment of a London office for the Institute`s use. After the Institute moved to Columbia University in 1934, Laski was one of its sponsored guest lecturers invited to New York.[17] Laski also played a role in bringing Franz Neumann to join the Institute. After fleeing Germany almost immediately after Adolf Hitler`s rise to power, Neumann did graduate work in political science under Laski and Karl Mannheim at the LSE and wrote his dissertation on the rise and fall of the rule of law. It was on Laski`s recommendation that Neumann was then invited to join the Institute in 1936.[18] Teacher[edit] Laski was regarded as a gifted lecturer, but he would alienate his audience by humiliating those who asked questions. However, he was liked by his students, and was especially influential among the Asian and African students who attended the LSE.[15] Describing Laski`s approach, Kingsley Martin wrote in 1968: He was still in his late twenties and looked like a schoolboy. His lectures on the history of political ideas were brilliant, eloquent, and delivered without a note; he often referred to current controversies, even when the subject was Hobbes`s theory of sovereignty.[19] Ralph Miliband, another of Laski`s student, praised his teaching: His lectures taught more, much more than political science. They taught a faith that ideas mattered, that knowledge was important and its pursuit exciting.... His seminars taught tolerance, the willingness to listen although one disagreed, the values of ideas being confronted. And it was all immense fun, an exciting game that had meaning, and it was also a sieve of ideas, a gymnastics of the mind carried on with vigour and directed unobtrusively with superb craftsmanship. I think I know now why he gave himself so freely. Partly it was because he was human and warm and that he was so interested in people. But mainly it was because he loved students, and he loved students because they were young. Because he had a glowing faith that youth was generous and alive, eager and enthusiastic and fresh. That by helping young people he was helping the future and bringing nearer that brave world in which he so passionately believed.[20] Ideology and political convictions[edit] Laski`s early work promoted pluralism, especially in the essays collected in Studies in the Problem of Sovereignty (1917), Authority in the Modern State (1919), and The Foundations of Sovereignty (1921). He argued that the state should not be considered supreme since people could and should have loyalties to local organisations, clubs, labour unions and societies. The state should respect those allegiances and promote pluralism and decentralisation.[21] Laski became a proponent of Marxism and believed in a planned economy based on the public ownership of the means of production. Instead of, as he saw it, a coercive state, Laski believed in the evolution of co-operative states that were internationally bound and stressed social welfare.[22] He also believed that since the capitalist class would not acquiesce in its own liquidation, the co-operative commonwealth was not likely to be attained without violence. However, he also had a commitment to civil liberties, free speech and association and representative democracy.[23] Initially, he believed that the League of Nations would bring about an `international democratic system`. However, from the late 1920s, his political beliefs became radicalised, and he believed that it was necessary to go beyond capitalism to `transcend the existing system of sovereign states`. Laski was dismayed by the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939 and wrote a preface to the Left Book Club collection criticising it, titled Betrayal of the Left.[24] Between the beginning of World War II in 1939 and the Attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, which drew the United States into the war, Laski was a prominent voice advocating American support for the Allies, became a prolific author of articles in the American press, frequently undertook lecture tours in the US and influenced prominent American friends including Felix Frankfurter, Edward R. Murrow, Max Lerner, and Eric Sevareid.[25] In his last years, he was disillusioned by the Cold War and the 1948 Czechoslovak coup d`état.[10][16][23] George Orwell described him thus: `A socialist by allegiance, and a liberal by temperament`.[15] Laski tried to mobilise Britain`s academics, teachers and intellectuals behind the socialist cause, the Socialist League being one effort. He had some success but that element typically found itself marginalised in the Labour Party.[26] Zionism and anti-Catholicism[edit] Laski was always a Zionist at heart and always felt himself a part of the Jewish nation, but he viewed traditional Jewish religion as restrictive.[6] In 1946, Laski said in a radio address that the Catholic Church opposed democracy,[27] and said that `it is impossible to make peace with the Roman Catholic Church. It is one of the permanent enemies of all that is decent in the human spirit`.[28] In his final years he became critical of what he saw as extremism in Israel at the outbreak of the 1947-48 Civil War, arguing that they had not prevailed `upon an indefensible group among them to desist from using indefensible means for an end to which they were never proportionate.`[29] Political career[edit] Laski`s main political role came as a writer and lecturer on every topic of concern to the left at that time, including socialism, capitalism, working conditions, eugenics,[30] women`s suffrage, imperialism, decolonisation, disarmament, human rights, worker education and Zionism. He was tireless in his speeches and pamphleteering and was always on call to help a Labour candidate. In between, he served on scores of committees and carried a full load as a professor and advisor to students.[31] Laski plunged into Labour Party politics on his return to London in 1920. In 1923, he turned down the offer of a Parliament seat and cabinet position by Ramsay MacDonald and also a seat in the Lords. He felt betrayed by MacDonald in the crisis of 1931 and decided that a peaceful, democratic transition to socialism would be blocked by the violence of the opposition. In 1932, Laski joined the Socialist League, a left-wing faction of the Labour Party.[32] In 1937, he was involved in the failed attempt by the Socialist League in co-operation with the Independent Labour Party (ILP) and the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) to form a Popular Front to bring down the Conservative government of Neville Chamberlain. In 1934 to 1945, he served as an alderman in the Fulham Borough Council and also the chairman of the libraries committee. In 1937, the Socialist League was rejected by the Labour Party and folded. He was elected as a member of the Labour Party`s National Executive Committee and he remained a member until 1949. In 1944, he chaired the Labour Party Conference and served as the party`s chair in 1945 to 1946.[21] Declining role[edit] During the war, he supported Prime Minister Winston Churchill`s coalition government and gave countless speeches to encourage the battle against Nazi Germany. He suffered a nervous breakdown brought about by overwork. During the war, he repeatedly feuded with other Labour figures and with Churchill on matters great and small. He steadily lost his influence.[33] In 1942, he drafted the Labour Party pamphlet The Old World and the New Society calling for the transformation of Britain into a socialist state by allowing its government to retain wartime central economic planning and price controls into the postwar era.[34] In the 1945 general election campaign, Churchill warned that Laski, as the Labour Party chairman, would be the power behind the throne in an Attlee government. While speaking for the Labour candidate in Nottinghamshire on 16 June 1945, Laski said, `If Labour did not obtain what it needed by general consent, we shall have to use violence even if it means revolution`. The next day, accounts of Laski`s speech appeared, and the Conservatives attacked the Labour Party for its chairman`s advocacy of violence. Laski filed a libel suit against the Daily Express newspaper, which backed the Conservatives. The defence showed that over the years Laski had often bandied about loose threats of `revolution`. The jury found for the newspaper within forty minutes of deliberations.[35] Attlee gave Laski no role in the new Labour government. Even before the libel trial, Laski`s relationship with Attlee had been strained. Laski had once called Attlee `uninteresting and uninspired` in the American press and even tried to remove him by asking for Attlee`s resignation in an open letter. He tried to delay the Potsdam Conference until after Attlee`s position was clarified. He tried to bypass Attlee by directly dealing with Churchill.[16] Laski tried to pre-empt foreign policy decisions by laying down guidelines for the new Labour government. Attlee rebuked him: You have no right whatever to speak on behalf of the Government. Foreign affairs are in the capable hands of Ernest Bevin. His task is quite sufficiently difficult without the irresponsible statements of the kind you are making ... I can assure you there is widespread resentment in the Party at your activities and a period of silence on your part would be welcome.[36] Though he continued to work for the Labour Party until he died, he never regained political influence. His pessimism deepened as he disagreed with the anti-Soviet policies of the Attlee government in the emerging Cold War, and he was profoundly disillusioned with the anti-Soviet direction of American foreign policy.[21] Death[edit] Laski contracted influenza and died in London on 24 March 1950, aged 56.[21] Legacy[edit] Laski`s biographer Michael Newman wrote: Convinced that the problems of his time were too urgent for leisurely academic reflection, Laski wrote too much, overestimated his influence, and sometimes failed to distinguish between analysis and polemic. But he was a serious thinker and a charismatic personality whose views have been distorted because he refused to accept Cold War orthodoxies.[37] Blue plaque, 5 Addison Bridge Place, West Kensington, London Columbia professor Herbert A. Deane has identified five distinct phases of Laski`s thought that he never integrated. The first three were pluralist (1914–1924), Fabian (1925–1931), and Marxian (1932–1939). There followed a `popular-front` approach (1940–1945), and in the last years (1946–1950) near-incoherence and multiple contradictions.[38] Laski`s long-term impact on Britain is hard to quantify. Newman notes that `It has been widely held that his early books were the most profound and that he subsequently wrote far too much, with polemics displacing serious analysis.`[21] In an essay published a few years after Laski`s death, Professor Alfred Cobban of University College London observed: Among recent political thinkers, it seems to me that one of the very few, perhaps the only one, who followed the traditional pattern, accepted the problems presented by his age, and devoted himself to the attempt to find an answer to them was Harold Laski. Though I am bound to say that I do not agree with his analysis or his conclusions, I think that he was trying to do the right kind of thing. And this, I suspect, is the reason why, practically alone among political thinkers in Great Britain, he exercised a positive influence over both political thought and action.[39] Laski had a major long-term impact on support for socialism in India and other countries in Asia and Africa. He taught generations of future leaders at the LSE, including India`s Jawaharlal Nehru. According to John Kenneth Galbraith, `the centre of Nehru`s thinking was Laski` and `India the country most influenced by Laski`s ideas`.[23] It is mainly due to his influence that the LSE has a semi-mythological status in India.[citation needed] He was steady in his unremitting advocacy of the independence of India. He was a revered figure to Indian students at the LSE. One Prime Minister of India[who?] said `in every meeting of the Indian Cabinet there is a chair reserved for the ghost of Professor Harold Laski`.[40][41] His recommendation of K. R. Narayanan (later President of India) to Nehru (then Prime Minister of India), resulted in Nehru appointing Narayanan to the Indian Foreign Service.[42] In his memory, the Indian government established The Harold Laski Institute of Political Science in 1954 at Ahmedabad.[21] Speaking at a meeting organised in Laski`s memory by the Indian League at London on 3 May 1950, Nehru praised him as follows: It is difficult to realise that Professor Harold Laski is no more. Lovers of freedom all over the world pay tribute to the magnificent work that he did. We in India are particularly grateful for his staunch advocacy of India`s freedom, and the great part he played in bringing it about. At no time did he falter or compromise on the principles he held dear, and a large number of persons drew splendid inspiration from him. Those who knew him personally counted that association as a rare privilege, and his passing away has come as a great sorrow and a shock.[43] Laski also educated the outspoken Chinese intellectual and journalist Chu Anping at LSE. Anping was later prosecuted by the Chinese Communist regime of the 1960s.[44] Laski was an inspiration for Ellsworth Toohey, the antagonist in Ayn Rand`s novel The Fountainhead (1943).[45] The posthumously published Journals of Ayn Rand, edited by David Harriman, include a detailed description of Rand attending a New York lecture by Laski, as part of gathering material for her novel, following which she changed the physical appearance of the fictional Toohey to fit that of the actual Laski.[46] Laski had a tortuous writing style. George Orwell, in his 1946 essay `Politics and the English Language` cited, as his first example of poor writing, a 53-word sentence with five negatives from Laski`s `Essay in Freedom of Expression`: `I am not, indeed, sure whether it is not true to say that the Milton who once seemed not unlike a seventeenth-century Shelley had not become, out of an experience ever more bitter in each year, more alien (sic) to the founder of that Jesuit sect which nothing could induce him to tolerate.` (Orwell parodied it with ` A not unblack dog was chasing a not unsmall rabbit across a not ungreen field.`) However, 67 of the Labour MPs elected in 1945 had been taught by Laski as university students, at Workers` Educational Association classes or on courses for wartime officers.[47] When Laski died, the Labour MP Ian Mikardo commented: `His mission in life was to translate the religion of the universal brotherhood of man into the language of political economy.`[48] Partial bibliography[edit] Basis of Vicarious Liability 1916 26 Yale Law Journal 105 Studies in the Problem of Sovereignty 1917 Authority in the Modern State 1919, ISBN 1-58477-275-1 Political Thought in England from Locke to Bentham 1920 The Foundations of Sovereignty, and other essays 1921 Karl Marx 1921 The state in the new social order 1922 The position of parties and the right of dissolution 1924 A Grammar of Politics, 1925 Socialism and freedom. Westminster: The Fabian Society. 1925. The problem of a second chamber 1925 Communism, 1927 The British Cabinet : a study of its personnel, 1801-1924 1928 Liberty in the Modern State, 1930 `The Dangers of Obedience and Other Essays` 1930 The limitations of the expert 1931 Democracy in Crisis 1933 The State in Theory and Practice, 1935, The Viking Press The Rise of European Liberalism: An Essay in Interpretation, 1936 US title: The Rise of Liberalism: The Philosophy of a Business Civilization, 1936 The American Presidency, 1940 Where Do We Go From Here? A Proclamation of British Democracy 1940 Reflections on the Revolution of our Time , 1943 Faith, Reason, and Civilisation, 1944 The American Democracy, 1948, The Viking Press Communist Manifesto: Socialist Landmark: A New Appreciation Written for the Labour Party (1948)[49] sloboda u modernoj državi politička gramatika