Few historical works focus on the period of German history immediately following World War I. Fewer still inquire about how the Majority Social Democratic Party (MSPD) regime exercised power. This paper looks at the rhetoric in the MSPD's party organ Vorwärts to understand how they presented themselves to the German people following the collapse of the Imperial regime. The official party organ provides unique insight into how the MSPD regime transitioned from a party in opposition to leading the provisional government and how it justified holding that power. The official party newspaper of the radical Spartakusbund coupled with the conservative Neue Preußische Kreuzzeitung provide a context to further understand the rhetoric of the MSPD and how the opponents of the majority socialist regime responded to the interim government. The MSPD was in a difficult position after the collapse of the Imperial regime, which was exacerbated by a hostile rhetorical environment. Upon assuming power, the MSPD was hesitant and defensive but grew into their position of leadership, winning the largest portion of votes in the January 19th election of 1919 as well as the early elections of the Weimar republic. / History

En 1989, la Pologne, la Hongrie, la Tchécoslovaquie et la République démocratique allemande (RDA) furent secouées par des mouvements de protestations qui précipitèrent la dissolution de leur régime communiste. Il est souvent admis, dans l’historiographie comme dans la mémoire populaire, que les intellectuels, dont plusieurs écrivains, ont joué un rôle déterminant lors de ces bouleversements. Or, l’analyse de la révolution en Allemagne de l’Est et des prises de position de son intelligentsia littéraire démontre qu’une telle conclusion s’applique mal à cet État : les auteurs phares de la RDA, qui se sont pourtant présentés pendant et après la révolution comme des victimes et des opposants au régime, n’ont jamais partagé les revendications anticommunistes de leurs concitoyens et ont conservé un discours socialiste. Ce mémoire entend expliquer cette réaction particulière des écrivains les mieux établis de l’Allemagne de l’Est – soit Christa Wolf, Heiner Müller, Stefan Heym, Volker Braun et Christoph Hein. En étudiant leurs textes non fictifs et en analysant la relation qu’ils entretenaient avec le régime, la population et l’idéologie promue en RDA, nous démontrerons que ces auteurs avaient développé, avant l’ouverture du mur de Berlin, une stratégie d’action alliant loyauté socialiste et critique de l’autoritarisme, ce qui leur avait permis de cumuler un important capital social et culturel. À l’automne 1989 et lors du processus de réunification allemande, l’intelligentsia littéraire a en fait agi en fonction de cette même stratégie ; celle-ci, toutefois, n’était pas adaptée aux nouvelles conditions sociales. / In 1989, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and the German Democratic Republic (GDR) were shaken by protest movements that precipitated the dissolution of their communist regimes. It is often accepted in historiography as in the popular memory that intellectuals, amongst whom many writers, played a key role in these revolutionary changes. However, analysis of the revolution in East Germany and of its literary intelligentsia’s stance demonstrates that such a conclusion cannot apply to this state: the leading authors of the GDR, who presented themselves during and after the revolution as opponents and victims of the regime, never shared the anti-communist claims of the citizens, and maintained a socialist discourse. This master’s thesis intends to explain this particular reaction of the most influential East German writers – especially Christa Wolf, Heiner Müller, Stefan Heym, Volker Braun and Christoph Hein. By studying their non-fictional texts and analysing the relationship they had with the regime, the people and the ideology promoted in the GDR, we will demonstrate that these authors had developed, before the opening of the Berlin Wall, a strategy that combined a socialist loyalty and a critic of the authoritarianism, which allowed them to accumulate significant social and cultural capital. In the Fall of 1989 and during the process of German reunification, the literary intelligentsia acted accordingly to that same strategy which, however, was not adapted to the new social conditions.

Este trabalho tem como objetivo propor um comentário acerca do complexo Fatzer de Bertolt Brecht. Trata-se, por um lado, da leitura do conjunto de fragmentos trabalhados por Brecht entre 1926 e 1930, divididos em documento e comentário, que não foram publicados durante a vida do autor. Entendemos que neste conjunto podemos encontrar, em primeiro lugar, um registro do processo de formação artística e política do autor, sua passagem para o marxismo ocorrida na república de Weimar nos anos vinte. Em segundo lugar, identificamos no material o método dialético de configuração artística de Brecht em ação, ao qual ele uma vez referiu-se como o mais alto padrão técnico. Por outro lado, propomos uma leitura do fragmento Fatzer publicado no primeiro dos seus Versuche em 1930. A nossa hipótese é que este pode ser entendido como uma obra de agitprop brechtiana em defesa da Frente Única. / The goal of this work is to propose a commentary about Brecht\'s Fatzer complex. On one hand, it is the reading of the entirety of fragments worked by Bertolt Brecht between 1926 and 1930, divided in document and commentary, unpublished during the author\'s life. We understand that in the complex we can find, in the first place, a register of Brechts artistical and political formation process, the \"way\" into Marxism that occurred in the Weimar Republic in the twenties. In the second place, we identify on this material Brecht\'s dialectical method of artistic configuration in action, which he has once referred to as \"the highest technical standard\". On the other hand, we propose a reading of the Fatzer fragment that was published in the first of his Versuche in 1930. Our hypothesis is that it can be understood as a brechtian agitprop work in defense of the United Front.

Cette thèse présente l’ingénierie sociale de l’économiste, sociologue et philosophe autrichien Otto Neurath (1882-1945). Une première partie s’intéresse aux aspects biographiques qui éclairent sa volonté d’une intervention ciblée et planifiée dans l’ordre social. La technique de l’histoire conceptuelle permet ensuite de mettre à jours les représentations mentales à l’œuvre dans l’ingénierie sociale : le topos de la « modernité » – avec une nouvelle conception de la société, du temps et du rôle potentiel de la société civile – suggère la possible gestion du groupe social selon les principes d’une rationalisation de la vie. La Gesellschaftstechnik de Neurath est enfin reconstruite par la méthode de l’histoire intellectuelle, qui révèle l’importance du contexte viennois, des dynamiques à l’œuvre dans la Révolution de Novembre et des questionnements économiques du moment dans l’élaboration de sa pensée et de son eudémonisme social. / This thesis presents the social engineering as devised by Otto Neurath (1882-1945), an Austrian economist, sociologist, and philosopher. The introductory first part highlights certain issues of his biography which turned out significant in his subsequent idea of the necessity of a targeted and planned intervention in the social order. In part two, the technique of conceptual history reveals the mental representations at work in social engineering : the topos of "modernity" – built on a new concept of society, of time, and of the potential role of civil society – suggests the feasibility of managing a social group according to principles of rationalization of life.Neurath’s Gesellschaftstechnik is then reconstructed by the method of intellectual history, which shows the Viennese context, the dynamics involved in the 1918-19 German Revolution, and the economic concerns of the time as being essential for the development of his thought and his programme of social eudaimonism.