The thesis proposes a comparative textual research on Hungarian and Romanian cinema by setting up a model that informs the implicit cinematic reflection on socialism in film. By establishing two aesthetic categories – horizontal and vertical enclosure –, the thesis argues that the spatial structure of the narratives reveals and alludes to the oppressive policy of the Hungarian and Romanian socialist regimes. The first part of the research scrutinises the space in Romanian cinema, and investigates the birth of the vertical enclosure. The analysis focuses on the spatial representation of Bucharest, that is the claustrophobic illustration of the urban landscape and its space depicted by the tools of notorious surveillance on screen. As argued in the thesis, the architectural forms and their film representations build up a spatial constellation identical to Bentham’s Panopticon discussed by Michel Foucault. The second part of the investigation concentrates on Hungarian cinema and the evolution of horizontal enclosure in film. Through textual analysis of the selected films that are set on the Great Hungarian Plain, the thesis discusses the allegorical use of space during and after socialism. Therefore, while concentrating on the circularity of the location and the mise-en-scène of the films – that refer to the isolation and indefiniteness of space – the author argues that the directors recall the parabolic language of the cinematic corpus of the socialist epoch. As concluded by the work, the contemporary art cinema of Romania and Hungary both reference socialism by using space as the main device for the implicit textual reflections. In this way, horizontal and vertical enclosure also emphasise the revival of the forms of the socialist aesthetics.

Orientador: Caio Navarro de Toledo / Tese (doutorado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciencias Humanas / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-10T16:37:59Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Cabrera_JoseRoberto_D.pdf: 1544985 bytes, checksum: be6a043e0d224d0065cbceec4d9f556d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008 / Resumo: Esta tese apresenta o modo como o Partido Comunista do Brasil reagiu à chamada crise do socialismo e aos eventos que puseram fim à União Soviética. O PC do Brasil firmou-se historicamente como organização marxista-leninista vinculado à tradição da Internacional Comunista. Sua identidade política e ideológica consolidou-se em oposição ao chamado revisionismo contemporâneo, identificado com os rumos empreendidos na URSS após o XX Congresso do PCUS. Este processo aproximou-o das críticas do Partido Comunista Chinês e do Partido do Trabalho da Albânia. Na década de 1980 a crise soviética foi avaliada como o resultado da crescente integração da URSS no mundo capitalista e das políticas 'social-imperialistas¿ por ela aplicadas, caracterizando o regime soviético como um tipo de capitalismo de Estado. Em 1991, na medida em que a crise se expandiu sobre a Albânia, exemplo de coerência e de fidelidade ao marxismo-leninismo na opinião do PC do B, as formulações teóricas em torno do revisionismo passaram a ser reavaliadas. No seu VIII Congresso em 1992, o PC do B inovou ao criticar a experiência bolchevique. Reafirmou sua adesão ao marxismo-leninismo e ao socialismo, traçando caminho distinto de várias outras organizações comunistas pelo mundo. Durante este processo, o PC do Brasil oscilou entre uma abordagem que apontava a luta de classes como responsável fundamental das transformações operadas no interior do regime soviético, enquanto de outro lado, manifestava uma tendência economicista, situando os problemas do socialismo em torno do imperativo do desenvolvimento das forças produtivas. Em certa medida, desviou-se do debate desses temas fundamentais ou, quando o fez, tratou-os de maneira marginal, mantendo um conjunto perguntas sem respostas e submetendo constantemente as formulações teóricas às exigências da conjuntura política, potencializadas por uma institucionalização crescente no sistema político / Abstract: This thesis intend discuss the used ways by the Communist Party of Brazil (PC of B) in order to respond to the socialism¿s crisis and to the events that finished with the Soviet Union. The PC of B historically affirmed itself as a Marxist-Leninist organization tied to the International Communist tradition. Its politics and ideological identity was consolidated as opposition to the called ¿contemporary revisionism¿, at the same time the cited studied party identified itself with the USSR¿s route with was adopted after the XX Congress of the Soviet Communist Party. This process brought its position to Chinese Communist Party and the Labour Party of Albania¿s critics. In the eighties, the Soviet crisis was evaluated as a consequence of the progressive integration of the USSR in the capitalist world, and as its social-imperialists practices resulted in to characterize the Soviet regime as a model of capitalism¿s state. In 1991, the Soviet crisis has expanded to the Albania (example of coherency and loyalty to Marxism-Leninism by PC of B evaluation); as result of it, the theoretical formulations around the revisionism starting to be reevaluated. In its VIII Congress (1992), the PC do B innovated when criticized the Bolshevik¿s experience. It reaffirmed its loyalty to Marxism-Leninism and socialism, adopting particular way in opposition to several other communist organizations around the world. During its process, the PC of B ranged between approaches that have pointed the struggle of classes as a fundamental responsible by changes that occurred in the Soviet regime, while on the other hand, approaches that used an economics¿ tendency evaluation, putting the socialism problems as the consequence of development of the productive forces and its imperatives. Amazing piece of fortune, or not, the PC of B got out from discussion about these essential issues, or, when did it, approached them superficially, using a marginal way, keeping stronger questions without answers and keeping the theoretical formulations constantly under the local political demands, enhanced by a growing institutionalization in the political system / Doutorado / Ciencia Politica / Doutor em Ciência Política

O presente trabalho se propõe a refletir acerca da trajetória e pensamento geopolítico e estratégico do acadêmico e analista político Zbigniew Brzezinski, incluindo o período em que atuou como Conselheiro de Segurança Nacional do presidente norte-americano Jimmy Carter entre 1977 e 1980. Como estrategista focado na política externa dos EUA, sobretudo em relação à Eurásia, ele teve durante toda a sua carreira um posicionamento muito intenso e controverso em relação à União Soviética e à Rússia, sobretudo baseado nas teorias geopolíticas clássicas de John. H. Mackinder e Nicholas J. Spykman. O enfoque deste estudo é relacionado às continuidades e mudanças em seu pensamento estratégico, principalmente buscando compreender melhor suas percepções sobre o papel e alinhamento político global da Rússia. Pretende-se, desta forma, aprofundar o entendimento e posicionamento de Brzezinski em relação ao pertencimento cultural e estratégico da Rússia na Eurásia e no mundo. / This paper aims to reflect on the geopolitical and strategic thought and trajectory of the academic and political strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski, including his period as National Security Advisor of North-American President Jimmy Carter between 1977 and 1980. As a strategist focused on the foreign policy of the USA, particularly regarding Eurasia, he had during his whole career some very intense and controversial positions regarding the Soviet Union and Russia, especially based on the classic geopolitical theories of John H. Mackinder and Nicholas J. Spykjman. The focus of this study is related to the continuities and changes of his strategic thought, seeking mainly to better understand his perceptions on the role and global political alignment of Russia. It is intended therefore to elaborate on Brzezinskis understanding and positions regarding Russias cultural and strategic belonging in Eurasia and the world.

The work focuses on the issue of revisionism of Soviet history in Anglo-Saxon historiography. The aim is to analyze the causes and circumstances of Revizionism, its origins and the character of the dispute between revisionist and totalitarianist interpretation of Soviet history. It also deals with the question of whether one of the interpretations has achieved dominance in its field. Key Words Revisionism, totalitarism, historiography, Cold War, Soviet Union

The present work deals with the literary-theoretical work of the Petrograd Formalists - those who participated in the OPOiaZ in the 1910s and early 1920s - with a focus on that oflurii Tynianov. It attempts to unpack the representation of their literary-theoretical work as 'science' [nauka] by exploring how that category was constructed in dialogue with their evolving conception of literature. It is argued in the first chapter that, for the duration of their project, they conceptualized the 'language of nauka' - and their own prose by association - in accordance with the laws of their theory of language. It is argued in the second chapter that, as the Formalists developed a theory of literary history as an endless succession of 'revolutions' in the period 1919- 24, they tried to make their theorization of that process take a correspondingly revolutionary form, one in which the sciences of nature and those of history would become one. It is argued in the third chapter that, as the Formalists came to theorize the connection between literature and life in the period 1924-30, they practised a new 'type' of nauka in the form of the authorial collection of articles, one in which their own work was historicized in a 'literary' manner. It is concluded that, for the OPOiaZ, nauka came into being as a function of its object: as the Formalists transformed their conception of literature, their realization of nauka was correspondingly transformed. The conclusion then problematizes the categorization of Formalism as a purely 'scientific', extra-'literary' movement, since emphasis is placed on their authorship of that categorization, and raises broader questions about the origin of modem 'literary theory'.

No description available.

Even with the end of the Cold War, the question, Were the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in an action-reaction arms race? remains important and controversial. The bulk of empirical mathematical arms race research suggests that the US and USSR were not so engaged. Indeed, most such research into the matter suggests that US arms acquisitions were driven overwhelmingly by internal or domestic forces, as were Soviet arms acquisitions. Given the longstanding political, economic and military rivalry, between the US and USSR, the finding that they were not engaged in an arms race is perplexing. This is particularly so with respect to nuclear weapons acquisitions. Orthodox nuclear deterrence theory clearly posits that the attempt by each side to maintain a balance of nuclear forces with the other and hence deter the other from launching a first-strike should result in an action-reaction nuclear arms race. Why, then, does the overwhelming mass of quantitative research suggest that the opposite was true, in practice, in the US-Soviet case? The problem, in part, has been that researchers have been using underspecified mathematical models of action-reaction arms race interaction. The most famous of these models is Richardson’s 1960 action-reaction model. Researchers have long been aware that Richardson’s model is underspecified and as such that it may not be capable of revealing the true nature of US-Soviet military interaction. Since the late 1960s, arms race researchers have attempted to move beyond Richardson’s simple arms race specification. Several new approaches to arms race analysis have subsequently emerged: the game theoretic approach, the economic (stock adjustment) approach, and the expectations (adaptive, extrapolative, and rational) approach. Taken individually, neither of these approaches has, however, yielded much fruit. In this dissertation, the game, stock adjustment, and rational expectations approaches were combined for the first time into a single, more comprehensive, analytical approach and a new action-reaction arms race model was derived, which we have named the GSR Model. In addition, it was argued that a new approach was needed for testing arms race models. Arms races are generally seen as competitions of total armed versus total armed might. Arms race models have, accordingly, been tested against data on states’ annual military expenditures. We argued instead that an arms race is made of several subraces, the object of each subrace being a specific weapons system and a specific counter weapons system, deployed by an opponent and designed to thwart the former’s political and military effect. Models should, then, be tested for each subrace in a given arms race, that is, against data on weapons system-counter weapons system deployment levels. Time frames for the analysis of a given weapons system-counter weapons system competition should be set to accord with the period in which those systems were dominant in the military calculations of the competing states. In effect, we have specified an alternative approach to mathematical arms race analysis, the micro approach to mathematical arms race analysis. The GSR Model was tested against data on annual US and Soviet strategic nuclear warhead deployment levels, — specifically, those onboard ICBMs (1960-71) and submarines (1972-87). The GSR model was also tested against annual US-Soviet aggregate strategic nuclear warhead deployment data (ICBM, SLBM and bomber based totals), 1967-84. Estimates of the GSR model suggest that the US and USSR were in fact engaged in an action-reaction arms race over submarine launched nuclear warheads. Regression analysis also indicates that the US and USSR strongly interacted, asymmetrically, over ICBM based nuclear warheads. There appears to have been no interaction over aggregate warhead deployments. Finally, the implications of these findings for the maintenance of a stable nuclear deterrent were discussed. / Arts, Faculty of / Political Science, Department of / Graduate

This dissertation focuses on religious gatherings in communist Romania and the Soviet Union, 1943-1989. Church was one of the few opportunities for voluntary associational life and is invaluable for the study of power, ideology, and belonging in an everyday social setting. This project is based on archival documents and memoirs, uncovering how state officials and religious representatives struggled to establish religious practice that would be acceptable to all. Although ideologically atheist, state officials regarded some religious gatherings as acceptable and others unacceptable, but not due to utterances of beliefs or performance of traditional sacraments, but because of social aspects: how people related to one another, what kinds of people came, the settings of the gatherings, and affective characteristics like enthusiasm, engagement, and authenticity. Even though believers participated in religious gatherings for their own reasons, state officials policed them as contests for mobilization. This project compares the cases of the Romanian Orthodox Church and Reformed Church of the Transylvanian region of Romania and the Russian Orthodox Church and the Baptist Church in the Moscow region of the Soviet Union. Based on comparisons, the role of a Church's culture in shaping church-state relations becomes clear. Officials largely considered traditional Orthodox hierarchy and rituals as religiously unproblematic, but they underestimated the power of such features of Orthodoxy to endure and mobilize successive generations. The hierarchical nature of the Orthodox Churches did not preclude spirited negotiations over acceptable Orthodox religiosity, but non-conforming or innovating priests were marginalized relatively easily. Protestant Churches have had a more entrenched custom of decentralization in governance and Scriptural interpretation, factors which presented officials with difficulty in centralizing the management of such churches and which at times led to protracted interpersonal battles and inner-church divisions. One such case sparked the Romanian Revolution in 1989. Officials in Romania and the Soviet Union handled the problem of religion very similarly in defining the acceptable limits of religious activity in practice, but virulent attacks on religion in the Soviet Union prior to WWII made for a stronger lingering religious antagonism there after the War than in Romania, where Orthodoxy was at times incorporated into the state’s nationalist discourse.

Ideas of childhood and citizenship stood at the center of the Soviet Union’s empire-building project during the 1920s and 1930s. After the 1917 Revolution the Bolsheviks were faced with the challenge of establishing a new state structure and governing a vast territory inherited from its tsarist predecessor. In the early years of the Soviet project, new leaders enlisted a cadre of professionals tasked with not only creating the norms of childhood and the everyday, but also implementing policies to modernize habits and values of the empire’s younger citizens. To understand how children became a prime focus of Soviet imperial and ethno-cultural politics, my dissertation employs discourse analysis and compares the ways in which Soviet imperial policies were implemented in two ethnically different regions: the Buddhist Republic of Kalmykia as the colonial case study and Moscow as the Metropole. The current project examines newspapers, treatises, and inspectors’ reports over the span of twenty years. It finds that the Bolsheviks’ initial values and discourses in the realm of children’s education, health, leisure and nutrition, all which were scientifically designed to transform children into ideal Soviet and modern citizens, changed over time as a result of the competing ideologies among local elites and the challenges they faced while intervening in children’s everyday lives. The most significant conclusion in this dissertation reveals that, contrary to previous scholarly arguments, the modernization projects that took place in Moscow and Kalmykia were more similar in the challenges and outcomes that local officials faced when implementing state policies.

Orientador: Liliana Rolfsen Petrilli Segnini / Tese (doutorado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-27T10:51:48Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Lucas_MarcilioRodrigues_D.pdf: 3043330 bytes, checksum: a0f2bdab5bee59caf15b47e518ab7ad8 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015 / Resumo: Este trabalho analisa dilemas do marxismo em torno da questão da racionalização do trabalho no século XX, especialmente no período entreguerras, quando se difundia pelo mundo capitalista os princípios tayloristas de organização científica do trabalho. Tais dilemas se relacionam ao fato de que o desenvolvimento da grande indústria moderna e a difusão dos princípios tayloristas permitiram uma grande elevação da produtividade do trabalho, ao mesmo tempo em que exacerbaram a condição subordinada dos trabalhadores no interior do processo de produção. Essa dinâmica colocou problemas para os movimentos operários e o pensamento marxista, tanto no que se refere às estratégias e possibilidades de resistência ao incremento da subordinação e da exploração sobre a força de trabalho, quanto em relação aos desafios teóricos e práticos contidos na tarefa de distinção entre os elementos potencialmente positivos desse processo de produção e os traços degradantes de sua exploração capitalista. As dificuldades se revelaram de forma mais dramática no caso da experiência revolucionária russa, na qual o horizonte aberto para a emancipação dos trabalhadores se chocava com a necessidade imediata de organizar e desenvolver o aparato produtivo frágil e deficiente. Por isso, esta pesquisa se concentra sobre o conjunto de problemas e experiências verificado na sociedade soviética, desde as formulações de Lenin a respeito do taylorismo, passando pelas tentativas de concretização de um "taylorismo soviético" na década de 1920, até o surgimento do stakhanovismo durante o período stalinista, em 1935, formando um movimento de operários que obtinham recordes de produção e reivindicavam, como princípio, uma racionalização do trabalho fundada em propostas e iniciativas dos próprios trabalhadores. A hipótese principal defendida em relação a essas experiências é que a estratégia de incorporação do taylorismo carregava limites incontornáveis do ponto de vista da emancipação dos trabalhadores, mas, por outro lado, o seu abandono no momento da ascensão stalinista representou um retrocesso e não um avanço, já que engendrou uma dinâmica em que a exaltação dos stakhanovistas, como "heróis do trabalho", obscurecia a formação de uma organização despótica e ineficiente da produção, cujos traços essenciais permaneceram até a dissolução do regime / Abstract: This thesis analyses Marxism¿s dilemmas around the question of the labor rationalization in the 20th century, specifically on the interwar period, when was diffused on the capitalist world the Taylor's principles of scientific organization of work. These dilemmas were associated with the modern industry development and the diffusion of the Taylor¿s principle. These facts allowed a huge increase of the work productivity causing at the same time an exacerbation of the worker¿s subordination condition inside the productive process. This dynamic put some problems for the workers movement and for the Marxist thought. Whether to the resistance strategies and possibilities against subordination increase and against work force exploitation, whether to the theoretical and practical challenges linked with the task of making a distinction between the potentially positive factors of this productive process and the degraded traits of the capitalist exploitation of this. The dilemmas were shown in a more dramatic way in the Russian¿s revolutionary experience, in which the possibility for worker¿s emancipation collided with the immediate necessity of organize and develop the productive resource, which was fragile and low. Considering all these facts, this research focused on all problems and experiences verified in the soviet society since Lenin¿s formulations about taylorism, going through concretion efforts to stablish a "soviet taylorism" in 1920, until the raising of Stakhanovism during the Stalinist period in 1935. In that year was formed a worker¿s movement that broken productive records and claimed, as a principle, a labor rationalization rooted on proposals and initiatives of the workers by themselves. The main hypothesis defended about these experiences was that the attempt of taylorism incorporation brought unsolvable limits to the worker's emancipation matters, but on the other hand, the renunciation of this attempt during Stalinist rising, meant a regression instead an improvement. It happened because was engendered a dynamic in which the Stakhanovist¿s exaltation as "heroes of the work" obscured the formation of a despotic and inefficient productive organization, which essential traits remained until the end of the regime / Doutorado / Ciencias Sociais / Doutor em Ciências Sociais