No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Made available in DSpace on 2015-12-10T14:24:20Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2015-07-02. Added 1 bitstream(s) on 2015-12-10T14:30:31Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 000851492_20170702.pdf: 251644 bytes, checksum: 1bebc0e69aeb3f4f31bb90f868abfb93 (MD5) Bitstreams deleted on 2017-07-24T11:34:14Z: 000851492_20170702.pdf,. Added 1 bitstream(s) on 2017-07-24T11:35:18Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 000851492.pdf: 1417309 bytes, checksum: 0d7c4910aebdd7e9b5c3cdbd8bd291c7 (MD5) / Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) / A partir de 2008, com a eclosão da mais importante crise econômica desde 1929, o discurso e o ideário neoliberais perderam ainda mais força, uma vez que o Estado revelou-se o fiador último do sistema do capital em nível global. Os problemas sociais em escala mundial que estão nas raízes da crise se acumulam sem que haja perspectivas positivas para as suas resoluções. Ao lado disso, a possibilidade de uma ordem social alternativa ao capital e o legado teórico-político de Karl Marx recomeçam, ainda que timidamente, a ser debatidos. A partir desse cenário, a questão da transição pós-capitalista, e pós-capital, se coloca, com a intensificação da crise, como um problema muito importante para teorias de mudanças sociais substantivas. Este trabalho investiga duas delas: a da revolução permanente de Leon Trotski e a da luta para além do capital de István Mészáros, tidas como representativas do que a teoria social inspirada em Marx produziu no último século sobre a questão. Enquanto a primeira se viu envolvida com as repercussões - e descaminhos - da principal experiência prática de transição pós-capitalista no século 20, a segunda avalia as insuficiências daquela experiência e os requisitos para uma teoria geral de transição. Aqui, levamos em conta o problema da transição tendo como um dos eixos principais a questão do Estado. A teoria da revolução permanente de Trotski, que passa por vários momentos, reafirma - incorporando alguns elementos específicos - as características essenciais do problema do Estado e da transição emanados dos clássicos da teoria social marxista. Todavia, trabalhando com uma metodologia e uma perspectiva originais em relação à categoria da totalidade - que abre um campo ainda não explorado para as teorias de transformações sociais -, deixa um legado de validade duradoura sobre o tema. A segunda, por sua vez, avança em direções e abordagens até então não... / From 2008 until now, with the outbreak of the most important economic crisis since 1929, the discourse and the neoliberal ideology had lost even more strength, once the state has proved to be the ultimate guarantor of the capital system in a global level. The social problems worldwide that are on the roots of the crisis pile up without positive outlook for its resolutions. Beside this, the possibility of a social alternative order to capital and the theoretical-political legacy of Karl Marx are now, although timidly, being again debated. From this scenario, the issue of post-capitalist transition, and post-capital, arises, with the intensification of the crisis, as a very important problem for theories of substantive social changes. The work thus investigates two of them: the permanent revolution from Leon Trotski and the struggle beyond capital from István Mészáros, taken as representative of the social theory inspired by Marx and produced in the last century on the issue. While the first became involved with the repercussions - and detours - of the main practical experience of post-capitalist transition in the 20th century, the second assesses the shortcomings of that experience and the requirements for a general theory of transition. Here, we consider the problem of transition having the question of the state as one of its main focus. Trotski's theory of permanent revolution has different moments but as a whole reaffirms - incorporating some specific elements - the essential characteristics for the problem of the state and transition given from the classics of marxist social theory. However, working with a methodology and a original perspective on the totality category - which opens a field unexplored for social changes theories -, he leaves a legacy of great validity on the subject. The second, in turn, moves on directions and approaches insufficiently developed until now - in a sense shifting the focus of the ...

Dissertação (mestrado)—Universidade de Brasília, Instituto de Ciências Humanas, Departamento de Serviço Social, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Política Social, 2018. / Submitted by Raquel Viana (raquelviana@bce.unb.br) on 2018-08-09T21:10:27Z No. of bitstreams: 1 2018_FranklinRabelodeMelo.pdf: 1291315 bytes, checksum: 8a0303e873ae1be774cb80455dd65b22 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Raquel Viana (raquelviana@bce.unb.br) on 2018-08-14T17:48:09Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 2018_FranklinRabelodeMelo.pdf: 1291315 bytes, checksum: 8a0303e873ae1be774cb80455dd65b22 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-14T17:48:09Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 2018_FranklinRabelodeMelo.pdf: 1291315 bytes, checksum: 8a0303e873ae1be774cb80455dd65b22 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-08-09 / Este trabalho procura apontar as incidências do pensamento de Leon Trotsky nas elaborações teóricas de Caio Prado Júnior, Ruy Mauro Marini e Florestam Fernandes sobre a gênese e as particularidades da formação social brasileira. A partir da análise das principais obras dos autores, buscou-se extrair as categorias analíticas centrais em suas formulações, para em seguida indicar a relação entre os conceitos trotsksitas (a lei do desenvolvimento desigual e combinado, a teoria da revolução permanente, os fundamentos contidos no Programa de Transição e o conceito de bonapartismo sui generis) e as ideias de Caio Prado Júnior (colônia, nação e revolução), Ruy Mauro Marini (superexploração da força de trabalho e subimperialismo) e Florestan Fernandes (revolução dentro da ordem, revolução contra a ordem e autocracia burguesa). / This work wants to indicate the occurrences of Leon Trotsky’s thought in the theoretical elaborations from Caio Prado Júnior, Ruy Mauro Marini and Florestan Fernandes about the genesis and particularities of the brazilian social formation. From the analisys of the author’s main works, there was made an effort to extract the central analytical categories in their formulations, to then indicate the relation between the trotskists concepts (the law of uneven and combined development, the theory of permanent revolution, the fundamentals contained in the Transitional Program and the concept of bonapartism sui generis) and the ideias of Caio Prado Júnior (colony, nation and revolution), Ruy Mauro Marini (overexploitation of the labor force and subimperialism) and Florestan Fernandes (revolution within the order, revolution against the order and bourgeois autocracy).

Leon Trotsky (1879-1940) remains one of the most controversial figures in twentieth century history. There is no consensus about his character or historical achievements-as either thinker or actor. To Winston Churchill, writing in the 1930s, Trotsky was a 'cancer bacillus'. The Stalinist anathema placed on him is well-known. For Tony Cliff, a contemporary socialist writer, on the other hand, Trotsky was a 'man of genius'. Whatever assessment may be made about Trotsky, one of his lesser biographers and critics makes the point fairly enough that 'compared to his famous colleagues, Lenin and Stalin, Trotsky has been sorely neglected by historians and other scholars'. The upheaval in the USSR and its successor state system, and in Eastern Europe and China, since the mid-1980s, when CPSU General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev launched his programme of radical change under the sobriquets 'glasnost' and 'perestroika', has brought into the foreground once again the historical issues concerning the origins, character and consequences of the Stalinist system of 'totalitarian' political rule with its attendant hyper-centralised command economy. The whole experience of Stalinism has been, and no doubt will continue to be, subjected to intensive historical reconsideration as Russian scholars in particular seek to come to terms with the October Revolution and its legacy within the context of their national past. The publication of some of Trotsky's writings in Russian language editions and their circulation within the territories of the Russian Federation makes available an assessment and analysis of the Stalinist experience previously denied to the Russian reader. It is against this background that the author has written an historical review of Trotsky's major writings on the question of Stalinism in the Soviet Union. The approach adopted utilizes a combination of chronological exposition and analytical commentary, in the belief that both of these aspects of historical writing are necessary and valid. As Arthur Marwick has commented: '... if history without analysis is meaningless, without chronology it does not exist'. Marxist ideas have had a wide currency in the century and the contribution to the body of Marxist doctrine and theory by Leon Trotsky deserves closer attention. This study of Trotsky's attempt to make a Marxist analysis and assessment of the experience of Stalinism in the Soviet Union has been carried through in the belief that the examination of the critical and minority current within the broader mainstream of the international socialist movement has much to offer in contributing to our knowledge and understanding of the one of the most significant developments in twentieth century political history. A critical and historical assessment of Trotsky's analysis of Stalinism makes a contribution both to our appreciation of Trotsky's ideas and to our understanding of a phenomenon which looms large in any discussion of the broader contours of twentieth century history.

Present Perfect is part intellectual history of the discourse of humanism in twentieth- and early-twenty-first-century Russian culture, and part cultural history of the New Man in the Soviet Union and post-Soviet Russia, looking primarily at works of Soviet and post-Soviet fantastika (science fiction and fantasy). The study employs a critical posthumanist methodology drawn from the work of Jean-François Lyotard, and his concept of “rewriting” modernity (here transformed into “rewriting humanism”), and the posthumanist theorization of scholars like Rosi Braidotti and Stefan Hebrechter. The first chapter covers the pre- and post-revolutionary periods, the second chapter the post-Stalinist period, and the third the post-Soviet. The first chapter looks at critiques of humanism in the non-fictional works of religious philosophers and writers (Fedorov, Berdiaev, Ivanov, Merezhkovsky), Soviet ideologues and writers (Lunacharsky, Trotsky, Bukharin, Gorky), and some writers who fall between the two poles (Blok, Mandelshtam, Lezhnev), and covers texts published between 1906 and 1934. The second chapter deals with the works of the Strugatsky brothers’ Noon Universe series (1961-86) and the figure of the “Progressor” as the New Man. The third chapter looks at novels by three authors: Petrushevskaya’s Nomer Odin (2004), Pelevin’s S.N.U.F.F. (2011), and Sorokin’s Ice trilogy (2002-05). These works attest to the inextricable interpenetration of the posthuman with the human, of posthumanism with humanism, of the post-Soviet with the Soviet. The study demonstrates how humanism and posthumanism function dialectically: in the best-case scenario, they negate one another to come to a more whole understanding of the human; in the worst-case scenario, this dialectic creates an increasingly more exclusive humanism that reserves the title of ideal subject for fewer and fewer. Moreover, Present Perfect argues that the New Man (that “ideal subject”) in Soviet and post-Soviet fiction is best conceptualized as a field of competing discourses, which fall along three lines of development: the animal-man, the machine-man, and the god-man, each with their own critical orientation toward humanism. In both the Soviet and post-Soviet context, writers like the Strugatsky brothers, Petrushevskaya, Pelevin, and Sorokin employ a critical posthumanism to demonstrate, on the one hand, how the New Man is used as a tool for discursive domination that denies otherness, and on the other, how the New Man can be reconceptualized as a tool for a liberatory ethics that affirms it.