Suchergebnisse

"THEORIES of Government!" exclaims Thomas Carlyle in the early pages of The French Revolution. "Such has been, and will be; in ages of decadence. Acknowledge them in their degree; as processes of Nature, who does nothing in vain; as steps in her great process." The social theorist of today takes more seriously than Carlyle the existence of ideology, for ideology is an expression of spiritual unrest in the face of history-making issues. In turn, ideology itself becomes a problem, and we are led to examine its nature. Especially is this true today, which is a time of passionate affirmation of ambiguous positions rather than the observation of political behavior.

on June 16, 1935, Gen. Plutarco Elías Calles states that the opinions he gave to a group of senators concerning political and social affairs did not involve any kind of personal interests. He states that he is not interested in intervening in public affairs, his words were misunderstood and he gives the responsibility to the people in charge. Questions in English and Spanish asked to Gen. Plutarco Elías Calles related to the government's ideology: Why did you choose Gen. Lázaro Cárdenas to be President of Mexico? When did you notice divisions between your ideology and Gen. Lázaro Cárdenas' ideology? They also ask about the reaction of the Mexican people to the administration of Cardenas, the actions by Cardenas' administration, the way he was exiled, his opinions about Cardenas, his stay in the United States and his opinion concerning the future of Mexico. Incomplete handwritten record of statements by Gen. Plutarco Elías Calles regarding Gen. Manuel Avila Camacho taking office as President of Mexico. He states that if the new administration works wisely and without violence, he and his friends will support it. He warns against the danger of social indiscipline with the coming anarchy. This statement is a reply to a letter (it does not mention the letter) in which Gen. Plutarco Elías Calles is informed that the United States is trying to establish air and naval bases in Mexico. He replies stating that governments are temporary and they do not know what will happen after Roosevelt's administration. Therefore, they must be careful. Statements in English by Gen. Plutarco Elías Calles (original and copy) analyzing the administration of Avila Camacho, the national situation, his decisions on energy, agrarian affairs, railroads, discipline, etc. He approves Avila Camacho's decisions. / El Gral. PEC declara el 16 de junio de 1935 que las opiniones que le pidieron un grupo de senadores sobre diversos temas políticos y sociales del país, las dio sin ningún interés personal, indica que no aspira intervenir en los asuntos públicos, que sus palabras fueron malinterpretadas y deja la responsabilidad a quienes las tienen en sus manos. Serie de preguntas formuladas en inglés y español al Gral. PEC con respecto a la política del actual gobierno: ¿Por qué eligió al Gral. Lázaro Cárdenas para que fuera Presidente de la República? ¿cuándo notó síntomas de la ruptura de su política con la del Gral. Cárdenas? Le cuestionan también sobre el sentir del pueblo mexicano ante el gobierno cardenista, los actos de gobierno de Cárdenas, la manera como fue expulsado del país, su sentir personal respecto a Cárdenas y al hecho de vivir en Estados Unidos y su opinión sobre el futuro de México. Registro manuscrito incompleto de declaraciones del Gral. PEC con motivo de la toma de posesión del Gral. Manuel Avila Camacho como Presidente de la República en las que afirma que si el nuevo gobierno se inicia con prudencia y sin herir a nadie, él y sus amigos lo apoyarán; previene sobre el peligro de que se desate la indisciplina social con la consiguiente anarquía. Esta declaración es respuesta a una carta (no dice de quien) en la que se le informa al Gral. PEC que Estados Unidos tratan de instalar bases aéreas y navales en territorio nacional a lo que el Gral. PEC responde que los gobiernos son transitorios y que después de Roosevelt quien sabe quien vendrá, por lo que hay que tener cuidado. Declaraciones del Gral. PEC en inglés (original y copia) en las que analiza al gobierno de Avila Camacho, la situación en la que encontró al país, sus primeras decisiones en materia de energéticos, asuntos agrarios, ferrocarriles, disciplina, etc., mismas que aprueba.

Having made some general observations on the aspirations and obstacles of fascist ideology in democratic countries, we shall now attempt to weigh the actual possibilities of a further spread of autocratic rule in the principal states of Europe. Herein we cannot abstain from a certain amount of prophecy, with all the hazards of statements not entirely based on undisputable fact; but we shall try to keep the forecast within reasonable bounds and to fortify it by reference to actual experience in the different countries under survey. Instead of travelling rather haphazardly over Europe, we should prefer a systematic grouping of the different countries which have not yet adopted autocracy. However, we shall find it rather difficult to discover a reasonable line of division; and accordingly we shall deal with each state separately and determine in the course of our journey whether some synoptical conclusions are permissible.

Juan de Dios Rodríguez, Inspector of Maritime Traffic for the Navy Department at the Secretariat of Communications and Public Works tells Fernando Torreblanca, Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs that he opposes Gen. Plutarco Elías Calles' orders for the sake of the revolution and his ideology, especially at moments when student agitation has been encouraged by reactionary individuals and the clergy. / Juan de Dios Rodríguez, Inspector de Comunicaciones Marítimas del Departamento de Marina de la Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Obras Públicas, manifiesta a Fernando Torreblanca, Subsecretario de Relaciones Exteriores, que se pone a las órdenes del Gral. PEC en la defensa de la Revolución y su ideología, ésto con motivo de la agitación estudiantil provocada por elementos reaccionarios y clericales.

Complex as is the immediate situation of social theory, a general view reveals some significant continuities, both spatial and temporal. The attitude of the pluralists, whether in theory or in practice, to the sovereign nation-state has more common ground than at first appears with that of the states themselves toward the nascent organs of international government; and the dilemma underlying both controversies is in fact nothing less than a restatement, in modern ideology, of an issue fundamental to the history of the entire Christian era.That issue, stated in the broadest terms, centers about the relation between de facto and de jure sovereignty; or, more broadly still, between political and ethical, secular and spiritual, authority; and its importance may be suggested by the generalization that security in social relations is attainable, and has in fact been attained, only when the de facto, or political, sovereign—whatsoever form it may take—has been substantially integrated with the immediate source of ethical or moral authority. The pre-modern period of history abounds in statements, both factual and doctrinal, of this issue.

Major Maximiliano Chávez Aldeco asks Gen. Plutarco Elías Calles his opinion concerning what was expressed by groups of workers, peasants, merchants, farmers and miners about the general situation of the country and the way that must be followed. They affirm that the country would not bear another leader with the same ideology of the current President. They express that the "callismo" is not dead. They say that the President has not been stained with blood because he has not faced any opposition. They criticize possible candidates to the presidency: Gen. Francisco J. Mújica, Gen. Manuel Avila Camacho, Gen. Sánchez Tapia, B.A. Vicente Lombardo Toledano, Luis I. Rodríguez, Col. Adalberto Tejeda and Gen. Gildardo Magaña. They mention Gen. Abelardo L. Rodríguez, Melchor Ortega, B.A. Aarón Sáenz, Gen. Manuel Pérez Treviño, Gen. Joaquín Amaro and Gen. Vicente Estrada Cajigal as possible "callista" candidates. Major Chavez Aldeco believes that it must not be ignored the international situation, that is to say the threat of a European war that would affect the United States and Mexico. He supports Melchor Ortega as candidate for the presidency. Although he recognizes the trajectory of B.A. Aarón Sáenz and Gen. Joaquín Amaro, and mentions that Gen. Plutarco Elías Calles always gave his support to B.A. Vicente Estrada Cajigal, former governor of Morelos. / El Mayor Maximiliano Chávez Aldeco solicita al Gral. PEC su opinión en relación a lo que algunos grupos obreros, campesinos, comerciantes, agricultores y mineros, externaron sobre la situación general del país y el camino a seguir; afirman que el país no resistiría otro gobernante que siga la misma línea del actual Presidente; expresan que el callismo no ha muerto. Dice que este Presidente no se ha manchado de sangre y lo explican diciendo que porque no ha tenido la más mínima oposición; hacen una fuerte crítica a los posibles candidatos a la Presidencia: Gral. Francisco J. Mújica, Gral. Manuel Avila Camacho, Gral. Sánchez Tapia, Lic. Vicente Lombardo Toledano, Don Luis I. Rodríguez, Corl. Adalberto Tejeda y Gral. Gildardo Magaña. Como candidatos callistas a la Presidencia mencionan: Gral. Abelardo L. Rodríguez, Melchor Ortega, Lic. Aarón Sáenz, Gral. Manuel Pérez Treviño, Gral. Joaquín Amaro y Gral. Vicente Estrada Cajigal. El Mayor Chavez Aldeco opina que no se puede ignorar la situación internacional, es decir, la amenaza de una guerra europea que afectaría a Estados Unidos y a México; para él su candidato ideal es Melchor Ortega; aunque no deja de reconocer la trayectoria del Lic. Aarón Saénz y del Gral. Joaquín Amaro y menciona el apoyo que el Gral. PEC siempre le dio al Lic. Vicente Estrada Cajigal, exgobernador de Morelos.

A salient feature of the Soviet order set up in Russia by the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 is the provision for a single, mobilized political center, striving to organize all social processes to conform with its particular ideology and program. The Communist party is this political center of the Soviet Union, enjoying a monopoly of legality in respect of organization. Only an outline of the methods by which this political machine exercises its leadership is possible within the limits of the present note. The emphasis will be on the structure which the Communists have given to their party, in order more effectively to carry the responsibility of leadership assumed by them. The word "party" is used, but one has here an organization which differs sharply from political parties of parliamentary systems. Also in its relations to the formal governmental bodies the Communist party presents several features which differentiate it from the party systems of other countries.The special methods of organization adopted and the peculiar position enjoyed by the Communist party in the Soviet Union permit of several theoretical interpretations. One of these is that the Revolution contemplated by the Communists has three distinct stages, of which only the second has as yet been reached. There was the successful seizure of power, finally consolidated after some three years of civil war. Then came the present period of transition, the length of which will depend upon the success of the party in the exercise of its leadership. Only the successful achievement of the present party leadership will bring the final triumph of the Revolution as the third and last period.

The most tantalizing problems faced by students of international relations are those which revolve around the question of motivation in national action. The rôle of ideas and attitudes in determining the behavior of nations is an obtrusive factor in every international situation. Among characteristic ideologies appearing as a growing determinant of national action is the German ideology regarding Lebensraum. Here is one of those words which have been in the German language for a very long time, but which has been popularized by the National Socialists. Literally translated, Lebensraum means "living space," and when interpreted by anyone in Germany it is taken to indicate all that which is necessary for guaranteeing the life and development of the German people—physically, politically, and economically. It embraces all kinds of issues based upon prestige, historical, and geographical considerations. The terms "equal status" and "self-determination," indefinite though they were, may have seemed to have definite limits; but Lebensraum goes much beyond them. It is the greatest single underlying cause of the war and the keyword of the new empire for which Hitler and his followers are struggling. The Nazis became increasingly convinced that nothing can save Germany except a genuine expansion of her Lebensraum and the unconditional return of her old colonies. This new empire must be consolidated in one compact mass in the center of Europe. First, the people of the same blood—Austrians, Sudeten-Germans—had to be incorporated; then the territory of Bohemia-Moravia, because of its geographical and strategic position, even though its inhabitants were mainly Slavs; while Slovakia had to be granted "independence" on account of "internal" disintegration.

Next to Hegel and Nietzsche, Fichte is the German philosopher most frequently blamed as one of the principal inspirers of the National Socialist ideologies of state despotism and the superiority of the German people. Indeed, it is not difficult to find in Fichte's work any number of passages which might be interpreted in such a way as to corroborate these views. In the writings of his middle period, around 1800, Fichte arrives at a despotism of reason which in its practical application might be even more consistently restraining than the rule of our modern dictators. In his programmatic speeches for the restoration of the German nation, he ascribes to his people a divine mission which has shocked many of his interpreters. Therefore we cannot be surprised that historians who, in accordance with the demands of their profession, lay more stress on the effects of thoughts and actions than on the intentions which motivate them, attribute to Fichte a good share of responsibility for the ideology of the National Socialist party and its hold on the German people. Yet these historians are right only with regard to the external form, while the intended aims of the two systems of thought are diametrically opposed to one another.On the whole, Fichte is a moral idealist whose principal concerns are the political and inner freedom of the individual, the right and duty of the individual to contribute his best to the welfare and the cultural progress of his nation, the independence of all nationalities, social security, and an acceptable standard of living for every human being. These demands are based on a genuine respect for the dignity of man and the desire to contribute to the rule of humanitarian values in all human relations. The National Socialist, on the contrary, is fundamentally an egotistic materialist, a ruthless Herrenmensch, with a deep-rooted contempt for freedom, equality, and all humanitarian values.