Suchergebnisse

The concept "Socialism of XXIst century" was first used by German sociologist, Professor Heinz Dieterich Steffan. In his two books "El Socialismo del Siglo XXI" and "Hugo Chávez y el Socialismo del Siglo XXI" as well as in many articles and interviews he described what new socialism should look like. It is mainly consist of 4 institutions. First of all, Equivalence economy, which should be based on Marxian labor theory of value and which is democratically determined by those who directly create value, instead of marketeconomical principles. Second institution of Socialism of XXIst century is majority democracy, which makes use of plebiscites, referendums to decide upon important questions that concern the whole society. Majority democracy is also based on democratic state institutions as legitimate representatives of the common interests of the majority of citizens, with a suitable protection of minority rights. The third component of new socialism is the critical and responsible subject, the rationally, ethically and aesthetically self-determined citizen. The last part of the Socialism of XXIst century is classless society. In foreign policy it is very important regional cooperation. On January 30, 2005, in a speech to the 5th World Social Forum, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez announced that he supported the creation of socialism of the XXIst century in Venezuela. According to Chavez, this socialism would be different from the socialism of the XXth century. While Chavez was vague about exactly how this new socialism would be different, he implied it would not be a state socialism as was practiced in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe or as is practiced in Cuba today. Rather, it would be a socialism that would be more pluralistic and less state-centred.[.].

The concept "Socialism of XXIst century" was first used by German sociologist, Professor Heinz Dieterich Steffan. In his two books "El Socialismo del Siglo XXI" and "Hugo Chávez y el Socialismo del Siglo XXI" as well as in many articles and interviews he described what new socialism should look like. It is mainly consist of 4 institutions. First of all, Equivalence economy, which should be based on Marxian labor theory of value and which is democratically determined by those who directly create value, instead of marketeconomical principles. Second institution of Socialism of XXIst century is majority democracy, which makes use of plebiscites, referendums to decide upon important questions that concern the whole society. Majority democracy is also based on democratic state institutions as legitimate representatives of the common interests of the majority of citizens, with a suitable protection of minority rights. The third component of new socialism is the critical and responsible subject, the rationally, ethically and aesthetically self-determined citizen. The last part of the Socialism of XXIst century is classless society. In foreign policy it is very important regional cooperation. On January 30, 2005, in a speech to the 5th World Social Forum, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez announced that he supported the creation of socialism of the XXIst century in Venezuela. According to Chavez, this socialism would be different from the socialism of the XXth century. While Chavez was vague about exactly how this new socialism would be different, he implied it would not be a state socialism as was practiced in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe or as is practiced in Cuba today. Rather, it would be a socialism that would be more pluralistic and less state-centred.[.].

The concept "Socialism of XXIst century" was first used by German sociologist, Professor Heinz Dieterich Steffan. In his two books "El Socialismo del Siglo XXI" and "Hugo Chávez y el Socialismo del Siglo XXI" as well as in many articles and interviews he described what new socialism should look like. It is mainly consist of 4 institutions. First of all, Equivalence economy, which should be based on Marxian labor theory of value and which is democratically determined by those who directly create value, instead of marketeconomical principles. Second institution of Socialism of XXIst century is majority democracy, which makes use of plebiscites, referendums to decide upon important questions that concern the whole society. Majority democracy is also based on democratic state institutions as legitimate representatives of the common interests of the majority of citizens, with a suitable protection of minority rights. The third component of new socialism is the critical and responsible subject, the rationally, ethically and aesthetically self-determined citizen. The last part of the Socialism of XXIst century is classless society. In foreign policy it is very important regional cooperation. On January 30, 2005, in a speech to the 5th World Social Forum, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez announced that he supported the creation of socialism of the XXIst century in Venezuela. According to Chavez, this socialism would be different from the socialism of the XXth century. While Chavez was vague about exactly how this new socialism would be different, he implied it would not be a state socialism as was practiced in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe or as is practiced in Cuba today. Rather, it would be a socialism that would be more pluralistic and less state-centred.[.].

Il primo capitolo della tesi verte sull'ultimo anno di vita del Partito d'Azione, sulle modalità di partecipazione di Lombardi allo scontro elettorale del 1948 nelle liste del Fronte democratico popolare, e sul breve periodo di direzione 'centrista' del Psi a cavallo tra il 1948 e il 1949, quando Lombardi, appena entratovi, fu magna pars nel gruppo dirigente del partito. Il secondo capitolo abbraccia il periodo in cui Lombardi agì all'interno del Psi 'morandiano', o frontista: si è cercato di dare ragione sia dell'inserimento di Lombardi nelle logiche del frontismo socialista, sia della peculiarità di quell'inserimento negli ambiti privilegiati della politica economica e della politica estera. Oggetto del terzo capitolo è il ruolo giocato da Lombardi nella definizione delle linee guida dell'autonomismo socialista, un ruolo fattosi via via più pregnante a partire dal 1956, che ebbe la sua massima consacrazione col XXXIV Congresso del Psi, celebrato a Milano nel 1961: centrale in questo periodo la riflessione lombardiana sulle «riforme di struttura», un argomento che ci si è sforzati di inquadrare storicamente, sfuggendo dai luoghi comuni storiografici di cui spesso – con lodevoli eccezioni – è caduto vittima. Tali «riforme di struttura» Lombardi avrebbe voluto alla base dei governi di centro-sinistra. La tesi si chiude con un ultimo capitolo dedicato ad illustrare l'apporto di Lombardi al quarto Governo Fanfani e al primo Governo Moro, il ruolo da lui giocato nella loro nascita e il suo progressivo allontanamento da quell'esperimento che era stato, in gran parte, sua creatura. ; Riccardo Lombardi played a very important part in Italian history and in socialism history between 1947 – when the Partito d'Azione was dissolved - and 1964 – when Lombardi took note of the crisis of the center-left governments. The first chapter of this thesis talks about the last year of life of the Partito d'Azione, the way in which Lombardi involved himself in the Popular Front in 1948 electoral struggle, and the short 'centrist' period of Psi between 1948 and 1949, when Lombardi was the editor of "Avanti!". The second chapter concerns the period of the Italian socialist party alliance with the communists: I show the reasons of Lombardi support to the alliance as well as the originality of his support. Economic and foreign politics are especially analyzed. The object of the third chapter is the part played by Lombardi in defining the autonomy of Italian socialism from the Communist party. This part was very important from 1956, and was sanctioned in 1961, when the Psi celebrated his XXXIV congress. In this period Lombardi drew up his theory about "structural reforms" and his "revolutionary reformism". According to Lombardi, "structural reforms" might have been the basis of the center-left governments. The last chapters shows the role of Lombardi in supporting the first and the second center-left government, as well as Lombardi critical point of view towards the outcome of those political experiments.

In 1920s Russia domestic life is the object of a specific political debate that tries to formulate housing forms and comfort models alternative to the one of the bourgeois house. By analysing the texts written by Fourier, Engels and Russian functionalist architects and the discourses that accompany USSR housing policies, the article reconstructs the concepts of comfort underlying this debate and their functions. ; Nella Russia degli anni Venti la vita domestica è oggetto di uno specifico dibattito politico che cerca di formulare forme abitative e modelli di comfort alternativi a quello della casa borghese. Analizzando testi di Fourier ed Engels, degli architetti funzionalisti russi e i discorsi che accompagnano le politiche abitative dell'URSS il saggio ricostruisce i concetti di comfort sottesi a questo dibattito e le loro funzioni.

This paper presents the comparative analysis of the family policy of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Republic of Lithuania. It analyses such fields as the changes in the conception of family and family policy, discusses what changes the national economic and political framework underwent. Morcover, the paper determines what major demographic problems existed in the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic and what demographic problems are current in the Republic of Lithuania and, in addition, how value-related attitudes changed in respect of family. The analysis of the family policy itself covers other spheres, such as family assistance instruments (benefits, allowances, pensions, privileges for housing acquisition and occupational privileges, vacations), education of the young generation (sefeguarding the chlidren's rights, education at the pre-school establishments and schools), and overviews the changes in the family policy (regulation of marriage, divorse, property and personal relations betwee the parents and children or other close relatives).

This paper presents the comparative analysis of the family policy of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Republic of Lithuania. It analyses such fields as the changes in the conception of family and family policy, discusses what changes the national economic and political framework underwent. Morcover, the paper determines what major demographic problems existed in the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic and what demographic problems are current in the Republic of Lithuania and, in addition, how value-related attitudes changed in respect of family. The analysis of the family policy itself covers other spheres, such as family assistance instruments (benefits, allowances, pensions, privileges for housing acquisition and occupational privileges, vacations), education of the young generation (sefeguarding the chlidren's rights, education at the pre-school establishments and schools), and overviews the changes in the family policy (regulation of marriage, divorse, property and personal relations betwee the parents and children or other close relatives).

La ricerca si propone di mostrare come il pensiero gramsciano sia stato riferimento prioritario di due intellettuali argentini in esilio in Messico dal 1976 al 1983: Juan Carlos Portantiero e José Maria Aricó. In quel periodo incentrarono le loro elaborazioni teorico-politiche sull'analisi della relazione tra Stato, società civile, democrazia e socialismo, partendo da una prospettiva gramsciana. Il fallimento della guerra di movimento in Argentina nei primi anni settanta li condusse a riflettere su strategie alternative di transizione al socialismo, il cui punto focale fu il concetto di "Egemonia". A partire dal 1975 indirizzarono la ripresa del pensiero di Gramsci alla creazione di un progetto politico adatto ad un contesto sempre più "occidentale", caratterizzato dalla presenza di una "società civile complessa", in cui risultava necessario combattere "guerre di posizione" e non "guerre di movimento". La prospettiva che connotò questo approccio alle riflessioni gramsciane rappresenta il culmine di un percorso che iniziarono negli anni '50, quando sorsero i primi studi del pensiero gramsciano in Argentina. Sin da allora, Aricó e Portantiero si occuparono di Gramsci insieme al dirigente del PC argentino Agosti e continuarono a farlo anche durante gli anni sessanta e i primi anni settanta sulla rivista Pasado y Presente. Fu, però, nel periodo dell'esilio che ne ripresero il pensiero considerandolo nella sua totalità, a partire dagli scritti giovanili sino ai Quaderni del Carcere, rielaborandolo in maniera originale e costruendo una propria proposta di cammino verso socialismo nell' "occidente periferico" dell'Argentina, influenzati dall'azione del Partito Comunista Italiano. ; This research aims to show that the "gramscian categories" have been the most important reference for two argentine intellectuals: Portantiero Juan Carlos Portantiero and José Maria Aricó . They were in exile in Mexico from 1976 to 1983. At that time they focused their analysis on the relationship between state, civil society , democracy and socialism , from a Gramscian perspective . The failure of the "war of movement" in Argentina in the early seventies led them to reflect on alternative strategies for the transition to socialism , whose focal point was the concept of "Hegemony" . Since 1975 they used the Gramsci's thought to create a political project suitable for states characterized by the presence of a "complex civil society". Since the '50s , Aricó and Portantiero studied Gramsci. However, it was during the period of the exile that they studied deeply all his books, from the writings of his youth up to the "Prison Notebooks".