Suchergebnisse

Ovaj članak proučava razvoj rumunjsko-jugoslavenskih odnosa od 1948. do 1964. godine. Istražuju se dva različita razdoblja u njihovim odnosima. Prvo je od 1948. do 1953. godine, kad je došlo do sovjetsko-jugoslavenskog i rumunjsko-jugoslavenskog sukoba koji je, zapravo, predstavljao presedan koji će postupno razoriti jedinstvo socijalističkog tabora. Za drugo razdoblje (od 1954. do 1964.) vezani su početak normalizacije i zbližavanje Bukurešta i Beograda. To je odgovaralo njihovim nacionalnim interesima i predstavljalo je protutežu politici supersila. U vanjskoj politici dviju zemalja odražavali su se ideološka neslaganja i potreba za društveno-ekonomskim razvojem, a osjećao se i snažan utjecaj i iz komunističkog bloka i izvan njega. ; This article examines the evolution of the Romanian-Yugoslav relations from 1948 to1964. The study explores two different periods in the relations of these two countries. The first period was from 1948 to 1953, when the Soviet-Yugoslav and Roman-Yugoslav conflicts occurred, practically constituting a precedent that would gradually ruin the unity of the socialist camp. The second period (1954 – 1964) corresponds with the beginning of the normalization, bringing Bucharest and Belgrade even closer and aiming to satisfy their national interests and counterbalance the policy of the superpowers. Ideological divergences and the need for socio-economic development were reflected in the character of the foreign policies of the two countries, which were under a strong influence of interventions from inside and outside the communist bloc.

Publicly, conspiracy theories are considered a bizarre mode of thought. In the academic discourse, they are unserious statements positioned between bad imitation of scientific theory and political pathology. Therefore, their authors and consumers experience a procedure of exclusion from the community of "serious people". But there are situations in which conspiracy theories are taken seriously, and established precisely as an exclusion device. These situations are predominantly interpreted as collective endangerment or political crisis. In that case, conspiracy theories stem from the center of political power as legitimate interpretation of reality. This was realized in an extreme way in the Nazi regime. So, the present academic discourse produces the Other by reason of standing for conspiracy theories. In political crisis and authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, the Other is produced by conspiracy theories. Historically, the academic attitude is partly produced by the consequences of the other attitude, through triple "demystification" of the conspiracy panic of Nazism/Fascism, Stalinism and, in the West, McCarthyism. But, structurally, it is the attitude of conspiracy-theory panic, or mimicry in exclusion. We propose a different approach, one that will simultaneously avoid acceptance of conspiracy theories as "facts" and their reduction to a phenomenon of mass hysteria. They should be considered beyond the opposition between delusion and hidden truth. Therefore, we define them as an interpretation pattern, structured as a double phantasm with the possibility of being traversed. This definition is close to Sloterdijk's conception of Cynical Reason, according to which we can differentiate between cynical and kynical conspiracy theories. Cynical conspiracy theories speak in the name of totalitarian and authoritarian power trying to defend an organismic community, and preserve a phantasmatic structure. Kynical conspiracy theories are speaking from the position of particular, fragmentational and singular agents. From the periphery of discourse, they criticize the power elite by indicating the cleavages that are concealed by cynics. In that way, kynical conspiracy theories perform a positive function as a way of "exposing the dirty linen" of the political regime. Adapted from the source document.