Suchergebnisse

President Obama enters the second half of his first year with very high approval ratings (high 50s to mid-60s) and nearly unanimous support within his own party. He continues to fight his battles for long-term change with discipline and rigor, ignoring possible distractions but also exercising pragmatism and the art of compromise. After his initial successes on the stimulus bill, tobacco regulation, employment discrimination and children's' health coverage, and in spite of questions raised on the mounting deficit, he recently managed to get the House to pass major legislation on energy and climate change, albeit by a narrow vote (219 to 212). His main strategy has been to lay out the general principles and parameters of his final objective and then let Congress write the legislation and fill in the details, thus giving legislators some latitude. Some question whether this strategy involves too much compromise, too many concessions to the other party and to interest groups, to the point that the final product is a watered down version of his initial proposal which will result too weak to solve the core problems. The irony for Obama is that some parts of his proposals that were considered central and non-negotiable are now on the table. A main example is the public option in health care legislation, according to which a government plan would compete with the rest of the private insurers, and consumers would be able to choose which one to buy. This type of competition would bring down the costs, which is one main purpose of health care reform. Republicans are adamantly opposed to this, but even some Democrats in Congress are becoming skeptical about it (the latter, mostly because they will have to face conservative constituencies in the next legislative elections of 2010), and even Obama now appears ready to compromise, if absolutely necessary. In contrast, there is immense support for this initiative all across the country. Does that mean that the actual center of the political public spectrum is today more to the Left than Congressmen and Senators of both parties recognize it to be? Or just that people really want change in health care, and cannot any longer be cowed into a corner by the boogey man of Big Government? Of course, there is a third and perhaps more obvious interpretation and that is that health industry groups exert more influence on Congress than the public itself. But at this time and on this issue the public is more mobilized and demanding than ever before, so Congress should take heed.Similarly, while Obama gets a positive response from the public as he continues to stitch together a broader view of how his proposals on health, energy and the stimulus package all fit together in the creation of a new foundation for the economy, the Republican Party appears bent on opposing him indiscriminately, denying him every possible venue to bipartisanship. That is the only position of strength for a weakened party.The "Party of No", as Rahm Emmanuel calls it, continues to block, sometimes successfully, every initiative the Democrats put on the table. There is a total absence of alternative policy proposals; instead, Republicans are just saying no to comprehensive change. Even as most interest groups convinced that change in health care and energy policies is inevitable are taking part in the negotiations, the Republican Party directive to its senators in the Senate Finance Committee -where health legislation is being discussed- is not to deal at all. The result is that Democrats are being pushed toward one concession after another, and that bad politics are getting in the way of good policy. The Republican strategy, if any, is to instill fear in moderate voters about the mounting deficit, and arouse skepticism about the President's ability to bring about change. They have succeeded in consolidating the extreme right's opposition to everything Obama does, thereby animating an alarming hostility toward him. This is an enormous achievement, if one considers the Republicans' lack of leadership and the personal woes of some of its potential leaders. But they have made no gains in the center and very few with independents. And unexpected events continue to shake the party's foundations.During the sleepy summer days around the Fourth of July, when most Americans go on vacation or take time off to prepare their cookouts and load up on beer and fireworks, the public was jolted by two stunning political developments, both coming from the Republican side and both bringing to a melodramatic end the careers of two potential presidential candidates: the five-day disappearance of South Carolina Governor Stanford, and Sarah Palin's resignation as Governor of Alaska. Governor Stanford, a "straight arrow" Republican with a picture-perfect family which he often paraded in front of the cameras, had always portrayed himself as a family man and a model of fiscal rectitude, going to the extreme of refusing to take the money allocated to his state as part of the stimulus package. After disappearing for five days during which his wife and aides claimed not to "know his exact location, but he was probably hiking along the Appalachian Trail and had turned off his Blackberry", he re-emerged and walked straight into the trap of a press conference. In front of the cameras, he rambled for twenty minutes about his life as a governor, husband of a wonderful woman and dad of four great boys, and asked for forgiveness for letting them all down …in the pursuit of an affair with an Argentine woman he had met in the world-renown resort of Punta del Este, Uruguay, in 2001. After explaining that this was not, in the end, a reckless act of adultery nor an irresponsible abandonment of office, but "a true love story" during which he had found his "soul mate", the Governor decided not to resign and to "try to fall in love again with his wife and continue his political career". We won't cry for him, neither here or in Argentina, but we wish him good luck. While infidelity and other human foibles are not limited to one side of the aisle, for the Republican Party, which claims a monopoly on morality and family values, the last two years must have been a hard trial: from Representative Mark Foley's "sexting" of underage male pages in Congress, to Senator Larry Craig's gay sex soliciting in a public restroom, to Senator Ensign's infidelity to Governor Sanford's Rio de la Plata escapade (unknowingly paid for by South Carolina taxpayers), the party has had its hands full with spinning the unspinnable, and will have a difficult time if it insists on exclusively continue carrying the torch for family values .And then there is Sarah Palin, who, in an equally rambling, bizarre and juvenile statement delivered in her well-known unique and colorful syntax and diction, decided to stun her party, her base and the country as a whole by resigning her governorship 18 months before the end of her term. The reasons are known only to herself and her family, but she represented herself as not wanting to "milk " the State of Alaska treasury during her "lame duck" period, and preferring to bring change for "all our children's future from outside the Governor's office". Among the most commonly heard speculations: that the 16 ethics inquiries into her actions as governor by the Alaskan legislature (mainly Republicans) have put a lot of strain on her life and finances, that she wants to concentrate on a book deal, and that her governorship was getting in the way of her life as a celebrity. Less likely but also heard: that this is a move to pursue higher office, and/or that a new scandal is about to be revealed about her or her family. (Please, no more scandals!)Whatever her motive, her timing for the GOP could not have been worse: not only was Palin the most galvanizing force for the Evangelical Christian base of the party, but with her departure, the party has lost three strong presidential candidates in one month. If we add to this the lamentable performance by Governor Bobby Jindal, another Republican rising star, when he responded to Obama's first State-of-the Union address, the party's presidential candidate landscape is quite deserted. Of course it is still early to talk about 2011 primaries, but considering that the two main pillars of the party, namely fiscal responsibility and family values, have been demolished,(the first by George W. Bush and the second by the peccadilloes and tribulations above recounted), there is a lot of heavy lifting the party must do to become competitive again. Like the Tories since 1997, the Republicans will probably have to lose two or three national elections before they can redefine themselves, charter a new course and become competitive again. The paradox of Republican opposition is that in the short term they have no other recourse but to strongly oppose Obama in the hope of chipping away some of his aura, while in the long term their big demographic problems with the young, women and minorities will force them to move to the center, modernize conservatism, abandon their unerring defense of pure, unrestrained capitalism and speak the language of community and common endeavors. Only then will they be able to reclaim the mantel of the Grand Old (but renewed) Party.Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science and Geography Director, ODU Model United Nations Program Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia

Most post-modern societies are being challenged by a widening gap that divides their populations by the classic cleavages of age, class, region and religion. Exacerbated by the forces of globalization and the immediacy of technology, they result in constant clashes that cause an exponential increase in social tensions and insecurity. Even if the Norwegian killer was insane and can not be used as example, he was still a member of the dominant culture failing to accommodate to post-modern circumstances. In the United States this gap is vividly evident in the current debt ceiling debate, which is only a symptom of much serious divisions that threaten the country's social unity and political future.A brief look at recent headlines in the United States can give outsiders and idea of the country's social and political environment.On Sunday July 24th, a new law approving gay marriage came into effect in New York, making it the sixth and largest state in the nation (plus the District of Columbia) to have legalized same-sex marriage. In Manhattan, people celebrated on Fifth Avenue, singing and dancing to the music and well-suited lyrics of New York, New York ("If we can make it here, we'll make it anywhere…"). On July 0th, Republican candidates Michelle Bachman and Rick Santoro a "Marriage Vow" swearing fidelity to their spouses, promising they would "vigorously oppose any redefinition of marriage" and would take steps to amend welfare legislation that did not reinforce conventional marriage. This is only a sample of the extreme polarization the country is facing both economically and socially. It is a critical moment in United States history, one that may require a deep reflection on the basic principles the nation was founded upon and a renewal of the social compact.Prodded by the Tea Party leaders, who presently wield an amount of power disproportionate to their numbers, Republican candidates have been signing pledges on an array of different topics in order to prove their conservative credentials. Both Michelle Bachman and Mitt Romney also signed a no-new-taxes pledge, together with a "cut, cap and balance pledge" to amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget and congressional super majorities to raise taxes. These two pledges, albeit non-enforceable and thus largely symbolic, are now the single most important obstacle to reach a deal in Congress about balancing the budget and avoiding default on the national debt. Tea Party Nation leader Judson Phillips has threatened to recruit candidates to mount primary challenges against any GOP member that votes for a compromise on the debt ceiling that involves any type of revenue increases to balance the budget. The GOP Congressional leadership has been hijacked by intransigent ideologues, represented in the House by 87 freshmen with disproportionate power over the more established professional politicians who understand that democratic governance requires give and take, and that politics in a pluralistic society is the art of the achievable.This country was founded on the premise of compromise, negotiation and cooperation, as it is evident from the history of the Constitution and the layers of governmental power devised mainly to counterbalance one another: states versus federal, legislative versus executive, Senate v. House, and an independent judiciary. It was clear even then, that solutions in what promised to be a huge, diverse society with deep regional and religious cleavages would require compromise. But today, in the "worst Congress ever" as Norman Ornstein calls it in his recent article in Foreign Policy, compromise is a bad word. The House is controlled by a GOP freshmen class that owes its seats to Tea Party ideologues and is refusing to raise the debt ceiling even as President Obama has agreed to cuts in spending that include cuts in entitlements, in exchange for ending subsidies on ethanol and other corporate subsidies (he has even given up on the expiration of the Bush era tax cuts he had included in his first proposal). This package that would represent over 3 trillion dollars in cuts from the federal budget, including reductions in Medicare and other social programs, would have allowed the debt ceiling to be raised so that the US could avoid defaulting on its debt by August 2nd. It was on the table last week and close to being signed on by House Speaker John Boehner but he refused it at the last minute because of pressure from his own caucus. The Tea Party is pushing professional legislators toward the abyss, and with them, the whole country. The Tea Party is a social movement that was born out of frustration and disappointment with government spending over the last twelve years. President George W. Bush inherited a budget surplus from the Clinton-Gingrich years. But that surplus quickly vanished as Bush proposed and got passed serious tax cuts on the wealthy and then embarked on two wars that are still going on today. In response, a large coalition of Independents, Republicans and a few former Democrats formed a protest movement that defines itself for what it is against: big government, big media, big banks, unsustainable deficits and intrusive federal regulation. In spite of some evident intrinsic contradictions in their philosophy (for example some the new regulations they so vehemently oppose such as the Dodd-Frank legislation are meant to constrain the actions of "big banks" they so strongly abhor), the Tea Party has been very successful in focusing the public's attention on the federal budget deficit and on the federal debt that has ballooned in the last two decades. Those are its core concerns, together with a deep-seated contempt for and rejection of, everything the well-educated elites are for the most in favor of: environmental sustainability, a foreign policy based on multilateralism, gay rights and immigration reform legislation that recognizes the realities of the estimated twelve million undocumented workers in the country. After two months of wrangling, neither side has managed to get what it wanted, the US credit rating is about to be downgraded (with the subsequent increase in interest rates and damaging effects on an already slow economy) and the vitriolic Washington environment is alienating people on the Right and on the Left. Pressured by the Tea Partiers and their anti-tax obsession, Republicans have refused to compromise to avoid a default, and in so doing they are sabotaging their own chances for 2012. Most Americans are appalled at the GOP's refusal to endorse Obama's proposal that would cut the deficit by $3.7 trillion through a mix of spending cuts, entitlement reform and ending some corporate subsidies and tax deductions. In so doing, the GOP is alienating independent voters that want to avoid default and are ready for a deal. A new political center of gravity is forming. The number of registered voters that identify themselves as Independent is growing (40% in latest poll), while the numbers of Republicans and Democrats are sinking and there is a new online movement from the grassroots to form a third party.Paradoxically, out of all this Byzantine intrigue in the hallways of Congress, and given the outcome of no deal announced on Monday night, President Obama may come out as the winner. To the dismay of his most progressive base, Obama, intent on finding some common ground with the opposition has shifted to the center-right of the political spectrum on his proposals, daring to sacrifice some cuts on entitlements in exchange for revenue increases, only to see them rejected by the Republicans. He is close to winning a stand-alone debt ceiling increase while having proven to be the only reasonable adult in this struggle. This would gain him the support of many independents and help him avoid a confrontation within his own party. It would also allow him to focus on unemployment, the real immediate crisis that most directly impacts people's lives. However, Democrats in the House and Senate are afraid that concessions on reducing some Medicare benefits, for example, or postponing the eligibility age, would ruin the clarity of their message to seniors during the election. Conversely, Tea Partiers see a compromise involving any sort of revenue increases by the government, even non-tax measures such as ending corporate subsidies, as a betrayal of their principles. The Tea Partiers have brought into focus the spending crisis that has been growing unchecked for a long time, and one the country cannot obviously tax its way out of. Some facts cannot be denied: debt is the result of spending not backed by revenue. Total government spending at all levels has risen to 37% of the GDP today from 27% in 1960. It could reach 50% by 2038. The debt-to-GDP ratio has reached 100% today, from 42% in 1980. The big moral struggle is still ahead. There is no question that the government is spending too much, but the real debate is about priorities and the philosophies that underlie those priorities. The President has recognized that the budget deficit is important to voters, most of which have come to the conclusion that since the stimulus spending did not solve the problem of unemployment, deficit reduction appears to be a better way to improve the economy than investing in education, infrastructure and new energy technologies. Obama must acknowledge this, and make it part of his discourse.But the President must also continue to make a case for the common good ("there are things we can still do together", he said in his last speech), the social safety net and America's future. He can do this by personalizing the budget battles the way Clinton did. Are budget battles about choices or necessities? Why give more tax cuts to the wealthy if their wealth has grown through the recession while the rest saw their wealth diminish? Why subsidize corporate agriculture and ethanol production? Social programs like Medicare serve all Americans, why focus on cutting it while giving a pass to the upper income- and- wealth echelon? General elections are won from the center. Strong strident advocates make for weak candidates. Undoubtedly, the 2012 election will be about money, about fiscal discipline, but it will also be about a more equal distribution, and it will require strong leadership from the two respective philosophical corners to come to a consensus. That is why the Republican establishment is so worried about the lack of gravitas in their field of candidates. That is why some yearn for budget whiz Paul Ryan, or Governor Chris Christie or Rick Perry….or anybody really, that looks and sounds as if he can take on Obama in the intricacies of the budget, the debt ceiling, and social programs reform. That may also be why Jeb Bush was asked on Fox News about his intentions to run for President again two days ago. This time his response was more nuanced: he said that while he doesn't anticipate it, he hasn't ruled it out ("but, he added, "I haven't ruled out being in Dancing with the Stars, either").In the meantime, the Wall Street Journal today announced that, based on the Pew Research Center tabulations of SIPP and Census date, the wealth gap between America's whites and its two largest minorities, Blacks and Hispanics, has widened to unprecedented levels due to the housing crisis and the Great Recession. Alan Greenspan, former President of the Federal Reserve has said repeatedly that the wealth gap that has grown consistently for the last decade is a threat not only to our country but to capitalism itself. Poverty and unemployment are a combustive mix: if fiscal responsibility ends up being based on the back of the poor, social conflict will erupt. It is unconscionable, for example, to think that hedge fund managers pay significantly less taxes than their secretaries.Some Republicans want to abolish every piece of social legislation and re-litigate every progressive judicial decision since the New Deal. As part of pledge game, Michelle Bachman and four other candidates also signed the "Susan B. Anthony pledge "promising to appoint abortion opponents to their cabinets and to deny all funding for Planned Parenthood when they become presidents. The bizarre "Marriage Vow "pledge signed by Bachmann and Santoro not only opposes same-sex marriage and includes a personal promise to be faithful to their spouses, but (most peculiarly yet redundantly) it also rejects Sharia Law (which, by the way, like Bachman, also opposes gay marriage and female adultery, which it punishes by death!)The only candidate that has refused to sign any pledge is Jon Huntsman, who understands the perils of siding too closely with the rebellious Tea Party. Even if some of its main points have successfully brought into focus the deficit issue, the Tea Party is still supported by a minority and resented by most Republicans. Its anti-technocratic, anti-Washington message has resonance, but it may have pushed the GOP too far into a corner. Its message is also becoming blurred when it steps into the social arena: its racist and homophobic overtones do not reflect the spirit of the times and are offensive to the "millenials", the youngest generation of voters born in the 80s and 90s, which Republicans still hope to attract in 2012. Social movements are major vehicles of participation and can re-energize a worn out party. They reflect the spirit of the times, often in an extremist way that is what gives them prominence: their passion for the cause, their original approach, are all important, but their message has to resonate with the public if they are to succeed. They emerge, coalesce, grow and achieve some successes. However, once their main point is made, three things can happen: they can become a party, their main ideas can be incorporated into mainstream politics, or they dissipate and be quickly forgotten. The Tea Party brought into focus the issue of fiscal responsibility, it infused conservatism with new energy and found a natural home in the Republican Party, which had become profligate, and will have to prove from now on that it is sincere about austerity. Its impact is undeniable: it has also attracted Independents and in so doing, has per force moved the Democratic Party to the center-right. Mimicking the "big tent" approach of Republicans, the Tea Party has lately been focusing strategically on fiscal responsibility, limited government and free markets and its main groups have avoided divisive social issues when speaking to the general public. But their demands of ideological purity from their candidates, their emphasis on returning to the strict meaning of the Constitution and the values of the Founding Father, their defense of states rights and gun rights, belie their claims of inclusiveness for all Americans; in its coded language, its contempt for immigrants and its not-so- veiled racism, one senses a strongly reactionary sentiment bordering on uncontainable fanaticism which is completely out of step with most Americans and which will make it very difficult to widen its appeal beyond what it has already achieved.To paraphrase deceased Republican leader Barry Goldwater, the Tea Party's aim isnot to streamline government or make it more efficient, but to get rid of every piece of social legislation and economic regulation passed since the New Deal. Their purpose is not to share the burden of the weakest members of society, nor to educate their children so they can have equality of opportunity, but to defend the individual freedoms of those who can stand on their own. In sum, they are extremists for whom tolerance and moderation are vices, not virtues, and therefore they have no place in a democracy.Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science and Geography Director, ODU Model United Nations Program Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia

A los pocos meses de su fundación, para el Partido Comunista de Chile fue una preocupación la instauración del fascismo en su país. El antifascismo comunista fue un discurso que se fue construyendo tempranamente y que correlacionó factores nacionales e internacionales. En este artículo explicamos el desarrollo histórico de este proceso y su incidencia en la práctica política del partido desde su fundación hasta la inflexión de las políticas de "clase contra clase" en 1934. Planteamos que la construcción del antifascismo comunista estuvo dividida en dos fases. La primera estuvo marcada por las similitudes y correspondencias que ciertos actores y coyunturas tuvieron respecto al fascismo europeo, lo que generó un amplio abanico de recepciones en torno a la relación entre la violencia, el fascismo y el capitalismo, lo que finalmente les permitió identificar un modus operandi fascista en Chile. Así, la segunda fase se abocó a la construcción de un discurso identitario y estratégico en clave defensiva frente a la impronta fascista de los gobiernos y regímenes de turno de la primera parte de la década de 1930. ; A few months after its founding, it was a concern for the Communist Party of Chile to establish fascism in their country. Communist antifascism was a discourse that was built early and that correlated national and international factors. In this article, we explain the historical development of this process and its impact on the political practice of the party from its foundation to the inflection of "class vs. class" politics in 1934. We argue that the construction of communist antifascism was divided into two phases. The first was marked by the similarities and correspondences that certain actors and situations had with European fascism, which generated a wide range of receptions around the relationship between violence, fascism and capitalism, which finally allowed them to identify fascist methods in Chile. Thus, the second phase was devoted to the construction of an identity and strategic discourse in a ...

The objective of this work is to analyze how between the world-wide crisis of 1929 and the second postwar period, the Socialist Party of Argentina was revealed as a singular theoretical and political space of debate, able to produce a systematic diagnosis of the crisis of the liberal capitalism and the parliamentary democracies and to put in revision its ideological positions and political strategies. They are reconstructed with this aim, as much as the discussions that opposed to the Great Depression were originated in the socialism and that took it to design an economic program that gave answers to argentine capitalism like the positions that defended their adoption of revolutionary and marxist tactics, revitalized by the suppression of the democratic system, thus defining alternative ways for their political action.

This paper aims to analyze the doctrinal changes and constants of the Socialist Party of Chile, using as sources two programs of special significance for the history of that party: the Program of 1935, and the Program of 1948, because both implied, on the side of the Program of 35 'the first attempt to create a doctrinal synthesis, and the second program, that of 48', implied the end of the initial doctrinal disputes, and the consolidation of the internal hegemonic positions of the party.The Socialist Party of Chile, founded in 1933 as a convergence of ideologically and doctrinally diverse groups, whose only points of union were anti-capitalism, critical of the Communist Party, and the adoption of a rather generic socialism. Product of its doctrinaire laxity had a series of breaks and income throughout the decades of the 30 'and 40', that is why the study of the statutes allows us to delve into internal discussions, dominant positions within the party, purges, incorporations and mutations, which implied a progressive development of the socialist ideology in Chile: from a party with diverse ideological tendencies, to a democratic socialist party. ; Este trabajo tiene como objetivo analizar los cambios y constantes doctrinarias del Partido Socialista de Chile, utilizando como fuentes dos programas de especial significación para la historia de dicho partido: el Programa de 1935, y el Programa de 1948, ya que ambos implicaron, por el lado del Programa del 35' el primer intento de crear una síntesis doctrinaria, y el segundo estatuto, el del 48', implicó el fin de las disputas doctrinarias iniciales, y la consolidación de las posiciones hegemónicas internas del partido.El Partido Socialista de Chile, fundado en 1933 como una convergencia de grupos ideológica y doctrinariamente diversos, cuyos únicos puntos de unión eran el anticapitalismo, crítica al Partido Comunista, y la adopción de un socialismo más bien genérico. Producto de su laxitud doctrinaria tuvo una serie de quiebres e ingresos a lo largo de las décadas ...

This article examines the positions and actions of the Communist Party in Argentina in 1955-1963, a period marked by the fall of Peronism, the "Revolución Libertadora" and the government of Frondizi. It studies the way the PC characterized to the local capitalism with a dependent and semi-feudal traits, constrained by the weight of foreign monopolies and oligarchy. It explores how the PC raised the need for a "bourgeois-democratic, agrarian and anti-imperialist revolution", which deferred to the distant future the socialist horizon. The calling to the formation of a "National Democratic Front" and the agreements with sectors of the national bourgeoisie is analyzed. ; Este artículo examina las posiciones y la actuación del Partido Comunista en la Argentina en 1955-1963, período signado por la caída del peronismo, la Revolución Libertadora y el gobierno de Frondizi. En particular, se estudia el modo en que el PC caracterizó al capitalismo local como dependiente, atrasado y con rasgos semifeudales, constreñido por el peso de los monopolios extranjeros y la oligarquía terrateniente, y las razones por las cuales planteó la necesidad de una "revolución democrático-burguesa, agraria y antiimperialista", es decir, una revolución por etapas, que postergaba para un futuro lejano el horizonte socialista. Se analiza la permanente convocatoria del PC a la formación de un Frente Democrático Nacional y a acuerdos con sectores de la burguesía nacional.

Este artículo compara los distintos resultados institucionales que tuvieron lugaren China y la Unión soviética durante los procesos de restauración delcapitalismo. La hipótesis presentada afirma que estos resultados dependieronde: 1) la utilidad de la estructura partidaria para vehiculizar la restauración y sucapacidad para procesar las crisis internas; 2) el éxito o fracaso en la represiónde las revoluciones políticas; 3) el éxito o fracaso en la implementación dereformas de mercado en respuesta a las crisis económicas inmediatamenteanteriores a la restauración.Palabras clave: Burocracia; Estado; Capitalismo; Socialismo; China; Unión SoviéticaThis paper compares the different institutional outcomes that took place in China and in the Soviet Union during the process of capitalist restoration. The hypothesis stressed here affirms that these variations was determined by: 1) theutility of the party structures to conduce capitalist restoration and his ability toprocess internal crises; 2) the success or failure in the repression of politicalrevolutions; 3) the success or failure in implementing market reforms asreaction to the economic crises that preceded the process of capitalistrestoration.Key Words: Bureaucracy; State; Capitalism; Socialism; China; Soviet Union

Este trabajo analiza las conductas político-económicas emprendidas por China posrreformas (1976-2015) a partir de la teoría y de la historia de los conceptos con base en Koselleck (2006) y Sartori (1970). La metodología fue cualitativa, enfocada en el análisis de contenido y en investigaciones bibliográfica y documental. Tal análisis sigue la evolución de los planos en el tiempo y su consecución vía planificación por medio de actos de habla y formalizados en políticas (policies). A partir de ahí, fue posible concluir que la innovación conceptual fue implementada de forma pragmática por la rpc (vía Partido Comunista Chino). Así, la rpc buscó el establecimiento de una relación amistosa entre Estado y mercado, inaugurando así un nuevo léxico en la economía política internacional contemporánea: la economía socialista de mercado. ; This paper analyzes the political-economic behavior of China in the post-reform era (1976-2015) from the perspective of theory and history of concepts, based on Koselleck (2006) and Sartori (1970). The methodology is qualitative, based on content analysis and bibliographical and documentary research. The analysis follows the evolution of the plans over time and their achievement by means of planning through speech acts and formalized policies. Following this, it is possible to conclude that conceptual innovation was implemented in a pragmatic way by the prc (through the Chinese Communist Party). Hence, the prc preferred a close relationship between state and market, thereby creating a new concept in contemporary international political economy: the socialist market economy. ; Este trabalho analisou as condutas político-econômicas empreendidas pela China pósreformas (1976-2015) a partir da teoria e da história dos conceitos com base em Koselleck (2006) e Sartori (1970). A metodologia foi qualitativa, baseada na análise de conteúdo e em pesquisas bibliográfica e documental. Tal análise atenta para a evolução dos Planos no tempo e sua consecução via planejamento por meio de atos de fala e formalizados em policies. A partir daí foi possível concluir que a inovação conceitual foi implementada de forma pragmática pela rpc (via Partido Comunista Chinês). Assim, a rpc buscou o estabelecimento de uma relação amistosa entre Estado e mercado, inaugurando assim um novo léxico na Economia Política Internacional contemporânea: a economia socialista de mercado.

Con el fin de determinar cómo se desarrolló el proceso político estatal del partido y movimiento social boliviano MAS-IPSP (Movimiento al Socialismo-Instrumento por la Soberania de los Pueblos), se investigó si en su periodo de gobierno se aplicaron políticas para encaminarse a una transformación radical de las estructuras socioeconómicas con una orientación socialista comunitaria, o si en verdad actuó en su gobierno como un partido estabilizador de la reproducción social y política del capitalismo. Mediante una revisión del contexto histórico del ascenso del MAS-IPSP al poder, el análisis del programa de gobierno que este partido propuso a la sociedad, el análisis con base en datos estadísticos (principalmente del periodo 2006-2016), de la estructura del ingreso y gasto estatal, así como de la evolución de la situación macroeconómica y socioeconómica en el país, y por último, de la evolución de la hegemonía política y electoral del movimiento; se concluyó que el MAS-IPSP actuó como un partido estabilizador de la reproducción social y política del capitalismo dependiente, después de la crisis del modelo neoliberal que se desató a comienzos de siglo XXI en el país. Este carácter estabilizador estuvo acompañado de una estrategia de capitalismo comandado por el Estado. Potencializando la escala nacional del capital, mejorando condiciones de producción y reproducción social en el país, logrando reducir algunos de los efectos sociales más nocivos de la reproducción capitalista dependiente. (texto tomado de la fuente) ; In order to determine how the state political process of the Bolivian party and social movement MAS-IPSP (Movimiento al Socialismo-Instrumento por la Soberanía de los Pueblos) was developed, it was investigated whether in its period of government applied policies to move towards a radical transformation of socio-economic structures with a community socialist orientation, or indeed acted in its government as a stabilizing party of the social and political reproduction of capitalism. Through a review of ...

La primera tesis es sobre el capitalismo en general (lo que no es el comunismo); la segunda, sobre el Manifiesto del Partido Comunista y el pensamiento de Marx (nuestro instrumento para poder discernir hoy lo que es y lo que no es el comunismo); la tercera es sobre ese hoy: el capitalismo contemporáneo; mientras que la cuarta tesis alude a la negatividad de dicho capitalismo, que urge por la construcción de la sociedad comunista alternativa; y la quinta a lo positivo de éste, que es el medio para construirla. ; The first thesis is on capitalism in general (what communism is not); the second, on the Manifesto of the Communist Party and Marx's thought (our instrument to be able to discern today what communism is and what it is not); the third is about this 'today': contemporary capitalism; while the fourth thesis refers to the negativity of such capitalism, which urges for the construction of the alternative communist society; and the fifth to what is positive in it, which is the means to build that society.

La primera tesis es sobre el capitalismo en general (lo que no es el comunismo); la segunda, sobre el Manifiesto del Partido Comunista y el pensamiento de Marx (nuestro instrumento para poder discernir hoy lo que es y lo que no es el comunismo); la tercera es sobre ese hoy: el capitalismo contemporáneo; mientras que la cuarta tesis alude a la negatividad de dicho capitalismo, que urge por la construcción de la sociedad comunista alternativa; y la quinta a lo positivo de éste, que es el medio para construirla. ; The first thesis is on capitalism in general (what communism is not); the second, on the Manifesto of the Communist Party and Marx's thought (our instrument to be able to discern today what communism is and what it is not); the third is about this 'today': contemporary capitalism; while the fourth thesis refers to the negativity of such capitalism, which urges for the construction of the alternative communist society; and the fifth to what is positive in it, which is the means to build that society.

En este artículo se analiza la multifacética imagen que los socialistas españoles del PSOE tenían de la socialdemocracia alemana durante los años 1972-1977. Esto es, desde el año de la renovación del PSOE hasta la celebración de las primeras elecciones democráticas en España. Para ello se han analizado pormenorizadamente el periódico oficial del PSOE, «Le Socialiste / El Socialista»; la revista de orientación progresista «Cambio16» y documentos del archivo histórico del PSOE emplazados en la Fundación Pablo Iglesias. El estudio de la imagen de la socialdemocracia alemana, además de darnos información sobre este grupo, nos revela aspectos poco explorados del proceso de formación identitaria del PSOE y sobre las disputas políticas e ideológicas existentes dentro del partido.Abstract This article analyses the multifaceted image of the German social democracy held by the Spanish socialists (PSOE) during 1972-1977. This is, from the year in which PSOE was renewed to the first democratic elections in Spain. The analysis is based on PSOE's official newspaper «Le Socialiste / El Socialista», the progressive journal «Cambio16» and documents from PSOE's historical archive located at the Pablo Iglesias Foundation. Besides providing information about the image of the German social democracy held by the Spanish socialists, this article reveals unexplored aspects of PSOE's process of identity formation and of the political and ideological struggles within the party.

Este trabajo evalúa el accionar político de Paul Levi, el heredero político de Rosa Luxemburg, quien condujo al Partido Comunista alemán (KPD) desde la muerte de Rosa Luxemburg y Karl Liebknecht, en enero de 1919, hasta poco antes del putsch conocido como la "acción de marzo" de 1921, dos años durante los cuales Levi consiguió transformar al KPD en un partido obrero revolucionario de 350.000 miembros. Intentaremos demostrar, mediante el análisis de documentos primarios en alemán e inglés, que la política de Frente Único fue adoptada por la Internacional Comunista a instancias del KPD, cuyo aporte al desarrollo de la táctica de la Internacional Comunista fue enfatizado por el propio Lenin. La comprensión de estos procesos es fundamental para entender la evolución de la revolución alemana, que se extendió desde noviembre de 1918 hasta octubre de 1923, y cuyo fracaso eventual fue la causa última de la degeneración estalinista de la revolución rusa y de la Internacional Comunista.Palabras clave: Paul Levi, Rosa Luxemburg, Partido Comunista de Alemania (KPD), Internacional Comunista (Comintern), Revolución alemana, Frente ÚnicoThis paper evaluates the political activity of Paul Levi, the political heir of Rosa Luxemburg, who led the German Communist Party (KPD) from the death of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht in January 1919 until shortly before the putsch known as the "March Action" of 1921, two years during which Levi managed to transform the KPD into a revolutionary workers' party with 350,000 members. We will attempt to demonstrate, with the help of primary sources in German and English, that the United Front policy was adopted by the Communist International at the initiative of the KPD, whose contribution to the development of the tactics of the International Communist was emphasized by Lenin himself. An understanding of these processes is essential for the analysis of the German Revolution, which lasted from November 1918 to October 1923, and whose eventual failure was the ultimate cause of the Stalinist degeneration of the Russian revolution and the Communist International.Keywords: Paul Levi, Rosa Luxemburg, Communist Party of Germany (KPD), Communist International (Comintern), German Revolution, United Front

Some of the most important issues discussed inside the Global movement against Capitalism and war are the relations between political party and movement, movement Autonomy as opposed to institutional dynamics, and organisational problems. In this paper, we will recuperate some categories and political concepts from Rosa Luxembourg's thought. We will try to use those instruments to analyse some aspects of the mobilisation process of the Global movement since the Seattle demonstrations until the demonstrations against war in 2003 and 2004 taking the example of Madrid.

Con el objetivo de mostrar la relevancia y actualidad de la obra teórica de Rosa Luxemburg, el artículo analiza tres de sus temáti-cas fundamentales. En primer lugar, su crítica a la deriva reformista de la socialdemocracia contra su original intención revolucionaria, confir-mada en su validez por la evolución del capitalismo. En conexión con ello, su tesis de que la posibilidad de la realización de la democracia se encuentra estrictamente vinculada al proyecto revolucionario. Y, por úl-timo, su reivindicación de que la existencia de dicho proyecto depende de que el proletariado adquiera un conocimiento teórico sobre el fun-cionamiento del capitalismo que debe serle transmitido por el partido revolucionario ; With the objective of highlighting the relevance and topicality of the theoretical work of Rosa Luxemburg, this article analyzes three of her fundamental themes. Firstly, her criticism of the reformist drift of so-cial democracy against its original revolutionary intention, confirmed in its validity by the evolution of capitalism. In connection with this, her thesis concerning the possibility of the realization of democracy is strictly linked to the revolutionary project. Finally, her assertion that the existence of such a project depends on the proletariat acquiring a theoretical knowled-ge about the inner workings of capitalism that must be transmitted to them by the revolutionary party