O que é este blog?

Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida;

Meu Twitter: https://twitter.com/PauloAlmeida53

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paulobooks

Mostrando postagens com marcador democracia. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador democracia. Mostrar todas as postagens

domingo, 5 de junho de 2016

Lord Acton and the Idea of Liberty - Gertrude Himmelfarb (Acton Institute)

Lord Acton and the Idea of Liberty



The opening words of Lord Acton’s first lecture on the History of Freedom in 1877 set the theme: “Liberty, next to religion, has been the motive of good deeds and the common pretext of crime, from the sowing of the seed at Athens, 2,460 years ago, until the ripened harvest was gathered by men of our race.” In the course of time, constitutions were perverted, charters became obsolete, parliaments abdicated and peoples erred, but the idea of liberty survived. That idea is “the unity, the only unity, of the history of the world, and the one principle of a philosophy of history.”
Whatever institutions or forms of government have been devised through the ages, the idea of liberty has remained constant: the right of each man to consult his conscience without reference to authorities or majorities, custom or opinion. The security of conscience enjoyed by the individual has its parallel in the security of minorities within the State; in both cases liberty is the safeguard of religion.
In the history of antiquity, Acton found confirmation of two of his favorite theories, that liberty is ancient and despotism modern, and that the history of liberty is in large measure the history of religion. The government of the Israelites, the first demonstration of political liberty, was a voluntary federation of self-governing tribes and families. When monarchy was finally instituted, it was only after much resistance, and the prophets kept alive the idea of equality before the law and the subservience of all before God. Acton wrote: “Thus the example of the Hebrew nation laid down the parallel lines on which all freedom has been won – the doctrine of national tradition and the doctrine of the higher law; the principle that a constitution grows from a root, by process of development, and not of essential change; and the principle that all political authorities must be tested and reformed according to a code which was not made by man.”
The first of the many disasters to befall liberty occurred when Babylonia conquered Judah and freedom under divine authority made way for absolutism under human authorities. From the degradation of tyranny, inequality and oppression, the world was rescued by the most gifted of ancient cities, Athens. Solon inaugurated a revolution in philosophy and politics when he introduced the idea of popular election, “the idea that a man ought to have a voice in selecting those to whose rectitude and wisdom he is compelled to trust his fortune, his family and his life.” Government by consent replaced government by force, and those who ruled were made responsible to those who obeyed. It was then discovered that political power, once concentrated in the interest of good order, could be distributed at no risk to order and at great gain to liberty.
This process of democratization was hastened by Pericles. With popular religion disintegrating, morality liberating itself from mythology, and a growing skepticism of moral authority, the people became the effective arbiters of good and evil. In consideration of this, Pericles installed them in the seat of power. All the props that artificially bolstered up property and wealth were destroyed, and it was a duty as well as a right for Athenians to participate in public affairs. Government became a matter of persuasion and rhetoric the instrument of popular rule, so that the “ascendancy of the mind” was established together with the ascendancy of the people.
In the zeal for the popular interest, however, there was no provision for the unpopular, and the minority soon found itself at the mercy of the majority. The people, now sovereign, felt themselves bound by no rules of right or wrong, no criteria except expediency, no force outside of themselves. They conducted wars in the marketplace and lost them, exploited their dependencies, plundered the rich, and crowned their guilt with the martyrdom of Socrates. The experiment of Athens taught that democracy, the rule of the most numerous and most powerful class, was an evil of the same nature as monarchical absolutism and required restraints of the same sort: institutions to protect it against itself and a permanent source of law to prevent arbitrary revolutions of opinion.
Men learned for the first time what later history was to confirm again and again. Acton:
It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority. For there is a reserve of latent power in the masses which, if it is called into play, the minority can seldom resist. But from the absolute will of an entire people there is no appeal, no redemption, no refuge but treason.
The Roman Republic experienced the same problems as Greece. Aristocratic governments alternated with democratic ones, until Caesar, supported by an army flushed with victories and a populace seduced by his generosity, converted the republic into a monarchy. In spite of the fact that the empire was an “ill-disguised and odious despotism,” it made an important contribution to liberty. As Frederick the Great, though a despot, could promote the freedom of religion and speech, and the Bonapartes, though tyrants, could win the love of the people, so the Roman Empire aroused genuine loyalty because it satisfied deep needs.
The poor fared better than they had under the Republic and the rich better than under the Triumvirate, the provinces acquired citizenship, slavery was mitigated, religious toleration was instituted, a primitive law of nations was devised, and the law of property was perfected. But what was given to liberty with one hand was taken away with the other when the people, by a voluntary act of delegation, transferred its sovereignty to the emperor and supported his tyranny because they thought of it as their own.
In terms of institutions and legislation, Greece and Rome had an imperfect conception of freedom. They knew how to manipulate power, but not how to achieve liberty. “The vice of the classic State was that it was both Church and State in one. Morality was undistinguished from religion and politics from morals; and in religion, morality, and politics there was only one legislator and one authority,” Acton wrote. The citizen was subject to the State as the slave was to his master, and nothing was deemed sacred apart from the public welfare.
But where their institutions failed, their philosophy succeeded. At a time when their governments were most absolute, their theories called for a mixed constitution. They saw that any single principle of government standing alone, whether monarchy, aristocracy or democracy, was apt to be carried to excess, and that only in a distribution and balance of powers was liberty secure. All the philosophers of antiquity displayed the same theoretical boldness and practical timidity.  Socrates urged men to submit all questions to the judgment of reason and conscience, and to ignore the verdict of authority, majority or custom. Yet he would not sanction resistance. “He emancipated men for thought, but not for action” and he fell victim to the old superstition of the State.
Plato taught the supremacy of a divine law “written in the mind of God” and Aristotle applied it, in the form of the doctrine of a mixed constitution, to practical government. But neither Plato nor Aristotle dared to conceive of liberty as justice rather than as expediency. Plato “perverted” the divine law when he limited it to the citizens of Greece, refusing it to the slave and the stranger. Aristotle perverted it by putting good government higher than liberty. They did not see that liberty was not a means to a higher political end but was itself the highest end, that “it is not for the sake of a good public administration that it is required, but for security in the pursuit of the highest objects of civil society and of private life.”
The Stoics pushed the theory of liberty one step forward with the doctrine of a law of Nature that was superior to the law of nations and the will of the people. “The great question,” they taught, “is to discover, not what governments prescribe, but what they ought to prescribe; for no prescription is valid against the conscience of mankind.” And the conscience of mankind knows no distinctions between Greek and barbarian, rich and poor, slave and master. Men are equal in rights as in duties, and human legislation can neither detract from the one nor add to the other. Thus the Stoics “redeemed democracy from the narrowness, the want of principle and of sympathy, which are its reproach among the Greeks.” Augustine testified to their wisdom when he remarked, after quoting Seneca, “What more could a Christian say than this Pagan has said?”
The Christian had, indeed, little more to say. There was hardly a truth in politics or ethics that had not already been enunciated before the new dispensation was revealed. It was left for Christianity, however, to animate the old truths, to make real the metaphysical barrier which philosophy had erected in the way of absolutism. The only thing Socrates could do in the way of a protest against tyranny was to die for his convictions. The Stoics could only advise the wise man to hold aloof from politics and keep faith with the unwritten law in his heart. But when Christ said, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s,” he gave to the State a legitimacy it had never before enjoyed, and set bounds to it that it had never yet acknowledged. And he not only delivered the precept but he also forged the instruments to execute it. To limit the power of the State ceased to be the hope of patient, ineffectual philosophers and became the perpetual charge of a universal Church.

This article was excerpted from Gertrude Himmelfarb’s Lord Acton: A Study in Conscience and Politics. The book, originally published in 1952, is available in a new 2015 edition from the Acton Book Shop.
Source: http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2015/11/10/lord-acton-idea-liberty

Grato ao amigo Paulo Kramer pela remessa deste artigo.

domingo, 17 de abril de 2016

Ascensão das democracias? Assim parece... - book by Christopher Hobson

The Rise of Democracy: Revolution, War, and Transformations in International Politics Since 1776

 
The Rise of Democracy: Revolution, War, and Transformations in International Politics Since 1776

sábado, 16 de abril de 2016

Brasileiros sectarios querem impedir FHC de dialogar sobre a democraciana LASA


Sectarismo político brasileiro transborda na LASA: querem impedir FHC de se expressar sobre a democracia, o que me parece uma contradição nos termos



Já participei de encontros da LASA, Latin American Studies Association, assim como da BRASA, Brazilian Studies Association, que é, digamos assim, uma vértebra da LASA, criada há 50 anos para integrar estudiosos americanos da questões latino-americanas e seus contrapartes na América Latina, que geralmente estudam a própria América Latina, ou mais exatamente seus países de origem, o que é, digamos, normal.

Sendo uma associação profissional, é normal que a LASA abrigue estudiosos de diversas tendências metodológicas – estruturalistas, funcionalistas, marxistas, weberianos, adeptos de estudos de gênero, afro, indigenistas, etc. – assim como pesquisadores de quaisquer orientações políticas: liberais, conservadores, direitistas, mas bem mais frequentemente progressistas, marxistas, esquerdistas num sentido amplo, incluindo maoístas, guevaristas, leninistas, trotsquistas, senderistas, peronistas, tupamaros, sandinistas e o que mais houver. Tudo isso é muito saudável, ou deveria ser, salvo confrontações por vezes mais ruidosas do que ruinosas, ou produzindo mais transpiração do que propriamente inspiração, o que sempre acrescenta algum colorido e animação para esses fabulosos convescotes da LASA.

Num dos últimos de que participei, em Chicago, havia até um painel sobre “sexo e neoliberalismo”, mas confesso que não me interessei em assistir; foi uma pena, pois poderia ter aprendido alguma coisa, como por exemplo os efeitos nefastos – broxantes, talvez? – do neoliberalismo sobre a libido.

Eu me deparo agora com esta petição de 70 membros brasileiros da LASA (e alguns poucos não brasileiros também), e mais 151 acadêmicos brasileiros não membros, solicitando que o comitê organizador do próximo encontro, comemorativo dos 50 anos da associação, retire o convite formulado ao ex-presidente Fernando Henrique Cardoso, sociólogo conhecidíssimo de todos os membros e não membros, para que ele participe de uma sessão presidencial, juntamente com o ex-presidente do Chile Ricardo Lagos, para que ambos debatam a evolução da sociedade e da democracia institucional na região, no decurso dos últimos 50 anos, além de argumentar sobre possíveis desenvolvimentos futuros.

A ironia da petição desses 221 acadêmicos é que eles pretendem evitar que o sociólogo e ex-presidente brasileiro se expresse num “diálogo sobre a democracia na América Latina”, o que me parece uma postura fundamentalmente antidemocrática, para não dizer sectária e totalmente inaceitável numa organização que deveria ser apolítica, ou pelo menos neutra, ou, se nem isso isso, pelo menos respeitosa do que se entende seja um ambiente acadêmico, em princípio aberto a ouvir todas as opiniões, sobretudo a de pessoas habilitadas e capacitadas – em todo caso bem mais do que qualquer dos que assinam a petição – a se expressar com total domínio sobre o tema sugerido pelos organizadores.


Deixem me dizer o que vai ocorrer: os organizadores vão se recusar a retirar o convite, os dois presidentes comparecerão, na hora e local fixados para esse “diálogo”, e, pelo menos, o ex-presidente e ainda sociólogo FHC será recebido com vaias e apupos e virtualmente impedido de se dirigir à plateia, onde estarão pessoas de todas as posições, inclusive muitos que gostariam de ouvi-lo, mas que serão frustradas em seu desejo pelos uivos sectários dos inimigos de FHC.

Faço questão de transcrever a petição, e de registrar os nomes de todos os sectários que assinaram um texto inaceitável no plano da democracia, e da academia, lamentando que colegas de universidades, que deveriam ser pessoas cordatas e abertas ao diálogo se revelam tão pouco cordatas e tão inimigas de qualquer diálogo sobre a democracia.

Instrutivo sobre os nossos tempos sectários, não só no Brasil, mas principalmente no Brasil.

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Brasília, 16 de abril de 2016





Petition to Withdraw Fernando Henrique Cardoso from LASA's 50th Anniversary Meeting's Following Slot:  Presidential Session - "Diálogo sobre la Democracia en Latinoamérica"


It has come to our attention that former President of Brazil Fernando Henrique Cardoso has been invited to speak about democracy in Latin America in a debate with former President of Chile Ricardo Lagos, during a Presidential Session at LASA's 50th Anniversary.

The Preliminary Program states it is expected both intellectuals and former Presidents debate the evolution of society and institutional democracy within the region throughout the past 50 years, besides providing glances at the future.

In light of President Cardoso's public position regarding Brazil's ongoing political crisis, we ask for the withdrawal of his name from a debate on such a substantial matter, central to most of LASA's members' research agendas, as well as personal struggles.

We respect Cardoso's past contributions to international thinking. However, this invitation comes in a rather unfortunate moment.

By inviting the former President to speak on the evolution of institutional democracy exactly during an utterly fragile moment in Brazil's democracy when Cardoso himself, as well as the party in which he still plays a central role have not hesitated to jeopardize domestic peace nor democracy's most basic mechanisms such as the Constitution, LASA would be offering blunt disrespect toward scholars who have fought - at times, literally - to constitute democratic stability throughout the region nowadays and in the past 50 years, not to mention staining the Association's credibility exactly on its 50th Anniversary.

We, therefore, ask President Gilbert Joseph, Vice President Joanne Rappaport, Congress Coordinator Pilar Blanco, and said Presidential Session's organizer Mauricio A Font to swiftly and respectfully rethink the invitation of Cardoso to speak on democracy during these critical times.

Sincerely,



Members

  1. Mariana Kalil, Universidade de Brasília (UnB)
  2. Veronica Toste Daflon, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)
  3. Alexandre Fuccille, President of Brazil's Association for Defense Studies (ABED) / Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
  4. Adalberto Cardoso, Director of IESP, Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)
  5. Thiago Rodrigues, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF)
  6. Héctor Luis Saint-Pierre, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
  7. Luiz Fernando Castelo Branco Rebello Horta, Universidade de Brasília (UnB)
  8. Thiago Rodrigues, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF)
  9. João Feres Júnior, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)
  10. Sabrina Medeiros, Escola de Guerra Naval do Brasil (EGN)
  11. Letícia Pinheiro, Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)
  12. Mônica Leite Lessa, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)
  13. Samuel Alves Soares, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
  14. Carla Silva-Muhammad, University of Texas / Brazil Center Coordinator
  15. Ernesto Lopez, Universidad de Lanus / Universidad de Quilmes
  16. Betina Fresneda, Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE)
  17. Claudio Luis Quaresma Daflon, University of Connecticut
  18. Clayton Mendonça Cunha Filho, Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC)
  19. Eduardo Ruben Paz Gonzales, COLMEX
  20. Patricia Duarte Rangel, Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
  21. Patricia de Santana Pinho, State University of New York (SUNY)
  22. Suzeley Kalil Mathias, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
  23. Leonardo Valente, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)
  24. Magda Barros Biavaschi, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
  25. Danielly Jacon Ayres Pinto, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM)
  26. Sue Iamamoto, Queen Mary University of London
  27. Marcelo Cafrune, Universidade de Brasília (UnB)
  28. Marjorie Corrêa Marona, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
  29. Carolina Silva Pedroso, San Tiago Dantas
  30. Luis F. Paredes, Stetson University 
  31. Vanessa Veiga de Oliveira, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
  32. Karina Biondi, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
  33. Ana Luiza Vedovato Rodrigues, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM)
  34. Livio Sansone, Universidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA)
  35. Ruth Felder, State University of New York (SUNY)
  36. Wagner de Melo Romão, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
  37. André de Macedo Duarte, Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR)
  38. Maria Rita de Assis César, Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR)
  39. Cláudia Maria Ribeiro Viscardi, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora (UFJF)
  40. Luciana Ballestrin, Universidade Federal de Pelotas (UFPel)
  41. Ingrid Sarti, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)
  42. Paulo Victor Melo, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
  43. Letícia Marteleto, University of Texas
  44. Salvador Schavelzon, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
  45. Glauber Cardoso Carvalho, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)
  46. Edilson Nunes dos Santos Junior, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF)
  47. Alexandre Fortes, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ)
  48. Maria Luiza Franco Busse, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)
  49. Andrés del Río, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF)
  50. Fernando Lara, University of Texas
  51. Laura Madrid Sartoretto, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
  52. Seth Racusen, Anna Maria College
  53. Luiz Claudio Martino, Universidade de Brasília (UnB)
  54. Maria Luiza Franco Busse, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)
  55. Carmen Hein de Campos, Universidade de Vila Velha (ES)
  56. Anjuli Fahlberg, Northeastern University (Boston, MA)
  57. Felipe Trotta, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF)
  58. Gérman Soprano, Universidad Nacional de Quilmes
  59. Carolina Matos, City University of London
  60. Marlise Miriam de Matos Almeida, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
  61. Sebastião Velasco e Cruz, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
  62. Fernando Leiva, University of California, Santa Cruz
  63. Helcimara Telles, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
  64. Lígia Dabul, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF)
  65. Luciane de Oliveira Rocha, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)
  66. Flavia Guerra Cavalcanti, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)
  67. Wanderlan da Silva Alves, Universidade Estadual da Paraíba (UEPB)
  68. Marcus Rocha, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
  69. Marília Carolina Souza, Universidade Estadual de São Paulo (UNESP)
  70. Victoria Irisarri, Universidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA)

Non-Members

  1. Carol Proner, Member of Brazil's Ministry of Justice's Commission for Truth & Reconciliation  / Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)
  2. Fabio Konder Comparato, Universidade de São Paulo / Universidade de Coimbra
  3. Tarso Genro, Brazil's Former Minister of Justice
  4. Emir Sader, Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ) / Former Executive Secretary of Clacso
  5. Monica Bruckmann, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)
  6. Marta Skinner, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)
  7. José Luiz de Oliveira Soares, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)
  8. Antonio Albino Canelas Rubim, Universidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA)
  9. Deisy de Freitas Lima Ventura, Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
  10. Rosa Maria Marques, President of the Brazilian Association for Health Studies / Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)
  11. Maíra da Silva Fedatto, Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
  12. Fábio Kerch, Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social do Brasil (BNDES)
  13. Milena Britto, Universidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA)
  14. Mariela Cuadro, Conicet / UNPL
  15. Eduardo R. Gomes, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF) / University of Chicago
  16. Patricia Bandeira de Melo, Director of Social Research, Fundação Joaquim Nabuco (FUNDAJ)
  17. José Willington Germano, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN)
  18. Thauan Santos, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) & Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio)
  19. Luís Henrique Mourão, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF)
  20. Pedro Alencar, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)
  21. Derek Pardue, Coordinator of Brazilian Studies, Aarhus University
  22. Isis da Cruz Beserra de Araújo, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF)
  23. Barbara Lamas, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)
  24. Drielle Silva Pereira, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF)
  25. Mirtes Moreira Silva, Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
  26. Danillo Avellar Bragança Escola de Guerra Naval (EGN) / Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF)
  27. Fabio de Sá e Silva, Institute for Applied Economic Research (Ipea)
  28. Rodrigo de Macedo Duarte, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
  29. Júlio César Vieira, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF)
  30. Joaquim Cordeiro Neto, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
  31. Lívio Sandone (TBA)
  32. Bruno Plattek de Araújo, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio)
  33. Lorena Holzmann, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
  34. Tiago Prata Lopes Storni, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)
  35. Tamyres Ravache Alves de Marco, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)
  36. Ricardo Borrmann, LMU - Munique
  37. Jacquelina Ventapane Freitas, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)
  38. Marco Costa Lima, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE)
  39. Susana de Castro, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)
  40. Maria Helena Machado, ENSP-FIOCRUZ / Head of NERHUS and OBSERVARH-ENSP
  41. Frederico Policarpo, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF)
  42. Íris Gomes, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
  43. Pedro José de Castro, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais do Brasil (INPE)
  44. Fabio Alexandre dos Santos, Universidade Federal do Estado de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
  45. Maria Aparecida Bridi, Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR) / Executive Director of the Brazilian Association for Labor Studies
  46. Dijaci David de Oliveira, Universidade Federal de Goiás (UFG)
  47. Aluisio Schumacher, Universidade do Estado de São Paulo (UNESP)
  48. Fabiana Abreu Rezende, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa)
  49. Claudio de Farias Augusto, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF)
  50. Gabriel E. Vitullo, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN)
  51. Joana A. Coutinho, Universidade Federal do Maranhão (UFMA)
  52. Monica Dias Martins, Universidade Estadual do Ceará (UECE)
  53. Luiz Antonio Nascimento de Souza, Universidade Federal do Amazonas (UFAM)
  54. Camila Alves da Costa, Universidade Estadual do Ceará (UECE)
  55. Laurindo Leal Filho, Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
  56. Cynthia Soares Carneiro, Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
  57. Mariela Campos Rocha, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
  58. Sonia Maria Costa Barbosa, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE)
  59. Maristela Viana França de Andrade, Universidade Federal de Goiás (UFG)
  60. Danniel Coelho, Faculdades Santo Agostinho, MG
  61. Laymert Garcia dos Santos, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
  62. Solange Maeve, São Paulo State Education Lecturer
  63. Washington Dener, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)
  64. Adilson Araujo de Souza, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)
  65. Gabriel Passetti, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF)
  66. Francisco César Pinto da Fonseca, Fundação Getúlio Vargas / Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo (PUC-SP)
  67. Maria Rosário da Carvalho, Universidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA)
  68. Maurício Santana Dias, Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
  69. Eleide Abril Gordon Findlay, Universidade da Região de Joinville (UNIVILLE)
  70. Denise Figueiredo, Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto (UFOP)
  71. Paulo Sesar Pimentel, Instituto Federal de Mato Grosso (IFMT)
  72. Carlos A. Ferreira Martins, Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
  73. Márcio Carneiro dos Reis, Universidade Federal de São João Del-Rei (UFSJR)
  74. Samuel Filipe Marinho, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
  75. Paulo Saturnino Figueiredo, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
  76. Juliana Gagliardi de Araujo, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF)
  77. Felipe Iraldo Oliveira Biasoli, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF)
  78. Jean Rodrigues Sales, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ)
  79. Jorge Alexandre Neves, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) / Former Director of the Sociology Department of UFMG / Visiting Researcher at the University of Texas
  80. Livia Clarete, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
  81. Liliane Alves, FADIMAB
  82. Daniel Lopes Bretas, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)
  83. Joaze Bernardino-Costa, Universidade de Brasília (UnB)
  84. Cleudes Maria Tavares, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Goiás (PUC-GO)
  85. Carlos Roberto Rodrigues de Souza, Universidade Federal de São Carlos (UFSC)
  86. Cleber Julião, Universidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA)
  87. Marcia Ribeiro Dias, UNIRIO
  88. Delmo Arguellhes, UniEuro
  89. Luís Felipe Miguel, Universidade de Brasília (UnB)
  90. Renato Lopes Leite, Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR)
  91. Ana Lígia Leite e Aguiar, Universidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA)
  92. Marilene Valério Diniz, Universidad Complutense de Madrid
  93. Anivaldo Padilha, President of Fórum21: ideias para o avanço social
  94. Rolando Lazarte, Universidade Federal da Paraíba (UFPB)
  95. Renata Mancini, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF)
  96. Fernando Gonçalves, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)
  97. Fabiano Gomes da Silva, Instituto Federal de Minas Gerais (IFMG)
  98. Bruno Brito, Universidade do Vale do Itajaí (UniVale)
  99. Clician do Couto Oliveira, Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE)
  100. Luiz Recaman, Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
  101. Afonso de Albuquerque, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF)
  102. Nícia Adan Bonatti, Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie
  103. José Sergio Damico, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ/RJ)
  104. Celso Borzani, Universidade de São Paulo (USP) / Director of Centro de Referência em Tecnologia Social Aplicada (CRTSA)
  105. Olga Aparecida do Nascimento Loyola, Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
  106. Eduardo Vicente, Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
  107. Fabiane Lucena Cavalcanti, Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE)
  108. Rudimar Baldissera, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
  109. Antonio Luis de Andrade, Universidade Estadual de São Paulo (UNESP)
  110. Daniel Ferreira da Cunha, Universidade Federal do Triângulo Mineiro
  111. Ariadne Costa da Mata, Universidade Estadual da Paraíba (UEPB)
  112. Carlos Eduardo Martins, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)
  113. Thiago Silame, Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV)
  114. Marcos Alexandre de Souza Gomes, Faculdades Integradas Hélio Alonso (FACHA)
  115. Denise Tavares da Silva, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF)
  116. Flávio Rocha de Oliveira, Universidade Federal do ABC (UFABC)
  117. Renata Plaza Teixeira, Instituto Federal de São Paulo (IFSP)
  118. Olival Freire Junior, Universidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA)
  119. Bruno de Moura Borges, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)
  120. João Vicente R. B. Costa Lima, Universidade Federal de Alagoas (UFA)
  121. Eduardo Fernandes, Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
  122. Marina Gusmão de Mendonça, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp)
  123. Alice Itani, Universidade do Estado de São Paulo (UNESP)
  124. Rafael Affonso de Miranda Alonso, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ)
  125. Ilana Sherl, Tulane University
  126. Isaias G. de Oliveira, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ)
  127. Simone Bacellar Moreira, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ)
  128. Marco de Meneses, Centro Universitário IESB
  129. Claudio Struchiner, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)
  130. Ricardo Cavalcante, Associação das Indústrias do Distrito Industrial da Fazenda Botafogo (ASDIN)
  131. Rita Lages Rodrigues, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
  132. Débora El-Jaick Andrade, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF)
  133. Joana El-Jaick Andrade, Instituto Federal do Triângulo Mineiro (IFTM)
  134. Alexandre Garrido da Silva, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU)
  135. Andréia Galvão, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
  136. Patricia Moran Fernandes, Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
  137. Caitlin Janiszewski, State University of New York (SUNY)
  138. Célia Maria Magalhães, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG)
  139. Raquel Longhi, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)
  140. Fernanda Maria da Costa Vieira, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora (UFJF)
  141. Jorge Cordeiro Balster, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)
  142. Caio Navarro de Toledo, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
  143. Luiz Antonio Mousinho Magalhães, Universidade Federal da Paraíba (UFPB)
  144. Cristine Ferreira, Universidade Estácio de Sá (UNESA)
  145. Nicholas Davies, Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF)
  146. Fábio Coelho Malaguti, Hegel-Archiv
  147. Nelson Canesin, Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
  148. Ivan Capeller, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)
  149. André Lemos, Universidade Federal da Bahia (UFBA)
  150. Marcos Barros, Grénoble École de Management
  151. Marcius Freire, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)


sexta-feira, 2 de outubro de 2015

Avant Propos a Revolutions Bourgeoises et Modernisation Capitaliste - Paulo R. Almeida

Paulo Roberto de Almeida :
Révolutions bourgeoises et modernisation capitaliste : Démocratie et autoritarisme au Brésil

(Sarrebruck: Éditions Universitaires Européennes, 2015, 456 p.; ISBN: 978-3-8416-7391-6; p. 15-41)

Avant-Propos :
Capitalisme et démocratie au Brésil, à trente ans de distance


Dans l’introduction à son étude sur Les caractères originaux de l’histoire rurale française – publiée originalement en 1931, et depuis longtemps devenue un classique –, l’historien Marc Bloch affirmait avec raison que, « dans le développement d’une discipline, il est des moments où une synthèse, fût-elle en apparence prématurée, rend plus de services que beaucoup de travaux d’analyse, où, en d’autres termes, il importe surtout de bien énoncer les questions, plutôt, pour l’instant, que de chercher à les résoudre » (2ème éd. ; Paris : Armand Colin, 1964, tome I, p. vii).
Le présent travail – lequel, dans sa première incarnation, avait été soutenu en 1984, en tant que thèse de doctorat en Sciences Sociales à l’Université Libre de Bruxelles, sous le titre quelque peu ambitieux de « Classes Sociales et Pouvoir Politique au Brésil : une étude sur les fondements méthodologiques et empiriques de la Révolution Bourgeoise » – ne prétend certes pas se poser en « synthèse » de sociologie historique appliquée et, même s’il tend vers ce but, n’est en aucun cas une synthèse achevée. Plus modestement, il cherche, d’une part, à établir le bilan critique d’un modèle explicatif de nature historico-sociologique – sous le concept de Révolution Bourgeoise, à côté des révolutions bourgeoises réelles – et, d’autre part, à faire la mise au point empirico-théorique de la légitimité de ce modèle pour l’interprétation d’un processus donné de développement historique : la modernisation économique de la société brésilienne et ses manifestations au niveau du système de pouvoir. Elle touche donc à deux domaines classiques de la sociologie et de l’histoire, objets d’attention constante au sein de l’académie : le capitalisme et la démocratie.
 

(...)

Ler a íntegra aqui: 

 Avant-propos disponível na plataforma Academia.edu
link: https://www.academia.edu/15889842/2862_Capitalisme_et_Democratie_au_Bresil_a_trente_ans_de_distance_2015_ 
e em ResearchGate 
link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282356116_Avant-propos_Capitalisme_et_Dmocratie_au_Brsil__Trente_Ans_de_Distance?ev=prf_pub
Relação de Originais n. 2863; Publicados n. 1193. 

Révolutions bourgeoises et modernisation capitaliste : Démocratie et autoritarisme au Brésil (Sarrebruck: Éditions Universitaires Européennes, 2015, 456 p.; ISBN: 978-3-8416-7391-6); version révisée de la thèse présenté en 1984 à la Faculté des Sciences Sociales, Politiques et Économiques de l’Université Libre de Bruxelles: Classes Sociales et Pouvoir Politique au Brésil: une étude sur les fondements méthodologiques et empiriques de la Révolution Bourgeoise ; ajoutée du travail 2862).