Diplomatizzando

sábado, 5 de novembro de 2011

"Temos que nos proteger. Não é protecionismo..." -- ???? Confesso que nao entendi

A presidente, sempre clara em suas preleções, disse duas coisas dignas de nota:
1) "Temos que nos proteger. Não é protecionismo, mas cada um faz o que pode."
2) "Nós temos uma taxa, o Imposto sobre Operações Financeiras (IOF). Nós não somos contra a taxação global. Se todos os países adotarem uma taxa, o Brasil não é contra. Se tiver uma taxa global, o Brasil adota também. Tem países que são contra, porque fazem das finanças seu melhor negócio."
Primeiro transcrevo a matéria, depois faço meus comentários:

Dilma reclama do câmbio chinês e não dará dinheiro a fundo europeu

Deborah Berlinck
O Globo, 5/11/2011

CANNES (França). A presidente Dilma Rousseff queixou-se ontem que passa “o tempo todo” reclamando do câmbio desvalorizado da China, mas que não tem como obter garantias dos chineses nem “de ninguém” que esta situação vá mudar. O yuan desvalorizado criou uma vantagem competitiva extra para os produtos chineses, que estão chegando de forma crescente ao mercado brasileiro, sob protestos da indústria nacional. O país asiático já é o maior parceiro comercial do Brasil.

— Passamos o tempo inteiro dizendo isso, que não pode ser assim, que tem que mudar. Não somos só nós a falar isso — disse a presidente.

Dilma, que se encontrou com o presidente chinês Hu Jintao em um reunião privada, paralela à cúpula do G-20 (maiores economias do mundo), disse que é por causa do câmbio chinês que o Brasil tem insistido na Organização Mundial do Comércio (OMC) que as discussões sobre livre comércio “passam pela questão do câmbio”.

— Temos que nos proteger. Não é protecionismo, mas cada um faz o que pode — disse Dilma ontem. No encontro com Hu Jintao, ela teria pedido que a relação comercial seja baseada na agregação de valor também para os produtos comprados do Brasil.

Ajuda pelo FMI é mais garantida, diz presidente

A presidente Dilma descartou ontem qualquer possibilidade de o Brasil participar do Fundo Europeu de Estabilidade Financeira (FEEF) — criado para ajudar os países europeus em crise. Ela reafirmou que o país só vai ajudar por meio do Fundo Monetário Internacional (FMI). E explicou o motivo, sem rodeios:

— Eu não tenho nenhuma intenção de fazer uma contribuição direta para o Fundo de Estabilização Europeu. Por que? Nem eles (os europeus) têm… por que eu teria? — indagou.

Dilma disse que a opção do Brasil pela ajuda via FMI é simples: o Fundo Monetário, ao contrário do fundo europeu (que é privado), dá garantia total. E como a ajuda é feita com reservas brasileiras — ou seja, dinheiro do contribuinte — não se pode arriscar.

A respeito da taxação sobre operações financeiras — uma das bandeiras do governo francês na presidência do G-20 — Dilma explicou porque o Brasil retirou sua oposição à proposta:

— Nós temos uma taxa, o Imposto sobre Operações Financeiras (IOF). Nós não somos contra a taxação global. Se todos os países adotarem uma taxa, o Brasil não é contra. Se tiver uma taxa global, o Brasil adota também. Tem países que são contra, porque fazem das finanças seu melhor negócio.

A taxa global sobre operações financeiras, entretanto, está longe de ser aprovada pelo G-20. A proposta, contudo, tem ganhado mais adesões, como o Brasil.

Dilma pede adiamento de 16 dias para início da Rio+20

O governo brasileiro pediu ontem o adiamento da Conferência das Nações Unidas para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável, a Rio+20, dos dias 4 a 6 de junho para 20 a 22 do mesmo mês, no ano que vem. A presidente Dilma Rousseff afirmou que a mudança tem por objetivo garantir a presença de chefes de Estado e de governo no Rio de Janeiro.

— Nos dias em que estávamos prevendo a Rio+20, haverá a comemoração dos 60 anos da coroação da rainha Elizabeth II. Qual é o problema que isso acarreta? Os países da área do Commonwealth não iriam à Rio+20 — disse a presidente. — Além disso, os países da Ásia pediram para que a gente fizesse aproximar (a Rio+20) do próximo G-20, que será no México, nos dias 18 e 19 de junho.

Com o adiamento da Rio+20, Dilma espera que as lideranças dos países do G-20 possam sair do México e vir para o Brasil participar da conferência.

— A proposta foi um consenso entre o Brasil e a ONU, entre mim e o (secretário geral da ONU) Ban Ki-moon — disse Dilma.

Agora vamos examinar esta duas frases da presidente:
1) "Temos que nos proteger. Não é protecionismo, mas cada um faz o que pode."
Confesso que não entendi. Tampouco entendo como, falando nisso (ou seja, desequilíbrio comercial entre o Brasil e a China) o tempo todo, a situação venha a mudar, apenas por "influência" das palavras.
Pode ser que as palavras, nesse mundo bizarro da política, tenham um poder muito maior do que ações concretas, tomadas no plano das atividades industriais e comerciais, mas acho que não vai adiantar muito só falar.
Quem sabe diminuindo o custo Brasil e expondo as empresas à competição a situação melhore um pouco?

2) "Nós temos uma taxa, o Imposto sobre Operações Financeiras (IOF). Nós não somos contra a taxação global. Se todos os países adotarem uma taxa, o Brasil não é contra. Se tiver uma taxa global, o Brasil adota também. Tem países que são contra, porque fazem das finanças seu melhor negócio."
Confesso que essa eu também tampouco entendi. Acho que a presidente tem um raciocínio econômico um pouco falho, para não dizer completamente maluco. Senão vejamos.
Temos o IOF, claro, mas ele é feito para evitar o excesso de fluxos exclusivamente financeiros entrando no Brasil, que podem multiplicar o meio circulante, causar inflação e "aproveitar" nossas taxas de juros excessivamente altas (mas aqui os culpados somos nós mesmos, certo?; se oferecemos taxas generosas de juros aos emprestadores de capital, depois não podemos reclamar que eles chegam justamente para aproveitar isso).
Mas o assunto agora é adotar não mais um imposto interno (que isso podemos e sabemos fazer como ninguém), e sim uma regra multilateral, não determinada por nós, de taxação sobre capitais financeiros sabe-se lá com quais alíquotas, para quais tipos de capital, e com qual destinação, exatamente. Ou seja, IOF somos nós que aplicamos, quanto e quando assim o decidirmos. Taxa Tobin, ou qualquer outro nome, seria uma baliza comum, ao qual o Brasil aderiria. Mas por que, e com quais objetivos?
A mim, me parece completamente estapafúrdia a ideia. Se nos abrimos a capitais financeiros, é porque, supostamente, precisamos acolher capitais, de todos os tipos: IED, aplicações em bolsa, ou emissões globais, ou seja, empréstimos soberanos.
Que diabos teríamos como vantagem taxar esse capital que queremos atrair?
Confesso que não entendi.
Se os países europeus pretendem taxar esses fluxos porque os governos irresponsáveis gastaram muito dinheiro do contribuinte, já não conseguem arrecadar mais por meio de impostos sobre a população, e decidem então tirar uma casquinha do sistema bancário (que será paga pelos contribuintes e usuários do sistema, não tenham dúvida disso), que diabos teríamos nós como interesse seguir a mesma política de taxação?
Por que deveríamos dar um tiro no pé apenas por que outros o estão fazendo?
Política maluca essa...
Me parece que certos dirigentes não pensam antes de falar...
Mas isso é o próprio de políticos...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

G20: todos os documentos oficiais, de 1999 a 2011

Communiqués

Building Imperialism: the British East Indian Company

How Maritime Routes Led to Cultural Exchanges

By RODERICK CONWAY MORRIS

The New York Times, November 5, 2011

National Maritime Museum, London

A striking example of how the East India Company influenced Chinese culture is this 19th-century Chinese painting, "A Trading Junk," with a ship in the background flying the Company flag.

LONDON — Sir John R. Seeley, the 19th-century British historian, famously remarked that “the British Empire was acquired in a fit of absence of mind.”

The greatest single force in the expansion of that empire was the East India Company. Although in theory dedicated to trading by sea, the company gradually acquired vast areas of territory in Asia and found itself the ruler of a sixth of humanity.

A further unplanned consequence was that the Company became the primary conduit for carrying Asian art and artifacts to the West, and European art and manufactures to the East, profoundly influencing the development of the arts at both ends of the long and arduous trading routes of the day.

After its somewhat inglorious demise following the Indian Mutiny, the Company was abolished in 1858. Its grandiose headquarters at East India House in the City of London were demolished in 1863, and much of the former contents of the Company museum found their way to the Victoria and Albert Museum in 1879.

But at last there is a new permanent gallery, “Traders: the East India Company and Asia,” inaugurated in late September at the National Maritime Museum in the London borough of Greenwich, which relates the Company’s remarkable story with more than 125 fascinating historical pieces, including paintings, artworks, artifacts and manuscripts.

The initiative is accompanied by an exemplary, highly readable and handsomely illustrated book by H.V. Bowen, John McAleer and Robert J. Blyth: “Monsoon Traders: The Maritime World of the East India Company.”

When the Company made its first tentative foray into the Indian Ocean in 1601, it was entering seas that had been the scene of commerce for thousands of years, whose activities were regulated by the monsoon winds. Owing to contrary winds nearer home, it took the first Company fleet of four small ships nearly two months to leave the shores of England. But the expedition returned successfully after 939 days with 500 tons of pepper and its commander, James Lancaster, was knighted by King James I. The only known portrait of Lancaster, from the museum’s own collection, is now on show in the gallery.

The Company was competing in an arena that was already dominated by Arab, Ottoman, Portuguese and Dutch fleets. The Dutch East India Company managed to exclude the English company from the lucrative Spice Islands, now part of Indonesia, forcing it to carve out a niche for itself in India: trading in textiles and spices from the Asian subcontinent.

The ancient overland Silk Roads had carried examples of the Eastern arts to Europe for many centuries. But the rise of maritime trade vastly increased the variety and sheer quantities of these goods that made it to European shores, and guaranteed their wider distribution and appreciation.

While spices remained a staple, by 1664 textiles accounted for 70 percent of the value of the Company’s imports. And by 1699 a writer was commenting on the calico “craze” in England among both men and women with “Calico shirts, Neckcloths, Cuffs, Pocket-handkerchiefs” for the former, and “Hoods, Sleeves, Aprons, Gowns, Petticoats” for the latter; and “India stockings for both sexes.” By 1750 the Company was importing 11 million yards of handwoven Indian cloth, by then an essential element in everyday dress and high fashion, as illustrated here by historic textiles and contemporary paintings and prints.

The diarist Samuel Pepys records tasting tea as early as the 1660s. Even after the Company gained regular direct access to Canton in 1711, tea drinking was a luxury. But the practice gradually became popular at every level of society. In the early 1750s the Company was shipping around three million pounds, or 1.36 million kilograms, of tea annually. By the end of the century this had risen to more than 30 million pounds. And, as was noted in 1812, China was now “the most important branch of the Company’s concerns.”

The craze for tea and the imported paraphernalia involved in its drinking had a similar effect on decor and furniture that the earlier craze for Indian textiles had on fashions. Chinese ceramic and porcelain teapots, cups, saucers and bowls helped fuel the mania for Chinoiserie.

This also gave rise to China-export wares, styled for Western markets, a trend that produced some of the extraordinary hybrids on show in the “Traders” gallery. Among these are a teapot with additional decoration added in Holland (probably in Rotterdam), a bowl and beer mugs owned by Capt. James Cook and his wife, Elizabeth; and a breakfast service that belonged to Lord Nelson. Although supposedly based on “Japan” patterns, this garish, gilded ensemble, which mixes Japanese floral motifs with crowns and images of ships’ sterns, was made in Worcester, England, by Chamberlain’s China Factory, which Lord Nelson visited in 1802.

No less curious is a punch bowl presented to an English shipyard owner in the 1780s. Made in China, the bowl is decorated with Western sailing ships under construction, probably taken from technical drawings, but with a delicate, inescapably Chinese landscape backdrop.

Such local orders gave rise to a thriving Western-inspired school of Chinese paintings of marine, river and port scenes, some splendid examples of which expand the gallery’s horizons into the artistic influences that the Company's presence played a large part in introducing into China. One of the most richly colored and atmospheric of these is “A Trading Junk” from the 19th century, with an Indiaman flying the Company flag anchored in the background.

Many of the art pieces and artifacts brought back from the East were essentially souvenirs, like a Qianlong period miniature Chinese garden in the gallery, made of coral, carved wood and ivory, of the kind that a visiting artist like William Alexander, who joined a diplomatic mission in the 1790s, might have dismissed as “knick knacks.” But objects of high quality were also sought out and exported for discriminating Western buyers, reaching Europe in the Company’s vessels.

Lavish diplomatic gifts presented to Asian rulers in the hope of gaining advantageous trade concessions arrived in impressive quantities every year on the Company’s ships and were a principal means through which Western tastes were introduced into the region. Among the gifts delivered by King James I’s ambassador, Sir Thomas Roe, to the Mogul emperor Jahangir was a coach, with which the emperor was so pleased he had two copies made. Emperor Jahangir was no less delighted when, as a wager, he had a copy made of a miniature given to him by Sir Roe and the disconcerted ambassador found himself unable to say which was the original.

War booty was another source of Asian art exported to the West, as witnessed in the museum by an Imperial Chinese silk flag with a gold-leaf winged lion, carried off when Canton was captured in the Second China War in 1857. In the same year, one of the prizes taken from the King of Oudh’s palace, when Lucknow was stormed, was a fine 17th-century Persian astrolabe, also on display.

The largest exhibit on show is the colorful painted wooden figurehead of H.M.S. Seringapatam, built at the Bombay Dockyard in 1819. The vessel took its name from the capital of the then ruler of Mysore, Tipu Sultan. After a protracted and bloody struggle, the city was overcome by the Company’s troops in 1792. The colossal booty amassed, valued at more than £1 million, included numerous artworks, quite a number of which are now in the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Royal Collection and various country houses in Britain.

O Brasil no NYTimes: imperialismo regional?

Brazil's Long Shadow Vexes Some Neighbors

By SIMON ROMERO

As Brazil projects its growing economic power via large development projects across Latin America, it is being met with wariness and protesters decrying "imperialism."

Slide Show: Brazil's Rising Influence Meets Resistance

LA PAZ, Bolivia — Sandal-clad indigenous protesters have excoriated their president, calling him a “lackey of Brazil.” Angry demonstrations in front of Brazil’s embassy here denounced its “imperialist” tendencies. Bolivian intellectuals lambasted the “São Paulo bourgeoisie,” likening them to the slave hunters who expanded the boundaries of colonial Brazil.

Such heated words used to be reserved for the United States, which has wielded extraordinary influence across Latin America. But as American dominance in the region recedes and Brazil increasingly flexes its newfound political and economic might, it has begun to experience the pitfalls of the role as well: a pushback against the hemisphere’s rising power.

“Power has shifted from one side of Avenida Arce to the other,” said Fernando Molina, a local newspaper columnist, referring to the street in La Paz where the Brazilian ambassador’s residence sits opposite the towering embassy of the United States.

Brazilian endeavors are being met with wariness in several countries. A proposal to build a road through Guyana’s jungles to its coast has stalled because of fears that Brazil could overwhelm its small neighbor with migration and trade.

In Argentina, officials suspended a large project by a Brazilian mining company, accusing it of failing to hire enough locals. Tension in Ecuador over a hydroelectric plant led to bitter legal battle, and protests by Asháninka Indians in Peru’s Amazon have put in doubt a Brazilian dam project.

But perhaps no Brazilian project in the region has stirred as much ire as the one here.

Financed by Brazil’s national development bank — a financial behemoth that dwarfs the lending of the World Bank and has become a principal means for Brazil to project its power across Latin America and beyond — the plan was to build a road through a remote Bolivian indigenous territory. But it provoked a slow-burning revolt; hundreds of indigenous protesters arrived here in October after a grueling two-month march that took them up the spine of the Andes, denouncing their onetime champion, President Evo Morales, for supporting it.

“Llunk’u of Brazil,” read one of their placards, calling the president a minion of Brazil, in Quechua, an indigenous language. Mr. Morales, Bolivia’s first indigenous president and an avowed environmentalist, suddenly found himself at odds with an important part of his political base, defending a Brazilian project that could increase deforestation. He eventually yielded to the protesters’ demands and ruled out the road though the territory.

Companies from other countries, notably China, are also expanding rapidly in Latin America and occasionally confronting hostility. But Brazil is the region’s largest nation, with a population of about 200 million people, and the size and boldness of its rise over the past decade help explain some of the tension it has generated.

Hundreds of thousands of Brazilian immigrants and their descendants have settled in Paraguay, often buying up land for large-scale agriculture in a country with a much smaller population. Called Brasiguayos, they have been both celebrated for helping Paraguay’s economy boom and demonized for controlling large tracts of land, at times leading land activists to burn Brazilian flags.

More than a century ago, before it became a republic, Brazil was an empire with occasional designs on neighbors’ territory, often serving as an arbiter in disputes in Latin America.

Brazil now relies on a sophisticated diplomatic corps, rising foreign aid payments and the deep pockets of its development bank, which finances projects not just in Latin America but in Africa as well.

“When Kissinger came to Brazil more than three decades ago, he warned his hosts that they could end up being feared rather than loved by their own neighbors,” said Matias Spektor, a professor at Brazil’s Fundação Getulio Vargas, an elite educational institution, referring to the former American secretary of state, Henry A. Kissinger, and his efforts to forge stronger ties with Brazil in the 1970s.

“Now Brazil is engaging Latin America more deeply, without a clear policy of addressing the anxiety that can accompany this process,” Mr. Spektor said. “There’s the real danger of being on the receiving end of anger in certain places.”

Here in Bolivia, the United States once had unrivaled influence, before Mr. Morales’s election in 2005. Since then, Mr. Morales has clashed repeatedly with Washington while warming to other countries, notably Brazil, Venezuela, Cuba and Iran. Since 2008, when Mr. Morales expelled the American envoy, Philip S. Goldberg, the United States has not had even an ambassador here.

But Brazil’s profile has grown. A Brazilian company, OAS, won the $415-million road contract in 2008, with financing coming from the National Bank for Economic and Social Development in Brazil. It is making about $83 billion in loans in 2011. The World Bank, by comparison, lent $57.4 billion.

As the protest march against the road began advancing through the lowlands in August, Brazil’s popular former president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, flew to Bolivia to deliver a speechsponsored by the Brazilian company to businessmen and to meet with Mr. Morales. (Mr. da Silva’s aides argued the road dispute was not part of the trip’s agenda.)

The trip came at critical time, when talks were faltering. But Mr. da Silva’s trip failed to ease the tension, and it became known his visit was part of a three-country trip paid for by OAS and Queiroz Galvão, another Brazilian construction company, which included stops in Costa Rica and El Salvador.

“It’s obvious that Brazil just wants our resources,” said Marco Herminio Fabricano, 47, an artisan from the Mojeño indigenous group who was among the marchers to La Paz. “Evo feels like he can betray us to his Brazilian allies.”

Brazilian officials insist that the road has nothing to do with betrayals or resource grabs.

“We want Brazil to be surrounded by prosperous, stable countries,” Marcel Biato, Brazil’s ambassador to Bolivia, said about infrastructure financing in Bolivia and elsewhere in South America.

Indeed, Brazilian authorities argue that their country has access to other sources of raw materials, as well as to routes across the continent through which it can send goods to ports on the Pacific.

But the road does hold strategic importance for coca growers, perhaps Mr. Morales’s most loyal constituency, made up largely of Quechua- and Aymara-speaking Indians, setting up a clash between them and other indigenous groups that live in the territory.

Brazil continues to nurture an array of plans in Bolivia, including several hydroelectric projects and an ambitious antidrug policy that involves deploying drones on the border and training and equipping Bolivian security forces.

But the road dispute has put Brazil on watch here. “Just as China consolidates regional hegemony in Asia, Brazil wants to do the same in Latin America,” said Raúl Prada Alcoreza, a former senior official in Bolivia’s government who is now a fierce critic of Mr. Morales.

“A Bolivian process intended to provide an alternative, and the social movements which helped make this government possible,” Mr. Prada said, “end up being trampled by Brazilian interests.”

Sara Shahriari contributed reporting.

A esquerda e o desenvolvimento da América Latina: extraordinarios progressos

Eu às vezes me pergunto como anda o desenvolvimento intelectual nas universidades latino-americanas, e me ponho a imaginar que ele anda bem, e que um dia, quem sabe?, essas universidades poderão juntar-se ao pelotão das melhores universidades do mundo, na produção de ciência de boa qualidade, aplicando as metodologias mais adequadas para tal desenvolvimento intelectual e produzindo "soluções" para o que é, notoriamente, um continente ainda notoriamente "subdesenvolvido" para os padrões normais que se espera de um país funcional em termos de produção de riqueza, de distribuição de renda, de avanços educacionais, etc.
Eu me pergunto, e imagino que a "coisa" possa avançar.
Mas, aí, por acaso, me deparo com esse tipo de seminário, como o anunciado abaixo, e perco as esperanças.
Pois é, como vocês devem imaginar, a esquerda latino-americana é uma de mais sucesso no mundo e é por isso mesmo que o continente é essa pujança de desenvolvimento e de Prêmios Nobel, de avanços fantásticos nos progressos materiais e nas realizações intelectuais.
Como não concordar em que Marx, Trotski, Mariategui, que os judeus comunistas, e que toda a esquerda em geral fora, são e serão importantíssimo para o nosso desenvolvimento, como não reconhecer que as contribuições deles todos e dos fantásticos professores que estudam suas valiosas e geniais contribuições para os nossos progressos materiais e espirituais serão extremamente importantes para os avanços que já registramos e que vamos ainda observar?
Como não achar que tudo isso é maravilhoso, e que os demais continentes e regiões do mundo estão perdendo um tempo enorme estudando a sério políticas comerciais, aplicação da ciência à indústria, ou então simplesmente formando professores que ensinem matemáticas, ciências e língua pátria aos seus estudantes dos ciclos pré-universitários?
Por isso mesmo, as universidades latino-americanas e a UnB em particular estão na vanguarda do pensamento progressista em ciências humanas e assim devem continuar pelo futuro previsível.
Ufa! Estou aliviado...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

O Instituto de Ciência Política (IPOL) está promovendo o seminário América Latina: Perspectivas Políticas da Esquerda no Brasil e Argentina nos dias 10 e 11 de novembro, 9 horas, no prédio da FA da Universidade de Brasília, com participação de professores dos dois países. Maiores informações sobre o programa no site do IPOL (www.ipol.unb.br) ou pelo telefone (61) 31070778.

SEMINÁRIO INTERNACIONAL

NÚCLEO DE ESTUDOS BRASIL-ARGENTINA (NEBA)

UnB/UNSAM

AMÉRICA LATINA: PERSPECTIVAS POLÍTICAS DA ESQUERDA NO BRASIL E ARGENTINA
Local: Universidade de Brasília
Data: 10 e 11 de Novembro de 2011

-> PROGRAMA

DIAS 10/11 de NOVEMBRO
09h00: ABERTURA. (Local: Joaquim Nabuco)
Boas vindas e Inauguração do Núcleo de Estudos Brasil-Argentina.
Professores: Marilde Loiola e Paulo César Nascimento (UnB/IPOL)

Prof. Marcelo Cavarozzi (UNSAM): A POLÍTICA NA AMÉRICA LATINA NA MUDANÇA DO SÉCULO
Prof. Francisco Doratioto (Hist/UnB): BRASIL-ARGENTINA NO SÉCULO XX: RIVALIDADE E ESFORÇOS DE COOPERAÇÃO

14:30: (Local: Sala de Mestrado A1-04)
Prof. Cristhian Teófilo da Silva (CEPPAC/UnB): MARIÁTEGUI ENTRE DOIS MUNDOS. VISÕES DO COMUNITARISMO INDÍGENA
Profa. Nerina Visakovsky (UNSAM): JUDEUS COMUNISTAS: ARGENTINOS-BRASILEIROS E A SAGRADA RELIGIÃO SOVIÉTICA(1921-1967)
Profa. Dina Lida Kinoshita (USP): ATIVIDADES DA INTERNACIONAL COMUNISTA NO SUL DA AMÉRICA LATINA

DIA 11/11
09h00: (Local: Joaquim Nabuco)
Prof. Alberto Aggio (UNESP-FRANCA): PENSAR O BRASIL COM GRAMSCI
Prof. Carlos Eduardo Rebello (UERJ): TROTSKI E A AMÉRICA LATINA
Prof. Paulo Nascimento (UnB/IPOL) : MARXISMO E IDENTIDADE NACIONAL

14:30: (Local: sala de mestrado A1-04)
Prof. Marco Mondaini (UFPE): OS ECOS DEMOCRÁTICOS DO EUROCOMUNISMO NAS ESQUERDAS BRASILEIRAS
Prof. Rodrigo Dantas (FIL/UnB): A REORGANIZAÇÃO HISTÓRICA DA ESQUERDA BRASILEIRA NO GOVERNO LULA

============

Aqui também tem o que se comemorar:

A "antifilosofia" de São Paulo: uma leitura comunista.

Prof.Dr. Rodrigo Dantas

Nesta segunda-feira, dia 07/11/2001, às 20 hs, na sala de mestrado do FIl (Departamento de Filosofia da UnB).

Departamento de Filosofia

Universidade de Brasília - UnB

Tel.: (61)3107-6623