Tesis sobre el tema "Russian Anarchism"

In both Soviet and Western historiography, Russian populism (narodnichestvo) has been studied more or less in isolation from the broader socialist movement in Europe. The aim of this thesis is to show that although it undoubtedly possessed characteristics peculiar to Russia, the populist movement should be understood as part of the Europe-wide revolutionary movement. To accomplish this, the thesis is structured around chapters discussing individuals who were involved in both the Russian revolutionary movement and the European anarchist movement, with which populism shared many ideas, ideologies tactics and internal disputes. These individuals are Mikhail Bakunin, Zemfirii Ralli and Petr Kropotkin. Around these chapters are studies of groups or movements connected with those individuals in Russia or Europe. Central themes include consistency, or the social groups which the revolutionaries hoped to address; organisational forms adopted by anarchists and populists; tactics to be used to rouse their constituencies to action and to organise and achieve revolution; relations of the revolutionaries to the masses; the differing concepts of political and social/economic revolution; and the rise of terrorism in both movements.

This is an analysis of the nature and political significance of Russian messianism: the idea that the Russian people or the Russian State is the `chosen people' or the `chosen instrument'. I outline the genesis of the theory of Moscow, the Third Rome and discuss the ideas and activities of the nineteenth-century Slavophils, the pan-Slavists, Dostoevsky and Vladimir Solovyov. I examine the influence of messianism on Russian Communism, considering Berdiaev's views. The main part of the work investigates the rebirth of interest in Russian messianism in the Brezhnev period. I try to investigate the links between this cultural movement and the Russian nationalist elements within the political éite. My main sources for this are samizdat journals and articles, in particular the journal Veche, cultural journals such as Novyi mir, Molodaia gvardiia and Nash sovremennik, Party documents and éigré/ journals. I find that Russian messianism has been especially important at times when the country is in crisis: Russia is in Golgotha, but where there is suffering there is also redemption, not only for Russia but for humanity. It has by no means been always dominant in intellectual thought. It has had little influence (under either tsars or Communists) on the fields of nationality policy, policy towards religion or foreign policy. Today, as in the nineteenth century, its adherents can be opponents or supporters of the existing State structure. The growth of non-Russian nationalism under Gorbachov, combined with glasnost', has fuelled Russian nationalism. This is unlikely to be co-opted into the official ideology, because it would increase the dissatisfaction of the non-Russians.

The Russian Revolution of 1917 was the high point of class struggle in the twentieth-century. For the first time in world history, a social movement predicated on the overcoming of class exploitation succeeded in gaining state power. In the days and weeks following October 1917 insurrection, a self-declared Marxist government set about the task of constructing a socialist society. However the Russian Revolution was more than the mass political mobilisation of class resentments. In addition to proletarians and peasants, the Bolsheviks also mobilised national minorities, for whom October represented the opportunity to put an end to centuries of national oppression. The Bolshevik promise, therefore, entailed not just class solidarity, but national self-determination and internationalism as well. In the very moment of revolution, however, these sentiments were put to the test as mass outbreaks of antisemitic pogroms spread across the vast regions of the former Pale of Settlement. The pogroms posed fundamental questions for the Bolshevik project, since they revealed the nature and extent of working class and peasant attachments to antisemitic and racialised forms of consciousness. This dissertation has two broad aims: first, it sets out to offer the most comprehensive analysis to date of the explosive articulation between antisemitism and the revolutionary process. It reveals, for example, the extent to which class struggle and anti-bourgeois discourse could overlap with antisemitic representations of Jewishness, often with devastating consequences. Second, it offers the most comprehensive analysis to date of the Soviet government attempt to arrest this articulation between antisemitism and revolutionary politics. Contrary to existing understandings, the dissertation argues that the ‘Bolshevik’ campaign against antisemitism was led not the Party leadership, as is often assumed, but by a small grouping of non-Bolshevik Jewish socialists who worked in the Party and Soviet government throughout 1918 and 1919. Having brought into focus an almost entirely overlooked moment in the history of Jewish experiences of, and responses to, antisemitism, the dissertation concludes by reflecting on how this reframing of the Russian Revolution might offer insights for anti-racists and socialists engaged in struggles for social justice today.

In March, 1877, the radical worker Pëtr Alekseev gave his speech at the ‘Trial of Fifty,’ contributing to the social-revolutionary movement one of the founding documents in Russia’s fledgling, working-class history. In the decades that followed, many others of the workers’ circles of the 1870s would compose and contribute their own stories to this revolutionary, ‘workers’ history.’ It was understood that, for workers to ‘speak for themselves’ was one step towards a workers’ revolution, carried out by and for the working people. The ‘workers’ voice’ had been borne by Alekseev in 1877, and was shared by worker-memoirists and other worker-writers through the early twentieth century. Individual workers were called represent, embody, testify to and speak for the mass, or the working-class as a whole. Thus, the notion of the ‘workers’ voice’ tied together the propaganda, the historiography, and the philosophy of the Russian social-revolutionary movement. A study of the ‘workers’ voice’ in history and historiography reveals the connections between these areas of revolutionary thought and practice, and provides a better understanding of the role of individual workers - as activists and as writers - in the Russian socialist movement. Revolutionary historiography developed alongside and in concert with political theories of the social revolution, mass action, social law and social determination, individuality, and consciousness. For a small number of radical democrats-turned-‘rebels,’ anarchists, and social-revolutionaries – most, if not all, born into the educated elite, a few to the families of the high, landed nobility - adherence to the narodnik tenet that ‘the emancipation of the working class should be conquered by workers’ themselves’ made their own, committed or conscious choice of the ‘cause’ over the existing system of things marginal to the historical and social forces driving Russia towards revolution. The ‘going to the people’ movement was aimed at bringing ‘workers themselves’ into their movement. By developing certain working people into carriers of the socialist message, the movement hitherto limited to students, publicists, and the wayward sons and daughters of state officials, merchants and clergymen would become the ‘a working-class matter.’ Thus, a special place was allotted to the ‘self-educated’ or ‘self-developed’ workers who, like the self-styled ‘intelligentsia,’ were consciously committed, synthesising ‘consciousness’ with their own class experience and the social necessity behind it. The political and historical valorisation of the ‘workers’ voice’ extended this idea into the documentation and the history of the popular and workers’ movements. Just as the workers would have to ‘emancipate themselves,’ so too would they speak for themselves and write their own history. This history, it was thought, would eventually belong to the workers by right. Thus, historical writing and the documentation of a workers’ history, informed by judgments regarding individuality, society, class, history, and their relationships, became politically significant for the revolutionary movement as working people began to enter it and ‘speak for themselves.’ Late in the nineteenth century, the worker-revolutionaries of the 1870s began to write their own memoirs of events. Entering the documentary record as individuals, it was their task to testify to working-class experience. Thus, at the point where working people became ‘individuals’ for history and for future historians, marking themselves as different from the mass by leaving their own writings, and stories, and memoirs, they were also tied inextricably to a political viewpoint that identified every and any worker as practically identical. As political figures, ‘conscious’ radicals who had taken responsibility for their own actions, their lives were historically definite; as ‘working men,’ sharing in a victimhood that was common to millions, their lives were indefinite, unhistorical, alienated. In the attempt to explain one part of their lives by the other, in the juxtaposition of class experience with political experience, in the light of a political function that had workers become witnesses rather than writers, the worker-revolutionaries reproduced in their political and historical writings the class categories that their radicalism had contradicted. The awkward position of worker-intelligent – in one half unique, conscious, definite, historical, active, by the other: plural, instinctive, indefinite, and passive – was stamped into ‘workers’ writings.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:26:53Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2012-08-08Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T18:30:49Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 gomes_lr_me_assis.pdf: 3441269 bytes, checksum: dc59136f080d769ecdc817cba58d1648 (MD5)
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)
No começo do século XX, a Revolução Russa abalou o mundo com as dimensões de suas experiências e a radicalidade de suas propostas. Por pressão das camadas populares russas insatisfeitas com as mazelas da primeira guerra mundial, o czarismo foi derrubado e em seguida o governo provisório, desencadeando uma revolução de forte caráter operário e camponês. Os sovietes (conselhos populares) espalharam-se por todo o território de um país de dimensões continentais (constituindo-se de início, uma grande experiência libertária). Com isso, a Rússia Soviética tornou-se uma referência para todos os movimentos revolucionários e socialistas ao redor do mundo, e o movimento operário brasileiro (que na época era predominantemente de tendência anarquista) não ficou imune aos impactos desse evento. Este trabalho é o resultado de uma pesquisa que analisa o entendimento e a compreensão que os militantes anarquistas brasileiros tiveram a respeito da revolução na Rússia, por meio de sua imprensa. Para tanto, utilizamos como fontes documentais os jornais A Plebe, A Vanguarda, A Obra, O Libertario, A Semana Social, A Luta, Cronica Subversiva, O Debate, O Cosmopolita, Spártacus, Voz do Povo e o Boletim da Aliança Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro. As formas como os anarquistas enxergaram e representaram este acontecimento em seus periódicos, nos revelam, e nos possibilitam investigar e compreender, os conflitos e mudanças internas no movimento operário brasileiro do período. Movimento operário este que ficou dividido entre “libertários e bolcheviques”, devido o caráter autoritário do regime russo, que não contemplava as expectativas do anarquismo, apesar dos elementos libertários da experiência revolucionária ocorrida na Rússia
In the early twentieth century the Russian Revolution shook the world with the dimensions of its experiences and the radicalism of its proposals. Under pressure from Russian grassroots popular classes dissatisfied with the ills of the First World War, the Tsarist regime and then the interim government were overthrown, sparking a revolution of strong proletarian and peasantry character. The Soviets (popular councils) have spread throughout the territory of a country of continental dimensions (constituting at the beginning, a great libertarian experience). Thus, Soviet Russia became a reference for all socialist and revolutionary movements around the world, and the Brazilian labor movement (which at that time was predominantly anarchist) was not immune to the impacts of this event. This work is part of a study that analyzes the understanding and the perception that the Brazilian anarchist militants had about the revolution in Russia, by the reading of their press. We used as documentary sources the following anarchist press: A Plebe, A Vanguarda, A Obra, O Libertario, A Semana Social, A Luta, Cronica Subversiva, O Debate, O Cosmopolita, Spártacus, Voz do Povo and the Boletim da Aliança Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro. The ways in which anarchists saw and represented this event in their journals reveal and enables us to investigate and understand the conflicts and changes within the Brazilian labor movement of the period which was split between libertarians and Bolsheviks, because the authoritarian character of the Russian regime which did not include the expectations of anarchism, despite its revolutionary elements

Submitted by Jorge Silva (jorgelmsilva@ufrrj.br) on 2017-07-11T18:12:21Z No. of bitstreams: 1 2016 - Rafael Benedito de Souza.pdf: 1641981 bytes, checksum: 6595204190137fe7dd5a9c82e52fff7b (MD5)
Made available in DSpace on 2017-07-11T18:12:21Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 2016 - Rafael Benedito de Souza.pdf: 1641981 bytes, checksum: 6595204190137fe7dd5a9c82e52fff7b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-05-09
The Russian Revolution of October 1917 it was a revolution which meant socialism to Russia and was closely watched by several political groups of the left and labor movements around the world. In Brazil, the anarchists accompanied by his press this political event. In its pages there were several discussions on the character of this revolution. This work seeks to analyze the speeches made on the Russian Revolution in anarchist newspapers of Rio de Janeiro in order to understand the reasons given by the anarchists to declare support or not the Revolution.
A Revolu??o Russa de Outubro de 1917 foi uma revolu??o que pretendeu levar o socialismo para a R?ssia e foi observada atentamente por diversos grupos pol?ticos de esquerda e movimentos de trabalhadores em todo o mundo. No Brasil, os anarquistas acompanharam atrav?s de sua imprensa este acontecimento pol?tico. Em suas p?ginas ocorreram diversas discuss?es sob o car?ter desta revolu??o. Este trabalho analisa os discursos produzidos sobre a Revolu??o Russa nos jornais anarquistas do Rio de Janeiro com o objetivo de entender os motivos apresentados pelos anarquistas para declarar apoio ou n?o a Revolu??o.

Orientador: Claudinei Magno Magre Mendes
Banca: Sérgio Augusto Queiroz Norte
Banca: Cesar Augusto de Carvalho
Resumo: No começo do século XX, a Revolução Russa abalou o mundo com as dimensões de suas experiências e a radicalidade de suas propostas. Por pressão das camadas populares russas insatisfeitas com as mazelas da primeira guerra mundial, o czarismo foi derrubado e em seguida o governo provisório, desencadeando uma revolução de forte caráter operário e camponês. Os sovietes (conselhos populares) espalharam-se por todo o território de um país de dimensões continentais (constituindo-se de início, uma grande experiência libertária). Com isso, a Rússia Soviética tornou-se uma referência para todos os movimentos revolucionários e socialistas ao redor do mundo, e o movimento operário brasileiro (que na época era predominantemente de tendência anarquista) não ficou imune aos impactos desse evento. Este trabalho é o resultado de uma pesquisa que analisa o entendimento e a compreensão que os militantes anarquistas brasileiros tiveram a respeito da revolução na Rússia, por meio de sua imprensa. Para tanto, utilizamos como fontes documentais os jornais A Plebe, A Vanguarda, A Obra, O Libertario, A Semana Social, A Luta, Cronica Subversiva, O Debate, O Cosmopolita, Spártacus, Voz do Povo e o Boletim da Aliança Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro. As formas como os anarquistas enxergaram e representaram este acontecimento em seus periódicos, nos revelam, e nos possibilitam investigar e compreender, os conflitos e mudanças internas no movimento operário brasileiro do período. Movimento operário este que ficou dividido entre "libertários e bolcheviques", devido o caráter autoritário do regime russo, que não contemplava as expectativas do anarquismo, apesar dos elementos libertários da experiência revolucionária ocorrida na Rússia
Abstract: In the early twentieth century the Russian Revolution shook the world with the dimensions of its experiences and the radicalism of its proposals. Under pressure from Russian grassroots popular classes dissatisfied with the ills of the First World War, the Tsarist regime and then the interim government were overthrown, sparking a revolution of strong proletarian and peasantry character. The Soviets (popular councils) have spread throughout the territory of a country of continental dimensions (constituting at the beginning, a great libertarian experience). Thus, Soviet Russia became a reference for all socialist and revolutionary movements around the world, and the Brazilian labor movement (which at that time was predominantly anarchist) was not immune to the impacts of this event. This work is part of a study that analyzes the understanding and the perception that the Brazilian anarchist militants had about the revolution in Russia, by the reading of their press. We used as documentary sources the following anarchist press: A Plebe, A Vanguarda, A Obra, O Libertario, A Semana Social, A Luta, Cronica Subversiva, O Debate, O Cosmopolita, Spártacus, Voz do Povo and the Boletim da Aliança Anarquista do Rio de Janeiro. The ways in which anarchists saw and represented this event in their journals reveal and enables us to investigate and understand the conflicts and changes within the Brazilian labor movement of the period which was split between "libertarians and Bolsheviks," because the authoritarian character of the Russian regime which did not include the expectations of anarchism, despite its revolutionary elements
Mestre

The thesis examines the Communist Party in Moscow between 1925 and 1932. Its structure, role and membership are studied, together with its relationship with the population of Moscow. A study is also made of politics in the period, with special reference to the oppositions of the 1920's. Four broad problems are discussed. The first is the relationship between the central Party leadership and the Moscow Committee. Second is the role of the grassroots activist in political life. Thirdly, the failure of the oppositions is studied in detail. Finally, popular influence over the Party is examined with a view to discussing how far the revolution had been 'betrayed' in this period. It is found that the Moscow Committee was less autonomous than other regional organs, but that grassroots initiative played an important part in political life. In general, people were reluctant to engage in formal opposition. This largely explains the defeat of the Left and Right oppositions, who failed to attract significant support. The majority of Muscovites remained apathetic or hostile to the Party, but a core of committed activists within it was responsible for many of the period's achievements. To the extent that they supported and even initiated policy, Stalin's 'great turn' included an element of 'revolution from below'.

This dissertation challenges the view that Lev Kamenev lacked a clear socialist vision and had no discernible objectives. It contends that Kamenev had an ideological line and political goals shaped by Ferdinand Lassalle. Kamenev adopted Lassalle’s desire for a democratic socialist republic and his method to achieve end aims. Through dialogical discourse Kamenev aimed to gain allies by overcoming differences by focusing on points of agreement. This was his ‘Bolshevik Centrism’. Ideologically, Kamenev absorbed Lassalle’s concept of the ‘Fourth Estate’, which mandated proletarian culture first predominate in society before revolution could occur. This helps explain his opposition to revolution in 1905 and 1917, and sheds light on his assessment in the early 1920s that the Bolsheviks had not founded the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, but the ‘dictatorship of the party’. In trying to overcome this reality he adapted Lassalle’s vision for an all-encompassing selfless state and endeavoured to merge the party, the state, and the masses into one. His aspiration to win over peasants and workers placed him in a centrist position, whereby he used his authority to challenge Trotsky and Bukharin’s leftist and rightist policies. However, under the one-party dictatorship his actions directly contributed to the rise of Stalin.

Russian entrepreneurs have long faced considerable difficulties. While much is known about what these difficulties are, less is known about how entrepreneurs respond to them, what it is like to be an entrepreneur under these circumstances and why they bother in the first place. In this thesis I address these questions by conducting a multi-sited ethnography within three small Siberian enterprises, observing the directors as they conduct their everyday business. I find that these entrepreneurs all resent their vulnerable position in the political economy but that they have developed a capacity to survive or thrive in spite of the obstacles and threats they encounter. This capacity, I argue, is less a consequence of their commercial acumen than their understanding of what can be achieved given their particular circumstances, their knowledge that business-state relations take an informal, personalised form, and their preparedness to resist predatory outsiders. This leads me to reconsider the meaning of entrepreneurship in the Russian context. Furthermore, my informants’ agency presents a challenge to the idea in predominant political economic theories that the Russian state dominates the private sector. I therefore reconceptualise business-state relations using Douglass C. North et al’s Limited Access Order theory in combination with my empirical materials. This provides a more accurate theory that accepts the pre-eminent role of the state in the political economy while accommodating the agency displayed by my informants.

In the last three decades of the 19th century small groups composed of primarily skilled, male workers in Petersburg factories developed and refined a specific form of worker identity, that of the worker-intelligent. This identity was the product of a combination of an ideal conceptualisation of proletarian man derived from readings of western socialist literature and ideas introduced into the workers’ environment by members of the radical intelligenty alongside their material experience of work in the rapidly developing industries of the capital. Seeking to appropriate the ‘intelligence’ of their radical intelligentsia mentors to create ‘Russian Bebels’, from the early 1870s small groups of workers aspired to develop their own worker organisations to give voice to the specific needs, demands and assumed aspirations of the emerging working-class within an autocratic society that maintained the fiction that a specific industrial working-class did not exist. Whilst workers enthusiastically welcomed the intelligentsia as bearers of the knowledge essential to construct their own specific identity, the process of identity creation frequently led to power struggles with the intelligentsia over the latter’s role and control of knowledge. It is in the often contested relationships between workers and intelligentsia that vital clues emerge as to how workers perceived themselves and others within the worker-class. Within this contested arena the radical worker-intelligenty frequently articulated their independence from the intelligentsia who they frequently regarded as a temporary ally, essential to satisfy their initial thirst for knowledge and to fulfil certain technical tasks, but who eventually should be subordinate to the workers’ movement that workers alone were capable of leading. Although workers eagerly embraced the revolutionary ideals received from the intelligenty, these were processed and reconstructed in terms of a worker-hegemony in the revolutionary process, taking entirely literally the dictum that ‘the liberation of the workers must be a cause for the workers themselves.’ This represented the essence of the worker-intelligenty belief system and, when taken in conjunction with their conviction that the mass of workers remained ‘backward,’ incapable of effecting their own liberation, produced a strongly held belief that it was incumbent on enlightened workers to act as advocates of the whole class, irrespective of the degree to which the mass of workers conformed to their vision of the ideal revolutionary worker. These early Petersburg workers’ organisations are of historical importance as from their inception they articulated a specific ‘worker’ ideology opposed to both the political regime and emerging Russian industrial capitalism, an opposition that would subsequently be transformed in Soviet Russia into an historical narrative that presented them as a vanguard for the working-class and the precursors of the Soviet ‘new man.’ In the process of fusing of the mind of the intelligenty within the body of a worker, the first generations of worker- intelligenty consistently sought to demonstrate in practice their own revolutionary primacy. Painfully aware of the disparity between their ideal proletarian man and the reality of the ‘backwardness’ of the mass of their fellow workers, the early worker-intelligenty developed and nurtured their own particular institution - the workers’ circle, kruzhok, an institution which simultaneously reinforced their own sense of identity and worth whilst providing a space in which they could receive their necessary enlightenment from the radical intelligentsia. Rather than viewing workers as passive objects, the Petersburg worker-intelligenty was instrumental in its own creation, throughout the period under discussion acting as a revolutionary subject in its own right, to a significant extent determining the nature and content of study involving the intelligenty, establishing clear organisational frameworks to govern relationships with intelligenty groups, and, critically, seeking opportune moments to enter the public sphere and declare their presence as workers, revealing themselves as a social force to be recognised. In the historiography of the revolutionary working-class in Russia these worker-led organisations have been largely ignored or subsumed under the rubric of the name of a leading member of the radical intelligenty associated with workers’ circles, as for example in the so-called Brusnev organisation. For a long period Soviet and western historians privileged the role of the radical intelligentsia, reflecting competing ideological biases that in the case of the Soviet interpretation viewed workers as a dependent category requiring enlightenment from an external Marxist party, whilst much western research focused on ideological debates amongst intelligenty ‘leaders’ and/or incipient reformist and non- revolutionary tendencies amongst worker activists. Although in more recent time a number of historians have explored the autonomous nature of worker activism in 1905 and 1917, whilst others have explored the cultural attitudes and beliefs of workers, the first specifically worker-led organisations created by worker-intelligenty have been largely ignored. What remains missing is a study that addresses the actual historical practice of the worker-intelligenty during its formative years and how it sought to give form to its self- realisation and express its received knowledge as the advanced representative of its class. The discourse of class not only gave life to the worker-intelligenty but critically guided its first at times uncertain footsteps towards fulfilling what it had come to believe was its ‘historic’ role.

This thesis examines the evolution of Russia’s internal and external security perceptions from 2000-2008. Drawing on social constructivist ontology, it argues that the Putin regime’s articulation of security priorities evolved in relation to its reconceptualisation of Russian state identity from a ‘weak’ to a ‘strong’ state. To trace this evolutionary relationship between state identity and security perceptions, official discourse on Chechnya is examined. In this way, Russian narrative constructions of the process of securitisation and desecuritisation of Chechnya, and the role that this discourse played within the articulation of state identity and security priorities are investigated. The thesis suggests that the initial securitisation and subsequent desecuritisation of Chechnya are best understood within the Putin regime’s discursive construction of state building and changing security priorities, rather than as a reflection of shifting material conditions. The thesis concludes that analysis of individual security policies should take into account that the narrative construction of these policies shape, and are shaped by, the multifaceted and evolutionary meta-narratives of Russian state and security identity. Moreover, it is argued that Russian security policy should be studied as a subject in its own right, investigating both internal and external security issues, rather than being subsumed within a broader foreign policy analysis.

Cette étude met en lumière les liens que la pensée bakouninienne, en tant qu'elle cherche à penser la réalisation de la liberté dans l'histoire, entretient avec les courants philosophiques dont elle est le point de rencontre (idéalisme allemand, positivisme, marxisme, matérialisme scientifique), et en dégage les enjeux philosophiques, qui sont ceux d'une politique de l'émancipation (statut de la politique et du politique, rôles respectifs de la question nationale et de la question sociale), pour en montrer l'actualité. S'appuyant sur la diversité du corpus, elle prend en compte l'historicité de l'œuvre étudiée. Les deux premières parties sont consacrées aux développements antérieurs aux premières revendications d'anarchisme. La troisième étudie la philosophie de la religion et la philosophie de la liberté développées à partir de 1864. Les deux dernières parties présentent le projet politique bakouninien, autour de l'inflexion que représente son entrée dans l'Internationale en 1868
The purpose of this study is first to show that Bakunin's thought, as a reflection about the accomplishment of human freedom in history, is tied to the main philosophical trends of the 19th century, such as German idealism, French positivism, Marxism and scientific materialism. This study shows also that Bakunin's thought, as a libertarian theory and practice of emancipation, deals with the status of politics and with the role of national and social issues. The plan of this study takes Bakunin's works as a whole, in its diversity and its historicity. The first two parts deals with the writings which are former to Bakunin's anarchism. The third part describes the philosophy of freedom developed after 1864. The last two parts are a study of Bakunin's political project, before and after his entry into the International Workers Association

This essay is called ”The hunt for anarchists- a study about the police in Stockholm's collection of bandit portrait during the turn of the century 1900” and it is about the criminal category ”Anarchists” who the police in Stockholm used at the turn of the century 1900.  In the archive from the police in Stockholm during the essays time perspective, 1899-1909,  there are about one hundred photographs in the category ”Anarchists”, about half of these pictures have no information besides the names of the people, but the other half, 48 persons, have some information about age, work title and where the person come from. The information showed that the people in the pictures where not from Sweden, and after controlling them in all different kinds of archives I found only ten of them have left any traces in Stockholm. What I realized then was that the people on the pictures are anarchists from different countries in Europe, mostly from Italy, and that the police in Stockholm had these pictures because different police stations around Europe had sent them to the police in Stockholm. The police in Stockholm where on the lookout for fugitive anarchists.

The literature about the anarchist movement in Italy during this time describe the hard situation for Italian anarchists. The police had persecuted, arrested and executed manyof them so many anarchists had fled abroad. The same was for Russian anarchists after the unsuccessful revolution in 1905. Eight of the ten anarchists of the police photographs who had been in Stockholm where Russians. They were a group who was accused of trying to kill the Russian czar visiting Stockholm in 1909.

None of the anarchists on the pictures have ever in Stockholm committed a political crime so to find out what a anarchist crime is have not been possible. But the general picture of the anarchists in the photographs is of a man in his 30’s with a working class job, in short: an everyday man.

This dissertation focuses on niilism in its differents imaginaries significances in order to draw a social and historical comparison. Which contrasts can be point between niilism, in connection with the meanings of temporality and individuality at 19th century Europe and United States and the contemporary? In the analyses of 19th century, the objects are russian and western european s revolutionaries (the narodniki and the anarchist-terrorists). Works of Ivan Turgueniev and Fiodor Dostoievki besides anarchists s speeches, memoirs and deeds are analysed to search some of the niilism s significances of that time. Within the comparative method, contemporary s significances of niilism are searched by the discution of self-help literature . This kind of literature is helpful to the reflexion of contemporary individual s insecurity and anguish and these connection with the construction of actual meanings of individual and duration.
Esta dissertação possui uma preocupação central: pensar o niilismo em suas diferentes significações imaginárias em duas realidades sócio-históricas distintas: a Europa e Estados Unidos na segunda metade do século XIX e nossa sociedade contemporânea. Seu objetivo principal é a realização de uma comparação, com ênfase nos contrastes, entre as significações históricas do niilismo em suas relações com as elaborações da temporalidade e, principalmente, da individualidade. Nas análises do século XIX, o foco recai inicialmente sobre os revolucionários narodnik russos, sobre os quais o termo niilismo foi imposto na época pela imprensa e a literatura. As principais fontes neste momento da pesquisa são obras literárias de Ivan Turgueniev e Fiódor Dostoiévski, que fornecem as primeiras significações sobre o niilismo e suas relações com a temporalidade e a formação da individualidade. A seguir, analiso os anarquistas-terroristas ocidentais, seus discursos, depoimentos, memórias e ações, como forma de ampliar as discussões sobre os sentidos do niilismo, epíteto também dado a eles pela imprensa de massa. Para a análise comparativa com a contemporaneidade, a principal fonte é a chamada literatura de auto-ajuda , que permite a discussão sobre as inseguranças e angústias do indivíduo atual frente à fluidez dos laços, valores e instituições da sociedade presente. Nesse sentido, a noção de narcisismo surge como uma ferramenta a mais nas reflexões sobre o niilismo contemporâneo e sua relação com a formação da individualidade no imaginário social.
Mestre em História

La thèse que j'apresente en suivre s'apelle “Mouvement Ouvrière et Révolution Sociale au Brésil: idées revolutionaires et projets politiques des travailleurs organisés au Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Recife et Porto Alegre parmi les années de 1917 et 1920”. Je montre en cette thèse comme la Révolution Sociale a etè debaté pendant une période marquè par la croissance de la mobilisation ouvrière au Brésil et l'influence de la Revolution Russe sur les militants, qui étaient dans la plupart partidaires de tendences libertaires (de l'anarchisme et du syndicalisme revolutionaire). Autre aspect que j'analise en ce texte c'est la formation de projets (qui j'apelle de projets politiques) pour devenir réele cette possibilité de révolution, ainsi que la formation de partis et d'organisations communistes, de la divulgation des programmes d'action et méme des essais d'inssurections. Le troisième aspect de mon étude a liasson avec le débacle de ces tentatifs revolutionaires: les projets echouent et le mouvement s'est vu divisé pour les positions conflitants, avec les defenseurs des traditions libertaires en combatte contre les nouveaux adherents du bolchevisme et les militants revolutionaires en lucte contre le participation des socialistes reformistes dans les organisations ouvriéres. Ma recherche se concentre principalement dans les villes de São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Recife et Porto Alegre, qui étaient les principaux centres industriels du Brésil. Néanmoins, la thèse examine également certains faits qui se sont produits dans d'autres régions du pays, de façon sporadique.
A tese que eu apresento a seguir se chama "Movimento Operário e Revolução Social no Brasil: ideias revolucionárias e projetos políticos dos trabalhadores organizados no Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Recife e Porto Alegre entre os anos 1917 e 1922". Eu mostro nesta tese como a Revolução Social foi debatida durante um período marcado pelo crescimento da mobilização operária no Brasil e a influência da Revolução Russa sobre os militantes, que eram em sua maior parte de tendências libertárias (do anarquismo e do sindicalismo revolucionário). Outro aspecto que eu analiso neste trabalho é a formação de projetos (que eu chamo de projetos políticos) para tornar real esta possibilidade de revolução, assim como a formação de partidos e de organizações comunistas, a divulgação de programas de ação e mesmo de ensaios de insurreições. O terceiro aspecto de meu estudo tem ligação com a desagregação destas tentativas revolucionárias: os projetos fracassaram e o movimento se viu dividido por posições conflitantes, com os defensores das tradições libertárias em combate contra os novos aderentes ao bolchevismo e os militantes revolucionários lutando contra a participação dos socialistas reformistas nas organizações operárias. Minha pesquisa se concentra principalmente nas cidades de São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Recife e Porto Alegre, que eram os principais centros industriais do Brasil. Mesmo assim, a tese examina igualmente alguns fatos que se produziram em outras regiões do país, de forma esporádica.

This thesis aims to analyse two very strong notions - Religiousness and Anarchism. We are used to comprehend these two notions as very different from one another, or even as two opposites. This thesis will show that even though we see Anarchism as Atheism, it is not always possible to exclude Religiousness from it. This fact will be shown as specifically Russian phenomenon. That is why it will be needed to explain broader context of Russian thought in the 19th century. Thesis will also aim to works of prince and anarcho-communist Peter Alexej Kropotkin where it will be possible to exemplify the strong inveteracy of Religiousness in Russian (Anarchist) thought and also the possibility of a dialog between these two notions. Keywords religious motives, religiosity, russian thinking, anarchism, anarchokomunism, spiritual thinking

This dissertation is an attempt to reconstruct and interpret the construct of Anarchist Theocracy by the Russian writer and philosopher Dymitr Merezhkowsky (1865-1941), which grew out of the youthful fascination of narodnichestvo and symbolism and the subsequent criticism of Christianity in the spirit of modernism. The analysis shows how aesthetic and cultural concept of a new religious consciousness, resulting from Russo-Japanese War and the outbreak of the revolution, transformed into activist eschatology, took the political, revolutionary and anti-system characteristics, to join the struggle for post-revolution order. Merezhkowsky, by declaring war on Tsarist autocracy and Orthodoxy, postulated the realization of Theocratic Anarchy - God's Kingdom on earth, free from all forms of sovereignty and hierarchy, whose constitutive principle would be the love of God and neighbour. This millenarian-messianic goal should be achieved by Merezkhowsky's cooperation with radical intelligentsia, which under the influence of the author's "Now or never" ideas was to experience worldview transformation and overcome its atheism. As we show, the concept did not remain only a theoretical vision, but it resulted in Merezhkovsky's close relations with members of the Combat Organization of Socialist Revolutionary Party, with Boris Savinkov in particular, and with whom he proceeded to work on the establishment of the community which aimed at achieving the Theocratic Anarchy. The dissertation has three main goals. The first one is the analysis of the evolution and radicalization of the philosopher's worldview, under the direct influence of historical events. The second goal is to show the concept of Theocratic Anarchy in the wide context of the history of this construct. Third one is the analysis of the evolution of modernist eschatological concept into the political plan and revolutionary involvement. The structure of the dissertation was subordinated to thus defined goals and consists of five chapters. The first one, "The birth of a utopian worldview", investigates the reasons for a radical turn in Merezkhovsky's philosophy by analyzing his attitude to the events of "Bloody Sunday" and the Russo-Japanese War. It discusses the most important texts of the year 1905 which show the birth and formulation of the basic assumptions of the Theocratic Anarchy. It also presents its ideological inspirations and intellectual traditions. The second chapter, "Riders of the revolution", is a departure from the linear narrative of the whole dissertation, done in order to show the history of potential allies with whom Dmitri Sergeyevich wanted to realize his utopia. It presents the philosophical traditions and socio-political goals of the Socialist Revolutionary Party and profiles of all major activists, of Boris Sawinkov in particular. The third chapter, "The concept in charge", is an analysis of Merezhkowsky's "pilgrimage" to Paris from 1906-1908, where not only did he give his construct the fullest form, but also attempted to propagate it in the West. In addition to discussing the texts created during the "voluntary exile," this chapter describes the establishment of Merezhkowsky's cooperation with activists of the Combat Organization of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party and their mutual relations as well as Merezhkowsky's relations with French intellectual elites of that times. The fourth chapter, "Disputes about the idea", shows Theocratic Anarchy in numerous polemics fought with N. Berdyaev and V. Rozanov, as well as in the discussion of the theses of the legendary almanac Vekhi. Such a diverse comparison led to the presentation of main theses formed by Merezkhovsky and forced him to take a stance on allegations. The last chapter, "Verification of utopia" like the first one, shows a particularly strong entanglement of Merezkhovsky's idea in historical events, but in this case it shows how the concept of Theocratic Anarchy changed under the influence of World War I and the February and October Revolutions. We observe not only changes in the internal structure of the whole concept, attitude to key topics like Russia or the bourgeoisie, but also the evolution of philosophical attitude and the revision of ambition in the face of the Bolshevik victory.
Настоящая диссертация является попыткой реконструкции и интерпретации идеи Теократической Анархии русского писателя и философа Дмитрия Мережковского (1865-1941), выросшей на почве его юношеского увлечения народничеством и символизмом и последующей критики христианства в духе модернизма. Проведенный анализ показывает, как эстетическая и культурная концепция нового религиозного сознания, в результате русско-японской войны и начала революции, приобрела форму эсхатологической активности, а также политические, антисистемные и революционные черты с целью присоединения к борьбе за постреволюционный порядок. Мережковский, объявляя войну самодержавию и православию, постулировал реализацию Теократической Анархии - Царства Божьего на земле, освобожденного от всех форм рабства и иерархии, основополагающим принципом которого будет любовь к Богу и ближнему. Согласно сделанным предположениям, эта милленаристическая и мессианская цель должна быть достигнута благодаря сотрудничеству Мережковского с радикальной интелигенцией, которая под влиянием послания автора «Теперь или никогда» должна испытать трансформацию тождественности и преодолеть атеизм. Показывается, что эта концепция не была просто теоретическим видением, но привела к ближайшим отношениям Мережковского с членами Боевой Организации Партии Социалистов-Революционеров, в частности с Б. Савинковым, с котором начал он работать над созданием общины для реализации Теократической Анархии. Работа имеет три основных цели. Первой из них является анализ эволюции и радикализации философского миросозерцания, происходящего под непосредственным влиянием исторических событий. Вторая – показать концепцию Теократической Анархии в широком контексте истории идей. Третья цель – проанализировать эволюцию модернистской эсхатологической концепции в политическую программу и ее включение в революционную деятельность. Структура работы подчинена определенным целям и состоит из пяти глав. В первой главе, «Рождение утопического миросозерцания», исследуются причины радикального поворота в философии Мережковского, анализируется отношение Мережковского к событиям «Кровавого воскресенья» и русско-японской войны, а также обсуждаются важнейшие тексты 1905 года, указывающие рождение и формулировку основных положений концепции Теократической Анархии. Вторая глава, «Всадники революции» намеренно нарушает линейное повествование работы с целью показать историю союзников, с которыми Дмитрий Сергеевич хотел реализовать свою утопию. Представляются философские традиции и социально-политические цели Партии Социалистов-Революционеров и ее Боевой Организации, а также характеристика ее основных активистов, в том числе Б. Савинкова. Третья глава, «Идея в нападении», представляет собой анализ «паломничества» Мережковского в Париж в 1906-1908 гг., где он не только создал наиболее полную форму своей концепции, но также попытался распространить ее на Западе. В дополнение, к обсуждению текстов, созданных во время «добровольного изгнания», описывается установление сотрудничества Мережковского с активистами Боевой Организации и их взаимоотношения. Кроме того, были представлены отношения Мережковского с интеллектуальными элитами Франции. В четвертой главе, «Споры об идее», указывается концепция Теократической Анархии в полемике с Н. Бердяевым и В. Розановым, а также с тезисами альманаха «Вехи». Последняя глава, «Верификация утопии», показывает сильную связь идеи Мережковского с историческими событиями. Наблюдается, как концепция Теократической Анархии подвергалась пересмотру сначала под влиянием Первой мировой войны, а затем Февральской и Октябрьской революций. Обнаруживаются не только изменения внутренней структуры концепции, отношения к таким ключевым вопросам как Россия или буржуазия, но также пересмотр целей после победы большевиков.