Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

Wyszukujesz frazę "Cominform" wg kryterium: Temat


Wyświetlanie 1-3 z 3
Tytuł:
From stalinism to “heresy”. The evolution of the political thought of Milovan Ðjilas, 1941-1949
Autorzy:
Zacharias, Michał Jerzy
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/653637.pdf
Data publikacji:
2012
Wydawca:
Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Historii im. Tadeusza Manteuffla PAN w Warszawie
Tematy:
Milovan Ðilas
Stalinism
Communist Party of Yugoslavia
Yugoslav Communists
Cominform
Opis:
Knowledge of communism, so carefully presented in the best and the most famous work of Milovan Ðilas entitled The New Class. An Analysis of the Communist System, New York, 1957, undoubtedly resulted from his previous political practice and theoretical reflections. In the years 1941-1949, Ðilas was both a politician and one of the main ideologists and propagandists of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. In his later writings, books and speeches, he pointed out that even in time of the war he began to express doubts whether the communistic idea, as he understood at that time, indeed could be fully realized. The above mentioned doubts should be treated hypothetically, we should approach to them with caution. Mostly because they are expressed later after World War II. We do not have a possibility to confirm its veracity on the basis of other sources, documents and messages than those presented in the article. However, the analysis of Ðilas intellectual attitude after the outbreak of the conflict between the Soviet and Yugoslav Communists in 1948, leaves no doubts that slowly and gradually, but irreversibly, Ðilas began to undermine the meaning and the possibility of building „socialism” in line with Stalinist principles. Ðilas propaganda initial admiration of Soviet reality gave way to criticism. Of course, in 1949, so at the end of the period, Ðilas was still a communist. Nevertheless, he inclined to the conviction that Stalinist model becomes a clear deviation from the „true” Marxism. It would be difficult to determine to which extent the conviction was authentic and to which extent - primarily the political consequence, arising from the fact that after the Cominform resolution of June 1948, the Yugoslav Communists, if they did not want to give up the dictatorship of Stalin, had to develop their own ideology and a line of conduct. Anyway, like other leaders of the CPY, Ðilas became a „heretic” rejecting Stalinist orthodoxy. Such „heresy” was the beginning of an attempt to build Yugoslav ideology, orthodoxy. Until the turn of the years 1953/1954 Ðilas would be one of its creators.
Źródło:
Studia z Dziejów Rosji i Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej; 2012, 47
2353-6403
1230-5057
Pojawia się w:
Studia z Dziejów Rosji i Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
O stereotypach w recepcji literatury chorwackiej w Polsce w latach 1944—1956
O stereotipima u recepciji hrvatske književnosti u razdoblju 1944—1956
Stereotypes in the reception of Croatian literature in the period of 1944—1956
Autorzy:
Małczak, Leszek
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/486908.pdf
Data publikacji:
2013-07-01
Wydawca:
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego
Tematy:
recepcja
polityka kulturalna
stereotyp
rezolucja Kominformu
recepcija
kulturna politika
stereotip
rezolucija Informbiroa
reception
cultural policy
stereotype
Cominform Resolution
Opis:
U članku se govori o dvama stereotipima u recepciji hrvatske književnosti u razdoblju od 1944. do 1956. g. Najprije je Jugoslavija politički saveznik, srodan po slavenskom porijeklu, poslije postaje najveći neprijatelj. Ovo se razdoblje sastoji od dva dijela. U prvom od 1944. do 1948. autori iz Jugoslavije prikazuju književnost kao jedinstvenu, jugoslavensku, dok poljski autori instistiraju na razlikama. Tematski književnost se svodi na književnost o ratnoj tematici, a pisci su vrednovani na temelju njihovih političkih opredjeljenja. Oni koji su bili skloni partizanima jesu napredni, socijalistički, oni koji su živjeli u okupiranim zemljama ostaju pod štetnim uticajem zapadne kulture, buržoazijskih principa. U drugom razdoblju od 1949. do 1956., poslije rezolucije Informbiroa, književnost Jugoslavije u Poljskoj prikazuje se kao jedinstvena, prekinuta je svaka vrsta suradnje i komunikacije, govori se da u književnom stvaralaštvu dolazi do niza negativnih pojava koje se opisuju pomoću ratne retorike i najčešće imenuju kao fašizacija, amerikanizacija kulture.
There are two stereotypes in the reception of Croatian literature in the period of 1944—1956. Yugoslavia was a political ally for Comunist and Slavic countries in the begining. After 1948, after the Cominform Resolution of June 28th, it became one of their worst enemies. In the first period from 1944 to 1948 the Yugoslav authors present literature as coherent Yugoslav literature, with Polish reviewers insisting on the diffrences between the Yugoslav republics. Yugoslav literature in this period was about war, and writers are judged according to their political profiles and attitude during the World War II. The ones who symphatized with Partisans were progressive, the ones who lived in the occupied coutries were under the harmful infulence of Western culture, with its bourgeois values. After the Cominform Resolution, the literatures of the various Yugoslav republics are presented as homogeneous with no cultural differences. Every type of communication between Yugoslavia and Poland is broken down at that time. There is war rethoric in extremely negative Polish presentations of literary production in Yugoslavia in the second period.
Źródło:
Przekłady Literatur Słowiańskich; 2013, 4, 1; 253-268
1899-9417
2353-9763
Pojawia się w:
Przekłady Literatur Słowiańskich
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
The Iron Curtain as an Aspect of the Sovietisation of Eastern Europe in 1949–1953
Autorzy:
Bielicki, Paweł
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/958077.pdf
Data publikacji:
2017
Wydawca:
Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Historii im. Tadeusza Manteuffla PAN w Warszawie
Tematy:
Eastern Europe
Cominform
the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA)
Sovietisation of Eastern Europe
Cold War
Soviet Union
Iron Curtain
europa wschodnia
kominform
rwpg
sowietyzacja europy wschodniej
zimna wojna
zsrr
żelazna kurtyna
Opis:
Sovietisation of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union at the turn of the 1950s was a consequence of the division of Europe and strengthened the so-called Iron Curtain. The restrictions of the Iron Curtain included the ban on all travel to the West, except of delegations of sportsmen and some of the members of security services of those countries. Rapid Sovietisation made the nations subjected by the Soviet Union realise how helpless they were and how impossible it was to oppose such a reign of permanent terror of all social groups hostile to communism. Societies became apathetic, passive and submissive to the USSR, seeing it as the only possibility of existence. It is related to one of principal purposes of Sovietisation at the end of the Stalinist period, quite oft en neglected: its consequences for the social development of subsequent generations of indoctrinated societies. The period of Iron Curtain led to the growing civilisation and mentality distance between East-European countries and the West. The implementation of the Marshall Plan and some basis of economic integration of the countries members of the European Coal and Steel Community in the 1950s contributed to an enormous rise of the standard of living, contrary to the states under communist control. For many decades Sovietisation destroyed the generations able to criticise the authorities, but also willing to cooperate with the state. It contributed to a multi-layered demoralisation of societies. Some of social customs of those times, such as robbing the state through tax avoidance or embezzlement of public money through obtaining social allowances under false pretence, are still present in contemporary post-communist states. Taking of some features of the Russian despotism, such as mistrust, envy, contempt for the weak, or egoism, perpetuated many stereotypes of people from Eastern Europe. The division of the world made by the Big Three and sealed during the Stalinist period made it impossible for the Eastern European nations to know new currents of thoughts, and significantly limited their sense of independence and ability to make independent decisions. Consequences of this process are still present in various dimensions of socio-cultural and political life. “
Советизация Восточной Европы Советским Союзом на рубеже 40-х и 50-х гг. произошла от совершившегося раздела Европы и она укрепляла «железный занавес”. В обсуждаемом мною временном промежутке все сильнейшая замкнутость Восточного блока на Запад проявлялась также в запрете всех поездок на Запад, за исключением командировок – спортивных и некоторых представителей служб безопасности данных государств. Бурный ход советизации открыл глаза нациям, завоеванным СССР, на их бессилие и невозможность сопротивляться перманентному террору по отношению ко всем социальным группам, выступавшим против коммунизма. Общества становились апатичными, пассивными и послушными СССР, усматривая в таком поведении возможность дальнейшего существования. Это связано с одной из основных целей советизации конца периода сталинизма, о которой сегодня часто умалчивается. Я имею в виду ее последствия для общественного развития очередных генераций индоктринированных обществ. Период «железного занавеса” углубил пропасть между восточно-европейскими странами также в цивилизационной, экономической и ментальной сферах. Принятие Плана Маршалла, а также введение основ экономической интеграции стран ЕОУС в 1950-х гг. сделали возможным невиданное повышение стандартов жизни для Западной Европы в отличие от государств, остававшихся под коммунистическим контролем. Советизация перечеркнула также на многие десятилетия формирование наций способных к критике власти, но и готовых на сотрудничество с государством. Она повлекла за собой многослойную деморализацию обществ. Перенятые тогда общественные нравы обворовывания государства м.пр. путем неуплаты налогов или выманивания социальных пособий, не соответствуя определенным требованиям – часто присутствуют в общественном пространстве посткоммунистических государств. Заимствование некоторых особенностей российского деспотизма, как недоверие, зависть, презрение к более слабым или эгоизм, закрепило существование многих стереотипов, касающихся жителей Восточной Европы. Свершившийся во время встреч Большой Тройки, a закрепленный в сталинский период раздел мира усложнял, а иногда препятствовал восточно-европейским нациям ознакомлению с новыми мыслительными течениями и значительно ограничил чувство самостоятельности и независимости принятия решений. Последствия этого процесса присутствуют и сегодня в разных измерениях общественно-культурной и политической жизни.
Źródło:
Studia z Dziejów Rosji i Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej; 2017, 52, 1
2353-6403
1230-5057
Pojawia się w:
Studia z Dziejów Rosji i Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
    Wyświetlanie 1-3 z 3

    Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies