A análise política por Max Weber da Revolução de Fevereiro de 1917: Um balanço crítico.

IF 4.1 2区社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Politics & Society Pub Date : 2020-11-19 DOI:10.5007/175-7984.2020v19n45p152

L. Souza, Ricardo Musse

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper critically discusses Max Weber’s analysis of the political situation in Russia in 1917,particularly his article on the February Revolution [Russia’s transition to pseudo-democracy].We establish the links between this article and his writings on the Russian revolution of 1905,focusing on the analysis of social classes and the viability of a democratic coalition capableof supplanting tsarism. In 1917, Weber questions the democratic character of the “provisionalgovernment” and concludes that the revolutionary process was nothing but the annulment ofan incompetent monarch, without changing the conservative position of the ruling classes inrelation to the agrarian question, nor their dependence on foreign banks. Thus, we analyze themistakes that led Weber to disregard the possibility of an alliance between workers and peasants,as well as the insufficiencies of his theoretical scheme to include the dynamics of the massmovement in the historical transformation.

查看原文本刊更多论文

马克斯·韦伯对1917年二月革命的政治分析：批判性评价。

本文批判性地讨论了马克斯·韦伯对1917年俄国政治形势的分析，特别是他关于二月革命的文章[俄国向伪民主的过渡]。我们将这篇文章与他关于1905年俄国革命的著作联系起来，重点分析社会阶级和能够取代沙皇制度的民主联盟的可行性。1917年，韦伯对“临时政府”的民主性质提出了质疑，并得出结论，革命过程只不过是废除了一个无能的君主，没有改变统治阶级在土地问题上的保守立场，也没有改变他们对外国银行的依赖。因此，我们分析了导致韦伯忽视工农联盟可能性的错误，以及他的理论方案在历史转型中包括群众运动动力的不足。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Politics & Society Multiple-

CiteScore

5.00

自引率

4.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Politics & Society is a peer-reviewed journal. All submitted papers are read by a rotating editorial board member. If a paper is deemed potentially publishable, it is sent to another board member, who, if agreeing that it is potentially publishable, sends it to a third board member. If and only if all three agree, the paper is sent to the entire editorial board for consideration at board meetings. The editorial board meets three times a year, and the board members who are present (usually between 9 and 14) make decisions through a deliberative process that also considers written reports from absent members. Unlike many journals which rely on 1–3 individual blind referee reports and a single editor with final say, the peers who decide whether to accept submitted work are thus the full editorial board of the journal, comprised of scholars from various disciplines, who discuss papers openly, with author names known, at meetings. Editors are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest when evaluating manuscripts and to recuse themselves from voting if such a potential exists.