lunes, 18 de diciembre de 2017

Revolución Cantada: Estonia, Lituania, Letonia

Revolución Cantada



La Cadena Báltica con los tres países bálticos: Estonia, Letonia y Lituania.

La Revolución Cantada es un término para referirse a los sucesos ocurridos entre 1987 y 1991 que concluyeron con la reinstauración de la independencia de los estados bálticos: Estonia, Letonia y Lituania.1​2​ Las tres repúblicas fueron anexionadas por la Unión Soviética durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial, primero en virtud del pacto «Ribbentrop-Mólotov» (1940) y más tarde con la ocupación de esos territorios en 1944 tras la invasión alemana de la Unión Soviética.

El término fue acuñado por el activista estonio Heinz Valk, quien lo utilizó en un artículo sobre las manifestaciones de junio de 1988 en el Auditorio de la Canción de Tallin (Lauluväljak), donde se cantaban canciones patrióticas estonias para reivindicar la independencia del país.3​

Contexto




En el transcurso de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, los países bálticos —Estonia, Letonia y Lituania— habían sido ocupados en tres ocasiones: en 1940 por la Unión Soviética, en virtud del protocolo secreto «Ribbentrop-Mólotov»; en 1941 por el ejército de la Alemania nazi, y en 1944 de nuevo por los soviéticos tras la ofensiva del Báltico. Aunque las tres repúblicas bálticas eran estados independientes desde finales de la década de 1910, la URSS consideró la anexión de iure de dichos territorios como una «liberación» de las tropas del Eje.4​ La mayoría de gobiernos occidentales, encabezados por Estados Unidos y Reino Unido, se negaron a darle reconocimiento internacional.5​ 



Con el paso del tiempo, el gobierno soviético propició la migración de rusos a esos territorios.6​



Durante la segunda mitad de los años 1980, la URSS dio comienzo a un proceso de apertura política (glásnost) y reestructuración económica (perestroika) liderado por Mijaíl Gorbachov. Las reformas pretendían la reorganización del sistema socialista para poder conservarlo, pero coincidieron con una grave crisis económica y una serie de revoluciones en el bloque del Este que dejaron a los soviéticos sin aliados y al borde de la desintegración federal. Igual que otras repúblicas socialistas, las repúblicas bálticas aprovecharon la situación para reclamar su independencia de la URSS.7​

Aunque cada país siguió su propio camino, los hechos ocurridos tuvieron una serie de denominadores comunes que propiciaron el término «Revolución Cantada» para referirse específicamente a ellos:8​

La reinstauración de la independencia conquistada en 1918.
La defensa de la democracia y derechos humanos, en contraposición al sistema político de la URSS.
El protagonismo de la cultura local y de los Festivales de Cantos y Danzas Bálticos.
El establecimiento de elecciones competitivas en la URSS, con la creación del Congreso de los Diputados del Pueblo.

La mayor acción común de las tres repúblicas bálticas fue la Cadena Báltica del 23 de agosto de 1989, cuando más de un millón de personas formaron una cadena humana a lo largo de 600 kilómetros desde Tallin hasta Vilna.2​9​ Una semana antes de la protesta, la URSS había admitido la existencia del protocolo Ribbentrop-Mólotov, pero continuaba insistiendo en que los tres estados se habían adherido voluntariamente a la Unión Soviética.2​

La Unión Soviética terminó reconociendo la independencia de las tres repúblicas bálticas el 6 de septiembre de 1991.10​ Tras ese anuncio, Estonia, Letonia y Lituania ingresaron en la Organización de las Naciones Unidas el 17 de septiembre.11​

Estonia
Fachada del Parlamento de Estonia, frente al que se situaron muchas de las barricadas en prevención de posibles ataques soviéticos en 1991.

Con la aprobación de las reformas políticas en la URSS, se multiplicaron las manifestaciones de oposición política en la RSS de Estonia. Una de las primeras se produjo en la primavera de 1987, cuando una asociación ciudadana de Tartu consiguió detener los planes del gobierno soviético de crear nuevas minas de fosfato, mediante resistencia no violenta.11​12​ El éxito de la manifestación animó a los grupos en defensa de los derechos humanos y a los nacionalistas estonios para organizarse por la reinstauración de la independencia.11​

En el verano de 1987 hubo dos importantes movimientos organizativos. Por un lado, la creación de la Asociación por la Publicación del Pacto de Ribbentrop-Mólotov (MRP-AEG), encabezada por disidentes políticos y apoyada públicamente por congresistas de los Estados Unidos.11​ Y por otro lado, una carta abierta en la que políticos del Partido Comunista de Estonia (EKP) reclamaban la transición hacia una autonomía real, algo que propició un debate interno en el seno del partido. El 21 de octubre hubo una marcha en Võru para conmemorar a los caídos en la Guerra de Independencia de 1918 donde las autoridades permitieron banderas tricolores de Estonia, hasta entonces prohibidas.11​

Las concentraciones propiciaron que las premisas nacionalistas e independentistas fuesen asumidas por numerosos miembros del EKP. El 13 de abril de 1988, el dirigente Edgar Savisaar anunció en televisión la creación del Frente Popular de Estonia (Rahvarinne), en origen un grupo «de apoyo a la perestroika» que al poco tiempo se convirtió en la principal organización por la independencia de 

Estonia, responsable de la mayoría de marchas.13​ Uno de sus líderes fue Lennart Meri, posterior presidente estonio de 1992 a 2001.

Manifestantes en Tartu (1989).

Un punto de inflexión en los movimientos populares fue la celebración del tradicional Festival de la Canción Estona (Laulupidu) de junio de 1988. Cerca de 100.000 personas cantaron himnos y canciones patrióticas, algunas de ellas prohibidas.11​ Tras el festival, el Partido Comunista de la URSS cesó a Karl Vaino, miembro del sector más conservador, y nombró como nuevo Primer Secretario del EKP a Vaino Väljas, próximo al nacionalismo.11​14​ En septiembre del mismo año, el Frente Popular organizó otro festival musical en Tallin (Eestimaa laul) al que asistieron cerca de 300.000 personas, lo que suponía una quinta parte de la población.11​ La naturaleza artística de las marchas propició que Heinz Valk acuñara el término «Revolución Cantada» para referirse a la situación política del Báltico.15​

Después de que Gorbachov anunciase la creación del Congreso de los Diputados del Pueblo de la URSS, el Sóviet Supremo de Estonia funcionó como una verdadera cámara legislativa regional.16​ 

Entre las leyes aprobadas cabe destacar la declaración de soberanía (16 de noviembre de 1988), la aprobación del estonio como lengua oficial (enero de 1989), la ley de independencia económica (mayo de 1989, aceptada por la URSS) y las leyes de residencia para votar en las siguientes elecciones (agosto de 1989). El 24 de febrero de 1989 se alzó por primera vez la bandera tricolor en la torre del Pikk Hermann,11​ y el 26 de marzo hubo elecciones al Congreso de los Diputados en las que los candidatos adscritos al Frente Popular obtuvieron mayoría.11​

Al margen de las instituciones soviéticas, en febrero de 1989 se estableció un movimiento ciudadano, conocido como Congreso de Ciudadanos Estonios,17​ en el que podían registrarse cualquier ciudadano estonio por ius sanguinis y aspirantes a la ciudadanía, lo cual dejaba fuera al resto (principalmente, estonios rusos).18​ Un año después había inscritas más de 600.000 personas.18​ El Congreso de Estonia, celebrado del 11 al 12 de marzo, contó con 499 representantes.19​

El 18 de marzo de 1990 se celebraron elecciones legislativas democráticas —las primeras desde 1932— en las que los favorables a la independencia obtuvieron 73 de los 105 escaños en juego. Se eligió como presidente del Sóviet Supremo al excomunista Arnold Rüütel, mientras que Edgar Savisaar fue nombrado primer ministro.20​ Pese a las advertencias de Moscú, Estonia hizo una primera declaración de independencia el 8 de mayo de 1990, aunque en unos términos más suaves que la lituana al mantener la Constitución de la URSS mientras se redactaba la estonia.17​ La URSS no reconoció esa votación. Después de que los tanques soviéticos irrumpiesen en Lituania en enero de 1991, los estonios organizaron laberínticas barricadas alrededor del parlamento.21​ Por su parte, Rüütel y Savisaar priorizaron las relaciones diplomáticas con el presidente del Soviet Supremo de Rusia, Borís Yeltsin, para que intercediera ante Gorbachov y evitara así un derramamiento de sangre.21​

El 3 de marzo de 1991 la declaración de independencia fue aprobada en referéndum con un alto porcentaje de apoyo (78%) y participación (82% del censo).22​ La consulta se celebró dos semanas antes del referéndum sobre el futuro de la URSS. Aunque la URSS trató de mantener el control de la situación, el 19 de agosto hubo un intento de golpe de Estado que precipitó los acontecimientos. Al día siguiente, el 20 de agosto de 1991, el parlamento proclamó la restauración de la independencia de la República de Estonia. Rusia y la Comunidad Europea la reconocieron en una semana,23​24​ mientras que la URSS lo hizo el 6 de septiembre.10​

La prudencia estratégica de los estonios propició que el país consiguiera la independencia sin lamentar víctimas mortales, siendo la única república exsoviética donde eso ha ocurrido.12​21​

Letonia
Monumento a la Libertad de Riga, en honor a los caídos en la guerra de independencia de 1918.

El movimiento nacionalista en la RSS de Letonia fue denominado «Tercer Despertar Nacional» (latviešu tautas atmoda), en continuación de los Jóvenes Letones (década de 1850) y de la proclamación de independencia de 1918. Igual que sucedió en Estonia, las movilizaciones surgieron a raíz de una protesta ciudadana tolerada en el glásnost: en 1986 un grupo de ciudadanos fundó la ONG «Club de Protección Medioambiental» (VAK, por sus siglas en letón) contra la construcción de una central hidroeléctrica sobre el río Daugava.25​ Un joven periodista, Dainis Īvāns, logró reunir más de 30.000 firmas que forzaron la cancelación del proyecto.26​ Ese éxito fue emulado por los nacionalistas letones, que se reorganizaron en el colectivo «Helsinki-86» para reclamar derechos humanos y la reinstauración de la soberanía.26​

El 14 de junio de 1987, los miembros de Helsinki-86 organizaron una ofrenda floral en el Monumento a la Libertad de Riga, símbolo de la independencia de Letonia, en homenaje a los letones que fueron deportados ese mismo día en 1941 y a la que asistieron 5000 personas.27​ La sociedad trató de repetirlo el 23 de agosto para denunciar el protocolo «Ribbentrop-Mólotov», pero esta vez la multitud fue dispersada con chorros de agua.28​ Con el paso del tiempo, Helsinki-86 fue desplazado por diferentes movimientos nacionalistas y por debates en el seno del Partido Comunista de Letonia (LKP) sobre la protección de idioma letón, la rusificación y la soberanía económica.29​

La música también jugó un papel importante en el despertar nacional, con dos eventos destacados: el estreno de la ópera rock Lāčplēsis —basada en el héroe nacional—,30​ y la celebración del Festival de la Canción y Danza de Letonia en 1990.31​

El 8 de octubre de 1988 fue fundado el Frente Popular de Letonia (LTF, Latvijas Tautas fronte) que aglutinaría a los distintos grupos nacionalistas. La formación estaba liderada por Dainis Īvāns y contó desde el principio con el beneplácito de miembros moderados del LKP, entre ellos el presidente del Soviet Supremo Anatolijs Gorbunovs. En menos de un año se superaron los 250.000 miembros, en su gran mayoría de etnia letona.32​ Y aunque el LTF contemplaba al principio distintas sensibilidades, a partir de 1989 defendería la independencia como única solución. Esto provocó que muchas personas de etnia rusa, llegadas durante la rusificación, fuesen más favorables al Inferfront, un movimiento popular prosoviético.33​

En el plano político, los nacionalistas letones habían conseguido que la mayoría de miembros del LKP apoyasen sus postulados y rompieran con el PCUS a partir de 1990. E igual que sucedió en Estonia, se estableció un Comité de Ciudadanos al que podían registrarse letonios por ius sanguinis.34​ En las elecciones al Sóviet Supremo de marzo, el Frente Popular obtuvo mayoría absoluta con 134 de los 200 escaños en juego, más de dos tercios.35​ El reformista Anatolijs Gorbunovs fue nombrado presidente, mientras que Ivars Godmanis, líder del LTF, asumió como primer ministro. La cámara principal pasó a llamarse «Consejo Supremo de la República de Letonia» hasta la reinstauración de la Saeima.36​



Siguiendo los pasos de Lituania, el 4 de mayo de 1990 el Consejo Supremo aprobó el «inicio de la reinstauración de la independencia de Letonia», la recuperación de la Constitución de Letonia de 1922 y una relación exterior con la URSS basada en el Tratado de Riga.37​ Además, el letón pasó a ser la única lengua oficial. A pesar de que los letones desarrollaron una nueva legislación para garantizar el éxito de la independencia, la URSS se negó a reconocerles y prestó apoyo a fuerzas prosoviéticas letonas para derrocar al nuevo gobierno. Durante los meses siguientes se produjo la llegada de miembros del KGB y del OMON (boinas negras) a distintas ciudades del país, en las que incluso se produjeron altercados.38​

El ataque de las tropas soviéticas en Lituania del 11 de enero precipitó los acontecimientos. Ante el temor de que lo mismo pudiera suceder en Letonia, el Frente Popular pidió a los ciudadanos que montaran barricadas para defender las instituciones. Aunque la premisa era la resistencia no violenta, hubo seis víctimas mortales en los enfrentamientos, cinco de ellas tras la toma del Ministerio del Interior por parte del OMON.39​

El 3 de marzo de 1991 la declaración de independencia fue aprobada en referéndum con un alto porcentaje de apoyo (74%) y participación (87,6%).40​ La consulta se celebró dos semanas antes del referéndum sobre el futuro de la URSS. Finalmente, el intento de golpe de Estado del 20 de agosto llevó a que el Gobierno de Letonia proclamara, al día siguiente, la «culminación del proceso de independencia». Rusia y la Comunidad Europea la reconocieron en una semana,23​24​ mientras que la URSS lo hizo el 6 de septiembre.10​

Lituania

De las tres naciones bálticas, la RSS de Lituania fue la primera en completar la Revolución Cantada. A pesar de las tímidas reformas de Gorbachov, el Partido Comunista de Lituania (LKP) estuvo dirigido por líderes que se negaban a desarrollarlas: Petras Griškevičius (1974-1987) y Ringaudas Songaila (1987-1988). La actividad disidente se limitaba entonces a organizaciones clandestinas como la Liga Libertaria de Lituania (LLL), que protagonizó las primeras protestas nacionalistas, o el Comité de Defensa de los Derechos Religiosos.41​

El 3 de junio de 1988 se creó un grupo de apoyo al glasnost, el Movimiento Reformista de Lituania (más conocido por Sąjūdis), liderado por el profesor Vytautas Landsbergis, que acabaría canalizando las movilizaciones populares.41​ Entre otros aspectos reclamaban el cumplimiento de los derechos humanos, el lituano como idioma oficial, la libertad de culto y el cierre de la Central Nuclear de Ignalina. El Sąjūdis era más moderado que el LLL y obtuvo un mayor apoyo social desde el principio, incluso entre miembros del LKP como Algirdas Brazauskas.42​

Lituania venía celebrando festivales de cantos y danzas tradicionales desde 1924, por lo que la tradición musical tuvo su reflejo en las protestas.8​ Los manifestantes acudían al parque Vingio para cantar no solo himnos patrióticos tradicionales, sino también himnos católicos. Algunos intérpretes de la época adaptaron textos de poetas nacionales como Bernardas Brazdžionis y Justinas Marcinkevičius.8​ Y en el Festival de Coros de Lituania de 1988, los intérpretes enarbolaron banderas tricolores por primera vez.8​

Después de que las autoridades soviéticas reprimieran con violencia una marcha del LLL, Songalia fue cesado y el PCUS nombró al moderado Algirdas Brazauskas al frente del LKP.43​ A partir de esa fecha se produjeron concesiones: el 21 de octubre de 1988 se devolvió la catedral de Vilna a la comunidad católica,44​ y el 20 de marzo de 1989 se recuperaron la bandera e himno de la Lituania independiente.45​

En las elecciones al Congreso de los Diputados de la URSS, todos los miembros electos estaban vinculados directa o indirectamente al Sąjūdis.42​ La cámara lituana hizo una declaración de soberanía en mayo de 1989,42​ y seis después, tras el éxito de la Cadena Báltica, el LKP se desligó del PCUS y renunció al monopolio de poder que ostentaba, permitiendo elecciones legislativas pluripartidistas.46​ Los miembros adscritos al Sąjūdis —que rechazó constituirse en partido político— prometieron una declaración inmediata y se oponían a cualquier negociación con Moscú.47​ Al final, en los comicios al Sóviet Supremo del 24 de febrero de 1990, el Sąjūdis obtuvo 91 de los 135 escaños en juego.47​ Vytautas Landsbergis fue elegido presidente del nuevo gobierno.48​

El 11 de marzo de 1990, el nuevo Consejo Supremo aprobó la «Declaración de Restablecimiento de Independencia del Estado de Lituania», con 124 diputados a favor, seis abstenciones y ningún voto en contra.49​48​ Lituania se convirtió así en la primera república que anunciaba su independencia de la Unión Soviética. 

El documento suscitó un entrentamiento directo con Moscú al rechazar por completo su autoridad, asegurando que la declaración de 1918 «nunca perdió su valor legal y constituye la fundación constitucional». Además de no obtener reconocimiento internacional, la URSS impuso en abril un bloqueo económico que duró tres meses.50​ El parlamento lituano accedió a suspender la declaración de independencia unos cien días para negociar con la URSS,51​ pero no hubo avances significativos y la crisis económica y social se agravó.42​ Ante esa situación, Landsbergis pidió a los independentistas que organizaran escudos humanos para defender las instituciones. Por otro lado, se creó un Comité de Defensa paramilitar liderado por Audrius Butkevičius que pudiera prevenir cualquier ataque externo.52​

Un manifestante lituano se enfrenta a los tanques del ejército soviético (1991).

Finalmente, el 11 de enero la URSS inició una intervención militar para recuperar el control. El Ejército Rojo tomó por asalto la radiotelevisión lituana y la torre de TV de Vilna,53​ aunque no pudieron hacerse con el parlamento por una masiva contramanifestación ciudadana.2​ En total fallecieron 14 personas —trece manifestantes y un soldado del KGB por fuego amigo— y otras 700 resultaron heridas. Una década después, Butkevičius reconoció en una entrevista que sus francotiradores habían disparado contra la muchedumbre en la torre de TV para hacer creer que el KGB les había atacado.52​ Por otro lado, tropas del OMON habían matado a ocho guardias del Cuerpo Fronterizo Lituano en Medininkai.54​

El 9 de febrero de 1991 se celebró el referéndum de independencia con un alto porcentaje de apoyo (93%) y participación (84,7%).55​

Los llamados «Sucesos de Enero» (Sausio įvykiai) fueron un punto de inflexión para que las repúblicas bálticas tuvieran reconocimiento. Islandia apoyó la independencia de Lituania el 11 de febrero de 1991 y fue seguida por Dinamarca dos semanas más tarde.56​ Sin embargo, la mayoría de la comunidad internacional solo lo hizo después del intento de golpe de Estado en la URSS; el 20 de agosto, Letonia y Estonia siguieron los pasos de Lituania. Rusia y la Comunidad Europea reconocieron a los tres nuevos estados,23​24​ mientras que la URSS lo hizo el 6 de septiembre.10​

Link

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revoluci%C3%B3n_Cantada


German occupation of Estonia during World War II

After Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, Army Group North reached Estonia in July. Initially the Germans were perceived by most Estonians as liberators from the USSR and its repressions, having arrived only a week after the first mass deportations from the Baltics. Although hopes were raised for the restoration of the country's independence, it was soon realized that they were but another occupying power. The Germans pillaged the country for their war effort and unleashed The Holocaust in Estonia during which they and their collaborators murdered tens of thousands of people (including ethnic Estonians, Estonian Jews, Estonian Gypsies, Estonian Russians, Soviet prisoners, Jews from other countries and others).[1] For the duration of the occupation, Estonia was incorporated into the German province of Ostland.

Occupation



German advance in Latvia, Estonia and on the Leningrad front from June to December 1941





Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941.

Three days later, on June 25, Finland declared herself to once again be in a state of war with the USSR, starting the Continuation War. On July 3, Joseph Stalin made his public statement over the radio calling for scorched-earth policy in the areas to be abandoned. Because the northernmost areas of the Baltic states were the last to be reached by the Germans, it was here that the Soviet destruction battalions had their most extreme effects. The Estonian forest brothers, numbering about 50,000, inflicted heavy casualties on the remaining Soviets; as many as 4,800 were killed and 14,000 captured.

Even though the Germans did not cross the Estonian southern border until July 7–9, Estonian soldiers who had deserted from Soviet units in large numbers, opened fire on the Red Army as early as June 22. On that day, a group of forest brothers attacked Soviet trucks on a road in the district of Harju.[2] The Soviet 22nd Rifle Corps was the unit that lost most men, as a large group of Estonian soldiers and officers deserted from it. Furthermore, border guards of Soviet Estonia were mostly people who had previously worked for independent Estonia, and they also escaped to the forests, becoming one of the best groups of Estonian fighters. An Estonian writer Juhan Jaik wrote in 1941: "These days bogs and forests are more populated than farms and fields. The forests and bogs are our territory while the fields and farms are occupied by the enemy [e.g. the Soviets]".[2]

The 8th Army (Major General Ljubovtsev), retreated in front of the 2nd corps of the German Army behind the Pärnu River - the Emajõgi River line on July 12. As German troops approached Tartu on July 10 and prepared for another battle with the Soviets, they realized that the Estonian partisans were already fighting the Soviet troops. The Wehrmacht stopped its advance and hung back, leaving the Estonians to do the fighting. The battle of Tartu lasted two weeks, and destroyed most of the city. Under the leadership of Friedrich Kurg, the Estonian partisans drove out the Soviets from Tartu on their own. In the meanwhile, the Soviets had been murdering citizens held in Tartu Prison, killing 192 before the Estonians captured the city.

At the end of July the Germans resumed their advance in Estonia working in tandem with the Estonian Forest Brothers. Both German troops and Estonian partisans took Narva on August 17 and the Estonian capital Tallinn on August 28. On that day, the Soviet flag shot down earlier on Pikk Hermann was replaced with the Flag of Estonia by Fred Ise. After the Soviets were driven out from Estonia, German troops disarmed all the partisan groups.[3] The Estonian flag was soon replaced with the flag of Nazi Germany, and the 2,000 Estonian soldiers that took part in the parade in Tartu (July 29), were disbanded.[4]

Most Estonians greeted the Germans with relatively open arms and hoped for the restoration of independence. Estonia set up an administration, led by Jüri Uluots as soon as the Soviet regime retreated and before German troops arrived. Estonian partisans that drove the Red Army from Tartu made it possible. 

That all was for nothing since the Germans had made their plans as set out in Generalplan Ost,[5]:54 they disbanded the provisional government and Estonia became a part of the German-occupied "Ostland". A Sicherheitspolizei was established for internal security under the leadership of Ain-Ervin Mere.

In April 1941, on the eve on the German invasion, Alfred Rosenberg, Reich minister for the Occupied Eastern territories, a Baltic German, born and raised in Tallinn, Estonia, laid out his plans for the East. According to Rosenberg a future policy was created:

Germanization (Eindeutschung) of the "racially suitable" elements.
Colonization by Germanic people.
Exile, deportations of undesirable elements.

 



  Rosenberg felt that the "Estonians were the most Germanic out of the people living in the Baltic area, having already reached 50 percent of Germanization through Danish, Swedish and German influence". Non-suitable Estonians were to be moved to a region that Rosenberg called "Peipusland" to make room for German colonists.[6]

The removal of 50% of Estonians was in accordance with the Nazi Generalplan Ost plan, the elimination of all Jews, was just the start.[5]:54

The initial enthusiasm that accompanied the liberation from Soviet occupation quickly waned as a result and the Germans had limited success in recruiting volunteers. The draft was introduced in 1942, resulting in some 3400 men fleeing to Finland to fight in the Finnish Army rather than join the Germans. Finnish Infantry Regiment 200 (Estonian: soomepoisid 'Finnish boys') was formed out of Estonian volunteers in Finland.

With the Allied victory over Germany becoming certain in 1944, the only option to save Estonia's independence was to stave off a new Soviet invasion of Estonia until Germany's capitulation.

Link


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Estonia_during_World_War_II

Ocupación de las repúblicas Bálticas

Los hermanos del bosque

miércoles, 13 de diciembre de 2017

Dreyfus affair

Dreyfus affair

Affaire Dreyfus

Portrait du capitaine Dreyfus



Scandale judiciaire et politique qui divisa l'opinion française entre 1894 et 1906.
1. Une affaire d'espionnage
1.1. Le contexte politique

La République modérée (1879-1899) traverse une série de crises. Au lendemain des désastres de 1870-1871, de la crise économique des années 1880 et du krach de l'Union générale (1882), du scandale de Panamá (1889), une vague d'attentats anarchistes – Ravachol (1892), Auguste Vaillant (1893), culminant avec l'assassinat du président Sadi Carnot par Caserio (1894) – accroît le sentiment d'insécurité. En proie aux doutes et à l'humiliation, au désir de revanche et à l'aspiration à l'ordre, le régime républicain s'oriente vers un nationalisme agressif où entre naturellement l'antisémitisme répandu par Drumont depuis qu'il a publié la France juive (1886).

1.2. Le capitaine Alfred Dreyfus
Portrait du capitaine DreyfusPortrait du capitaine Dreyfus
Fils d'un industriel alsacien israélite qui, profitant pleinement de la révolution industrielle, construit sa propre filature de coton et connaît une brillante ascension sociale, Alfred naît à Mulhouse en 1859. Il a onze ans lorsqu'éclate la guerre franco-allemande ; une des conséquences de la défaite de 1871, le rattachement de l'Alsace et de la Lorraine à l'Empire allemand, bouleverse la vie de la famille Dreyfus. Les troupes allemandes pénètrent dans Mulhouse, l'Alsace subit une germanisation forcée. Pour conserver leur nationalité française, les Dreyfus se font domicilier à Carpentras, où vit l'un d'entre eux. En 1873, le jeune Alfred est envoyé avec son frère Mathieu à Paris, où, élève doué et studieux, il devient bachelier (1876), intègre Polytechnique dont il sort en 1880. Passionné par l'armée, il entre avec le grade de capitaine à l'état-major général. En 1894, il achève une période de deux ans de stage à la Section de statistiques (nom officiel du Service de renseignements).

1.3. L'accusation
L'affaire Dreyfus, la dictée
L'affaire Dreyfus, la dictée
L'affaire Dreyfus, la dictéeLe traître. Dégradation d’Alfred Dreyfus

Le 27 septembre 1894, la Section de statistiques découvre dans la corbeille à papier de l'attaché militaire allemand à Paris un bordereau anonyme annonçant un envoi de documents concernant la défense nationale. Sous prétexte que le bordereau porte quelque ressemblance d'écriture avec la sienne, Alfred Dreyfus est accusé d'avoir livré des documents à l'Allemagne ; il proteste en vain de son innocence. Le général Auguste Mercier, ministre de la Guerre, fait constituer par le commandant Hubert Henry, un dossier sur le capitaine Dreyfus essentiellement composé de faux, qui est communiqué aux juges à l'insu de la défense.

Dreyfus à l'île du DiableDreyfus à l'île du Diable
Le 22 décembre, Alfred Dreyfus est reconnu coupable de haute trahison par le premier conseil de guerre du gouvernement militaire de Paris, qui le condamne à la dégradation et à la déportation dans île du Diable au large de la Guyane.

1.4. La découverte du coupable et l'impossible révision du procès
Convaincu de l'innocence de son frère, Mathieu Dreyfus décide, avec l'appui du journaliste Bernard Lazare, qui dès novembre a dénoncé dans La Justice le développement de la campagne antisémite, de prouver l'inanité des accusations portées contre Alfred. En mars 1896, le nouveau chef du Service des renseignements, le lieutenant-colonel Picquart acquiert la conviction que le vrai coupable est un certain Esterházy, ce qui lui vaut d'être éloigné alors dans le Sud tunisien. Le vice-président du Sénat,

Auguste Scheurer-Kestner, décide de reprendre le flambeau mais ne peut obtenir du gouvernement la révision du procès. Le ministre de la Guerre affirme que l'ex-capitaine Dreyfus a été « justement et légalement condamné » ; le président du Conseil, Jules Méline, déclare quant à lui qu'« il n'y a pas d'affaire Dreyfus » (4 décembre 1897). Esterházy, accusé sur plainte de Mathieu Dreyfus, est acquitté le 11 janvier 1898 par le conseil de guerre, rendant ainsi impossible toute révision du procès.

Link
http://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/divers/affaire_Dreyfus/117099






The Dreyfus Affair (French: l'affaire Dreyfus, pronounced [la.fɛʁ dʁɛ.fys]) was a political scandal that divided the Third French Republic from 1894 until its resolution in 1906. The affair is often seen as a modern and universal symbol of injustice,[1] and it remains one of the most notable examples of a complex miscarriage of justice. The major role played by the press and public opinion proved influential in the lasting social conflict.

The scandal began in December 1894 with the treason conviction of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a young French artillery officer of Alsatian and Jewish descent. Sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly communicating French military secrets to the German Embassy in Paris, Dreyfus was imprisoned on Devil's Island in French Guiana, where he spent nearly five years.

Evidence came to light in 1896—primarily through an investigation instigated by Georges Picquart, head of counter-espionage—identifying a French Army major named Ferdinand Walsin Esterházy as the real culprit. After high-ranking military officials suppressed the new evidence, a military court unanimously acquitted Esterházy after a trial lasting only two days. The Army then accused Dreyfus with additional charges based on falsified documents. Word of the military court's framing of Dreyfus and of an attempted cover-up began to spread, chiefly owing to J'accuse!, a vehement open letter published in a Paris newspaper in January 1898 by famed writer Émile Zola. Activists put pressure on the government to reopen the case.

In 1899, Dreyfus was returned to France for another trial. The intense political and judicial scandal that ensued divided French society between those who supported Dreyfus (now called "Dreyfusards"), such as Sarah Bernhardt, Anatole France, Henri Poincaré and Georges Clemenceau, and those who condemned him (the anti-Dreyfusards), such as Édouard Drumont, the director and publisher of the antisemitic newspaper La Libre Parole. The new trial resulted in another conviction and a 10-year sentence, but Dreyfus was given a pardon and set free. Eventually all the accusations against Dreyfus were demonstrated to be baseless. In 1906 Dreyfus was exonerated and reinstated as a major in the French Army. He served during the whole of World War I, ending his service with the rank of lieutenant-colonel. He died in 1935.

The affair from 1894 to 1906 divided France deeply and lastingly into two opposing camps: the pro-Army, mostly Catholic "anti-Dreyfusards" and the anticlerical, pro-republican Dreyfusards. It embittered French politics and encouraged radicalization.



Contents 
Dreyfus affair board game, 1898, Poster, 65 x 48 cm, Musée d'Art et d'Histoire du Judaisme
At the end of 1894 a French army captain named Alfred Dreyfus, a graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique and a Jew of Alsatian origin, was accused of handing secret documents to the Imperial German military. After a closed trial, he was found guilty of treason and sentenced to prison for life. He was deported to Devil's Island. At that time, the opinion of the French political class was unanimously unfavourable towards Dreyfus.

Certain of the injustice of the sentence, the family of the Captain, through his brother Mathieu, worked with the journalist Bernard Lazare to prove his innocence. Meanwhile Colonel Georges Picquart, head of counter-espionage, found evidence in March 1896 indicating that the real traitor was Major Ferdinand Walsin Esterházy. The General Staff, however, refused to reconsider its judgment and transferred Picquart to North Africa.

In July 1897 his family contacted the President of the Senate Auguste Scheurer-Kestner to draw attention to the tenuousness of the evidence against Dreyfus. Scheurer-Kestner reported three months later that he was convinced of the innocence of Dreyfus and also persuaded Georges Clemenceau, a former MP and then a newspaper reporter. In the same month, Mathieu Dreyfus complained to the Ministry of War against Walsin-Esterházy. While the circle of Dreyfusards widened, in January 1898 two nearly simultaneous events gave a national dimension to the case: Esterházy was acquitted of treason charges (afterwards shaving his moustache and fleeing France), and Émile Zola published his "J'Accuse ...!," a Dreyfusard declaration that rallied many intellectuals to Dreyfus' cause. France became increasingly divided over the case, and the issue continued to be hotly debated until the end of the century. Antisemitic riots erupted in more than twenty French cities. There were several deaths in Algiers. The Republic was shaken, which prompted a sense that the Dreyfus Affair had to be resolved to restore calm and protect the stability of the nation.

Despite the intrigues of the army to quash the case, the first judgment against Dreyfus was annulled by the Supreme Court after a thorough investigation and a new court-martial was held at Rennes in 1899. Despite increasingly robust evidence to the contrary, Dreyfus was convicted again and sentenced to ten years of hard labour, though the sentence was commuted due to extenuating circumstances. Exhausted by his deportation for four long years, Dreyfus accepted the presidential pardon granted by President Émile Loubet. It was only in 1906 that his innocence was officially recognized through a decision without recourse by the Supreme Court.[2] Rehabilitated, Dreyfus was reinstated in the army with the rank of Major and participated in the First World War. He died in 1935.

The implications of this case were numerous and affected all aspects of French public life. In politics, the affair established the triumph of the Third Republic (and became a founding myth);[3] in the renewal of nationalism, in the military. In religion, it slowed the reform of French Catholicism and republican integration of Catholics; and in social, legal, press, diplomatic and cultural life. It was during the affair that the term intellectual was coined. The affair engendered numerous antisemitic demonstrations, which in turn affected emotions within the Jewish communities of Central and Western Europe. These demonstrations affected the international movement of Zionism by persuading one of its founding fathers, Theodor Herzl, that the Jews must leave Europe and establish their own state.

Contexts



Political
In 1894, the Third Republic was twenty-four years old. Although the May 16th Crisis in 1877 had crippled the political influence of both the Bourbon and Orléanist royalists, its ministries continued to be short-lived as the country lurched from crisis to crisis: three immediately preceding the Dreyfus Affair were the near-coup of Georges Boulanger in 1889, the Panama scandal in 1892, and the anarchist threat (reduced by the "villainous laws" of July 1894). The elections of 1893 were focused on the "social question" and resulted in a Republican victory (just under half the seats) against the conservative right and the strength of the Radicals (about 150 seats) and Socialists (about 50 seats).

The opposition of the Radicals and Socialists resulted in a centrist government where political choices were oriented towards economic protectionism, a certain indifference to the social question, a willingness to break international isolation, the Russian alliance, and development of the Empire.

These politics of the centre caused ministerial instability, with certain Republicans from the government sometimes aligning with the radicals and some Orléanists aligning with the Legitimists in five successive governments from 1893 to 1896. This governmental instability was reflected in an unstable presidency: President Sadi Carnot was assassinated on 24 June 1894, then his moderate successor Jean Casimir-Perier resigned on 15 January 1895 and was replaced by Félix Faure.

Following the failure of the radical government of Léon Bourgeois in 1896, the president appointed Jules Meline, who had been a supporter of protectionism under Jules Ferry. His government acknowledged the opposition of the left and some Republicans (including the Progressive Union) and always made certain of the support of the right. He sought to appease tensions in the religious (by slowing the anticlerical struggle), social (by passage of the law on the liability of work accidents), and economic (by maintenance of protectionism) sectors and he conducted a fairly conservative policy. These policies achieved stability, and it was under this stable government that the Dreyfus

Affair actually broke out.[4]
Military background[edit]

General Raoul Le Mouton de Boisdeffre, architect of the military alliance with Russia
The Dreyfus Affair occurred within the context of the annexation of Alsace and Moselle by the Germans, an event that fed the most extreme nationalism. The traumatic defeat in 1870 seemed far away, but a vengeful spirit remained. Many participants in the Dreyfus Affair were also Alsatian.[Note 1]

The military required considerable resources to prepare for the next conflict, and it was in this spirit that the Franco-Russian Alliance, which some saw as "against nature",[Note 2] of 27 August 1892 was signed as the basis of a military convention. The army had recovered from the defeat but many of its officers were former senior aristocrats and were monarchists. The cult of the flag and contempt for the parliamentary republic were two important principles in the army of the time.[5] The Republic celebrated its army regularly; the army ignored the Republic.

Over the previous ten years the army had experienced a significant shift in its twofold aim to democratize and modernize. The graduates of the École polytechnique competed effectively with officers from the royal career path of Saint-Cyr, which caused strife, bitterness, and jealousy among those junior officers who expected promotions of their choice. The period was also marked by an arms race that primarily affected artillery. There were improvements in heavy artillery (guns of 120 mm and 155 mm, Models 1890 Baquet, new hydropneumatic brakes), but also and especially the development of the ultra-secret 75mm gun.[6]

The operation of military counterintelligence, alias the "Statistics Section" (SR), should be noted. Spying as a tool for secret war was a novelty as an organised activity in the late 19th century. The Statistics Section was created in 1871 but consisted of only a handful of officers and civilians. Its head in 1894 was Lieutenant-Colonel Jean Sandherr, a graduate of Saint-Cyr, an Alsatian from Mulhouse, and a convinced anti-Semite. Its military mission was clear: to retrieve information about potential enemies of France and to feed them false information. The Statistics Section was supported by the "Secret Affairs" of the Quai d'Orsay at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which was headed by a young diplomat, Maurice Paléologue. The arms race created an acute atmosphere of intrigue in French counter-espionage from 1890. One of the missions of the section was to spy on the German Embassy at Rue de Lille in Paris to thwart any attempt to transmit important information to the Germans. This was especially critical since several cases of espionage had already hit the headlines of newspapers, which were fond of sensationalism. Thus in 1890 the archivist Boutonnet was convicted for selling plans of shells that used melinite.

The German military attaché in Paris in 1894 was Count Maximilian von Schwartzkoppen, who developed a policy of infiltration which appears to have been effective. In the 1880s Schwartzkoppen had begun an affair with an Italian military attache, Lieutenant Colonel Count Alessandro Panizzardi.[7] While neither had anything to do with Dreyfus, their intimate and erotic correspondence (e.g. "Don’t exhaust yourself with too much buggery."),[8] which was obtained by the authorities, lent an air of truth to other documents that were forged by prosecutors to lend retroactive credibility to Dreyfus's conviction as a spy. Some of these forgeries even referenced the real affair between the two officers; in one, Alessandro supposedly informed his lover that if "Dreyfus is brought in for questioning," they must both claim that they "never had any dealings with that Jew. … Clearly, no one can ever know what happened with him."[9] The letters, real and fake, provided a convenient excuse for placing the entire Dreyfus dossier under seal, given that exposure of the liaison would have 'dishonoured' Germany and Italy's military and compromised diplomatic relations. As homosexuality was, like Judaism, then often perceived as a sign of national degeneration, recent historians have suggested that combining them to inflate the scandal may have shaped the prosecution strategy.[10][11]

Since early 1894, the Statistics Section had investigated traffic in master plans for Nice and the Meuse conducted by an officer whom the Germans and Italians nicknamed Dubois.[Note 3] This is what led to the origins of the Dreyfus Affair.

Social
The social context was marked by the rise of nationalism and of antisemitism.
The growth of antisemitism, virulent since the publication of Jewish France by Édouard Drumont in 1886 (150,000 copies in the first year), went hand in hand with the rise of clericalism. Tensions were high in all strata of society, fueled by an influential press, who were virtually free to write and disseminate any information even if offensive or defamatory. Legal risks were limited if the target was a private person.

Antisemitism did not spare the military, which practiced hidden discrimination with the famous "cote d'amour" system of irrational grading, encountered by Dreyfus in his application to the Bourges School.[12] However, while prejudices of this nature undoubtedly existed within the confines of the General Staff, the French Army as a whole was relatively open to individual talent. At the time of the

Dreyfus Affair there were an estimated 300 Jewish officers in the army (about 3 per cent of the total), of whom ten were generals.[13]

The popularity of the duel using sword or small pistol, sometimes causing death, bore witness to the tensions of the period. When a series of press articles in La Libre Parole[14] accused some brilliant Jewish officers of "betraying their birth", the officers challenged the editors. Captain Crémieu-Foa, a Jewish Alsatian graduated from the Ecole Polytechnique, fought unsuccessfully against Drumont[Note 4][15] and against M. de Lamase, who was the author of the articles. Captain Mayer, another Jewish officer, was killed by the Marquis de Mores, a friend of Drumont, in another duel, which triggered considerable emotion far beyond Jewish circles.

Hatred of Jews was now public and violent, driven by a firebrand (Drumont) who demonized the Jewish presence in France. Jews in metropolitan France in 1895 numbered about 80,000 (40,000 in Paris alone), who were highly integrated into society; an additional 45,000 Jews lived in Algeria. The launch of La Libre Parole with a circulation estimated at 200,000 copies in 1892,[16] allowed Drumont to expand his audience to a popular readership already enticed by the boulangiste adventure in the past. The antisemitism circulated by La Libre Parole, as well as by L’Éclair, Le Petit Journal, La Patrie, L'Intransigeant and La Croix, drew on antisemitic roots in certain Catholic circles.[17]

Link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair

lunes, 11 de diciembre de 2017

Thorstein Veblen: Economics & Sociology

Thorstein Veblen



Thorstein Bunde Veblen (1857–1929)
Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, California. Nationality: American
Field Evolutionary economics; sociology
School or tradition: Institutional economics: Johns Hopkins University. Yale University (PhD, 1884)
Influences Herbert Spencer,[1] William Graham Sumner, Karl Marx, Lester F. Ward, William James, William McDougall, Georges Vacher de Lapouge, Edward Bellamy, John Dewey, Gustav von Schmoller, John Bates Clark, Henri de Saint-Simon,[2] Charles Fourier[2]
Contributions Conspicuous consumption, Conspicuous leisure, penalty of taking the lead, ceremonial/instrumental dichotomy

Thorstein Bunde Veblen (/ˈθɔːrstaɪn ˈvɛblən/; born Torsten Bunde Veblen; July 30, 1857 – August 3, 1929) was a Norwegian-American economist and sociologist. He was famous as a witty critic of capitalism.

Veblen is famous for the idea of "conspicuous consumption". Conspicuous consumption, along with "conspicuous leisure", is performed to demonstrate wealth or mark social status. Veblen explains the concept in his best-known book, The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899). Within the history of economic thought, Veblen is considered the leader of the institutional economics movement. Veblen's distinction between "institutions" and "technology" is still called the Veblenian dichotomy by contemporary economists.[3]

As a leading intellectual of the Progressive Era, Veblen attacked production for profit. His emphasis on conspicuous consumption greatly influenced the socialist thinkers who sought a non-Marxist critique of capitalism and technological determinism.

Biography
Early life and family background
The Thorstein Veblen Farmstead in 2014



Veblen was born on July 30, 1857, in Cato, Wisconsin, to Norwegian American immigrant parents, Thomas Veblen and Kari Bunde. He was the fourth of twelve children in the Veblen family. His parents emigrated from Norway to Milwaukee, Wisconsin on September 16, 1847, with little funds and no knowledge of English. Despite their limited circumstances as immigrants, Thomas Veblen’s knowledge in carpentry and construction paired with his wife’s supportive perseverance allowed them to establish a family farm, which is now a National Historic Landmark, in Nerstrand, Minnesota. This farmstead and other similar settlements were referred to as little Norways, oriented by the religious and cultural traditions of the old country. The farmstead was also where Veblen spent most of his childhood.[4]

Veblen began his schooling at the age of five. Since Norwegian was his first language, he learned English from neighbors and at school. His parents also learned to speak English fluently, though they continued to read predominantly Norwegian literature with and around their family on the farmstead. 

The family farm eventually grew more prosperous, allowing Veblen’s parents to provide their children with their primary hope of formal education. Unlike most immigrant families of the time, Veblen and all of his siblings received training in lower schools and went on to receive higher education at the nearby Carleton College. Veblen’s sister, Emily, was recognized as the first woman to graduate from a Minnesota college. The eldest Veblen child, Andrew A. Veblen, ultimately became a professor of physics at Iowa State University and the father of one of America’s leading mathematicians, Oswald Veblen of Princeton University.[5]

Several critics have argued that Veblen's Norwegian background and his relative isolation from American society are essential to the understanding of his writings. Sociologist and educator David Riesman maintains that his background as a child of immigrants meant that Veblen was alienated from his parents' previous culture, but that his living in a Norwegian society within America made him unable to completely "assimilate and accept the available forms of Americanism".[6] According to George M. Fredrickson the Norwegian society Veblen lived in was so isolated that when he left it "he was, in a sense, emigrating to America".[7]

Education
At age 17, in 1874, Veblen was sent to attend nearby Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota. Early in his schooling, he demonstrated both the bitterness and the sense of humor that would characterize his later works.[8] Veblen studied economics and philosophy under the guidance of the young John Bates Clark (1847–1938), who went on to become a leader in the new field of neoclassical economics. Clark’s influence on Veblen was great, and as Clark initiated him into the formal study of economics, Veblen came to recognize the nature and limitations of hypothetical economics that would begin to shape his theories. Veblen later developed an interest in the social sciences, taking courses within the fields of philosophy, natural history, and classical philology. 

Within the realm of philosophy, the works of Kant and Spencer were of greatest interest to him, inspiring several preconceptions of socio-economics. In contrast, his studies in natural history and classical philology shaped his formal use of the disciplines of science and language respectively.[9]
After Veblen graduated from Carleton in 1880 he traveled east to study philosophy at Johns Hopkins University. While at Johns Hopkins he studied under Charles Sanders Peirce.[citation needed] When he failed to obtain a scholarship there he moved on to Yale University, where he found economic support for his studies, obtaining a Ph.D. in 1884, with a major in philosophy and a minor in social studies. His dissertation was titled "Ethical Grounds of a Doctrine of Retribution". At Yale, he studied under renowned academics such as philosopher Noah Porter and economist/sociologist William Graham Sumner.[10]



Academic career
After graduation from Yale in 1884, Veblen was essentially unemployed for seven years. Despite having strong letters of recommendation, he was unable to obtain a university position. It is possible that his dissertation research on "Ethical Grounds of a Doctrine of Retribution" (1884) was considered undesirable. However this possibility can no longer be researched because Veblen's dissertation has been missing from Yale since 1935.[11] Apparently the only scholar who ever studied the dissertation was Joseph Dorfman, for his 1934 book Thorstein Veblen and His America. Dorfman says only that the dissertation, advised by evolutionary sociologist William Graham Sumner, studies such evolutionary thought as that of Herbert Spencer, as well as the moral philosophy of Kant.[12]

 Some historians have also speculated that this failure to obtain employment was partially due to prejudice against Norwegians, while others attribute this to the fact that most universities and administrators considered him insufficiently educated in Christianity.[13] Most academics at the time held divinity degrees, which Veblen did not have. Also, it did not help that Veblen openly identified as an agnostic, which was highly uncommon for the time. As a result, Veblen returned to his family farm, a stay during which he had claimed to be recovering from malaria. He spent those years recovering and reading voraciously.[14] It is suspected that these difficulties in beginning his academic career later inspired portions of his book The Higher Learning in America (1918), in which he claimed that true academic values were sacrificed by universities in favor of their own self-interest and profitability.[15]

In 1891, Veblen left the farm to return to graduate school to study economics at Cornell University, under the guidance of economics professor James Laurence Laughlin. With the help of Professor Laughlin, who was moving to the University of Chicago, Veblen became a fellow at that university in 1892. Throughout his stay, he did much of the editorial work associated with The Journal of Political Economy, one of the many academic journals created during this time at the University of Chicago. Veblen used the journal as an outlet for his writings. His writings also began to appear in other journals, such as The American Journal of Sociology, another journal at the university. While he was mostly a marginal figure at the University of Chicago, Veblen taught a number of classes there.[10]

In 1899, Veblen published his first and best-known book, titled The Theory of the Leisure Class. This did not immediately improve Veblen's position at the University of Chicago. He requested a raise after the completion of his first book, but this was denied.[13] Eventually, as the book received attention, Veblen was promoted to the position of assistant professor. Struggling at the University of Chicago, Veblen accepted a position of associate professor at Stanford University.

By 1917, Veblen moved to Washington, D.C. to work with a group that had been commissioned by President Woodrow Wilson to analyze possible peace settlements for World War I, culminating in his book An Inquiry into the Nature of Peace and the Terms of Its Perpetuation (1917).[19] This marked a series of distinct changes in his career path.[20] Following that, Veblen worked for the US Food Administration for a period of time. Shortly thereafter, Veblen moved to New York City to work as an editor for a magazine, The Dial. Within the next year, the magazine shifted its orientation and he lost his editorial position.[9]

In the meantime, Veblen had made contacts with several other academics, such as Charles A. Beard, James Harvey Robinson, and John Dewey. The group of university professors and intellectuals eventually founded the New School for Social Research (known today as The New School) in 1919 as a modern, progressive, free school where students could “seek an unbiased understanding of the existing order, its genesis, growth, and present working".[21] From 1919 to 1926, Veblen continued to write and maintain a role in The New School’s development. It was during this time that he wrote The Engineers and the Price System.[22] In it, Veblen proposed a soviet of engineers.[23] 

According to Yngve Ramstad,[24] the view that engineers, not workers, would overthrow capitalism was a "novel view". Veblen invited Guido Marx to the New School to teach and to help organize a movement of engineers, by such as Morris Cooke; Henry Laurence Gantt, who had died shortly before; and Howard Scott. Cooke and Gantt were followers of Taylor's Scientific Management. Scott, who listed Veblen as on the temporary organizing committee of the Technical Alliance, perhaps without consulting Veblen or other listed members, later helped found the Technocracy movement.[25][26] 

Veblen had a penchant for socialism and believed that technological developments would eventually lead toward a socialistic organization of economic affairs. However, his views on socialism and the nature of the evolutionary process of economics differed sharply from that of Karl Marx; while Marx saw socialism as the final political precursor to communism, the ultimate goal for civilization, and saw the working class as the group that would establish it, Veblen saw socialism as one intermediate phase in an ongoing evolutionary process in society that would be brought about by the natural decay of the business enterprise system and by the inventiveness of engineers.[27]

Daniel Bell sees an affinity between Veblen and the Technocracy movement.[28] Janet Knoedler and Anne Mayhew demonstrate the significance of Veblen's association with these engineers, while arguing that his book was more a continuation of his previous ideas than the advocacy others see in it.[29]



Influences on Veblen
German Historical School
The German Historical School rejected the individual as its unit of analysis, instead searching for a more holistic unit of analysis, which inspired Veblen to do the same. The School and Veblen alike preferred this inclusive unit of analysis to ask how and why human behavior evolves throughout history. The skepticism of the School regarding laissez-faire economics was also adopted by Veblen.[30]

Darwinian evolution
Veblen was deeply influenced by the Darwinian belief in the principle of causality. Unlike the German School, Darwin’s theories were systematically connected and explained series of seemingly disconnected phenomena throughout life.[31] He developed a theoretical system of his own, inspired by Darwin’s theories, which recognized natural and observable forces, rather than divine and teleological ones. With this, Veblen also critiqued the neoclassical beliefs of economics, which stated that economics were passive and essentially inert. Upon this critique, Veblen built his theories of economics.[32]

Pragmatism
American pragmatists distrusted the notion of the absolute and instead recognized the notion of free will. Rather than God’s divine intervention taking control of the happenings of the universe, pragmatism believed that people, using their free will, shape the institutions of society. Veblen also recognized this as an element of causes and effects, upon which he based many of his theories. This pragmatist belief was pertinent to the shaping of Veblen’s critique of natural law and the establishment of his evolutionary economics, which recognized the purpose of man throughout.[33]
Marxism

Veblen concurred with Marx in that there existed a few parasitic owners of the means of production in society who used means of exploitation to maintain that control. While Marx saw the proletariat as rising up against the ruling class, Veblen believed that the proletariat would instead emulate the ruling class. This belief served as the basis for Veblen’s theory of conspicuous consumption.[34] Overall, Veblen held Marx’s economic theories in a high regard. Veblen and Marx also shared similar ideas regarding the importance of technology in provoking social change.

Contributions to social theory
Theory of the leisure class, 1924
Institutional economics



Thorstein Veblen laid the foundation for the perspective of institutional economics with his criticism of traditional static economic theory.[35] As much as Veblen was an economist, he was also a sociologist who rejected his contemporaries who looked at the economy as an autonomous, stable, and static entity. Veblen disagreed with his peers, as he strongly believed that the economy was significantly embedded in social institutions. Rather than separating economics from the social sciences, Veblen viewed the relationships between the economy and social and cultural phenomena. 

Generally speaking, the study of institutional economics viewed economic institutions as the broader process of cultural development. While economic institutionalism never transformed into a major school of economic thought, it allowed economists to explore economic problems from a perspective that incorporated social and cultural phenomena. It also allowed economists to view the economy as an evolving entity of bounded rationale.[36]

Conspicuous consumption
In his most famous work, The Theory of the Leisure Class, Veblen writes critically of the leisure class for its role in fostering wasteful consumption.[35] In this first work Veblen coined the term "conspicuous consumption", which he defined as spending more money on goods than they are worth. The term originated during the Second Industrial Revolution when a nouveau riche social class emerged as a result of the accumulation of capital wealth. He explains that members of the leisure class, often associated with business, are those who also engage in conspicuous consumption in order to impress the rest of society through the manifestation of their social power and prestige, be it real or perceived. In other words, social status, Veblen explained, becomes earned and displayed by patterns of consumption rather than what the individual makes financially.[37] Subsequently, people in other social classes are influenced by this behavior and, as Veblen argued, strive to emulate the leisure class. What results from this behavior, is a society characterized by the waste of time and money. Unlike other sociological works of the time, The Theory of the Leisure Class focused on consumption, rather than production.[38]



Conspicuous leisure
Conspicuous leisure, or the non-productive use of time for the sake of displaying social status, is used by Veblen as the primary indicator of the leisure class. To engage in conspicuous leisure is to openly display one's wealth and status, as productive work signified the absence of pecuniary strength and was seen as a mark of weakness. As the leisure class increased their exemption from productive work, that very exemption became honorific and actual participation in productive work became a sign of inferiority. Conspicuous leisure worked very well to designate social status in rural areas, but urbanization made it so that conspicuous leisure was no longer a sufficient means to display pecuniary strength. Urban life requires more obvious displays of status, wealth, and power, which is where conspicuous consumption becomes prominent.[39]

Leisure class
In The Theory of the Leisure Class, Veblen writes critically of conspicuous consumption and its function in social-class consumerism and social stratification.[36] Reflecting historically, he traces said economic behaviors back to the beginnings of the division of labor, or during tribal times. Upon the start of a division of labor, high-status individuals within the community practiced hunting and war, notably less labor-intensive and less economically productive work. Low-status individuals, on the other hand, practiced activities recognized as more economically productive and more labor-intensive, such as farming and cooking.[40] High-status individuals, as Veblen explains, could instead afford to live their lives leisurely (hence their title as the leisure class), engaging in symbolic economic participation, rather than practical economic participation.

These individuals could engage in conspicuous leisure for extended periods of time, simply following pursuits that evoked a higher social status. Rather than participating in conspicuous consumption, the leisure class lived lives of conspicuous leisure as a marker of high status.[41] The leisure class protected and reproduced their social status and control within the tribe through, for example, their participation in war-time activities, which while they were rarely needed, still rendered their lower social class counterparts dependent upon them.[42] During modern industrial times, Veblen described the leisure class as those exempt from industrial labor. Instead, he explains, the leisure class participated in intellectual or artistic endeavors to display their freedom from the economic need to participate in economically productive manual labor. In essence, not having to perform labor-intensive activities did not mark higher social status, but rather, higher social status meant that one would not have to perform such duties.[43]



Theory of business enterprise
The central problem for Veblen was the friction between "business" and "industry". Veblen identified "business" as the owners and leaders whose primary goal was the profits of their companies but, in an effort to keep profits high, often made efforts to limit production. By obstructing the operation of the industrial system in that way, "business" negatively affected society as a whole (through higher rates of unemployment, for example). With that said, Veblen identified business leaders as the source of many problems in society, which he felt should be led by people such as engineers, who understood the industrial system and its operation, while also having an interest in the general welfare of society at large.[44]

Veblen's economics and politics
Veblen and other American institutionalists were indebted to the German Historical School, especially Gustav von Schmoller, for the emphasis on historical fact, their empiricism and especially a broad, evolutionary framework of study.[45] Veblen admired Schmoller, but criticized some other leaders of the German school because of their overreliance on descriptions, long displays of numerical data and narratives of industrial development that rested on no underlying economic theory. Veblen tried to use the same approach with his own theory added.[46]

Probably the clearest inheritors of Veblen's ideas that humans are not rationally pursuing value and utility through their conspicuous consumption are adherents of the school of behavioral economics, who study the ways consumers and producers act against their own interests in apparently non-rational ways.

Veblen developed a 20th-century evolutionary economics based upon Darwinian principles and new ideas emerging from anthropology, sociology, and psychology. Unlike the neoclassical economics that was emerging at the same time, Veblen described economic behavior as socially determined and saw economic organization as a process of ongoing evolution. Veblen strongly rejected any theory based on individual action or any theory highlighting any factor of an inner personal motivation. 

According to him, such theories were "unscientific". This evolution was driven by the human instincts of emulation, predation, workmanship, parental bent, and idle curiosity. Veblen wanted economists to grasp the effects of social and cultural change on economic changes. In The Theory of the Leisure Class, the instincts of emulation and predation play a major role. People, rich and poor alike, attempt to impress others and seek to gain advantage through what Veblen termed "conspicuous consumption" and the ability to engage in “conspicuous leisure”. In this work Veblen argued that consumption is used as a way to gain and signal status. Through "conspicuous consumption" often came "conspicuous waste", which Veblen detested. He further spoke of a "predatory phase" of culture in the sense of the predatory attitude having become the habitual spiritual attitude of the individual.[47]

In The Theory of Business Enterprise, which was published in 1904 during the height of American concern with the growth of business combinations and trusts, Veblen employed his evolutionary analysis to explain these new forms. He saw them as a consequence of the growth of industrial processes in a context of small business firms that had evolved earlier to organize craft production. 

The new industrial processes impelled integration and provided lucrative opportunities for those who managed it. What resulted was, as Veblen saw it, a conflict between businessmen and engineers, with businessmen representing the older order and engineers as the innovators of new ways of doing things. In combination with the tendencies described in The Theory of the Leisure Class, this conflict resulted in waste and "predation" that served to enhance the social status of those who could benefit from predatory claims to goods and services.

Veblen generalized the conflict between businessmen and engineers by saying that human society would always involve conflict between existing norms with vested interests and new norms developed out of an innate human tendency to manipulate and learn about the physical world in which we exist. He also generalized his model to include his theory of instincts, processes of evolution as absorbed from Sumner, as enhanced by his own reading of evolutionary science, and pragmatic philosophy first learned from Peirce. The instinct of idle curiosity led humans to manipulate nature in new ways and this led to changes in what he called the material means of life. 

Because, as per the pragmatists, our ideas about the world are a human construct rather than mirrors of reality, changing ways of manipulating nature lead to changing constructs and to changing notions of truth and authority as well as patterns of behavior (institutions). Societies and economies evolve as a consequence, but do so via a process of conflict between vested interests and older forms and the new. Veblen never wrote with any confidence that the new ways were better ways, but he was sure in the last three decades of his life that the American economy could, in the absence of vested interests, have produced more for more people. In the years just after World War I he looked to engineers to make the American economy more efficient.

In addition to The Theory of the Leisure Class and The Theory of Business Enterprise, Veblen's monograph "Imperial Germany and the Industrial Revolution", and his many essays, including "Why is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science", and "The Place of Science in Modern Civilization", remain influential.



Veblen and political theories
Politically, Veblen was sympathetic to state ownership. Scholars mostly disagree about the extent to which Veblen's views are compatible with Marxism,[48] socialism, or anarchism. Veblen believed that technological developments would eventually lead to a socialist economy, but his views on socialism and the nature of the evolutionary process of economics differed sharply from Karl Marx's. While Marx saw socialism as the immediate precursor to communism and the ultimate goal for civilization to be achieved by the working class, Veblen saw socialism as an intermediate phase in an ongoing evolutionary process in society that would arise due to natural decay of the business enterprise system.[citation needed]

Veblen's intellectual legacy
In spite of difficulties of sometimes archaic language, caused in large part by Veblen's struggles with the terminology of unilinear evolution and of biological determination of social variation[citation needed] that still dominated social thought when he began to write, Veblen's work remains relevant, and not simply for the phrase “conspicuous consumption”. His evolutionary approach to the study of economic systems is once again in vogue and his model of recurring conflict between the existing order and new ways can be of great value in understanding the new global economy.
The handicap principle of evolutionary sexual selection is often compared to Veblen's “conspicuous consumption”.[53]

Veblen, as noted, is regarded as one of the co-founders (with John R. Commons, Wesley C. Mitchell, and others) of the American school of institutional economics. Present-day practitioners who adhere to this school organise themselves in the Association for Evolutionary Economics (AFEE) and the Association for Institutional Economics (AFIT). AFEE gives an annual Veblen-Commons (see John R. Commons) award for work in Institutional Economics and publishes the Journal of Economic Issues. Some unaligned practitioners include theorists of the concept of "differential accumulation".[54]

Veblen is cited in works of feminist economists.[55] Veblen's work has also often been cited in American literary works. He is featured in The Big Money by John Dos Passos, and mentioned in Carson McCullers' The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter and Sinclair Lewis's Main Street. One of Veblen's Ph.D. students was George W. Stocking, Sr., a pioneer in the emerging field of industrial organization economics. Another was Canadian academic and author Stephen Leacock, who went on to become the head of Department of Economics and Political Science at McGill University. Influence of 

Theory of the Leisure Class can be seen in Leacock's 1914 satire, Arcadian Adventures with the Idle Rich.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorstein_Veblen

Thorstein Veblen

Thorstein Veblen was odd man out in late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century American economics. His position on the fringe started early. Veblen grew up in a Norwegian immigrant farming community in Wisconsin. He spoke only Norwegian at home and did not learn English until his teens. He studied economics under John Bates Clark, a leading neoclassical economist, but rejected his ideas. He did his graduate work at Johns Hopkins University under Charles Sanders Peirce, the founder of the pragmatist school in philosophy, and at Yale University under laissez-faire proponent William Graham Sumner. He repudiated their views as well.

Veblen is best known for his book The Theory of the Leisure Class, which introduced the term “conspicuous consumption” (referring to consumption undertaken to make a statement to others about one’s class or accomplishments). This term, more than any other, is what Veblen is known for.

Veblen did not reject economists’ answers to the questions they posed; he simply thought their questions were too narrow. Veblen wanted economists to try to understand the social and cultural causes and effects of economic changes. What social and cultural causes were responsible for the shift from hunting and fishing to farming, for example, and what were the social and cultural effects of this shift? Veblen was singularly unsuccessful at getting economists to focus on such questions. His failure may explain the sarcastic tone his writing took toward his fellow economists.

Veblen had to struggle to stay in academia. In the late nineteenth century many universities were affiliated in a substantial way with churches. Veblen’s skepticism about religion and his rough manners and unkempt appearance made him unattractive to such institutions. As a result, from 1884 to 1891 Veblen lived on the largesse of his family and his wife’s family. His big break came in 1892 when the newly formed University of Chicago hired his mentor, J. Laurence Laughlin, who brought Veblen with him as a teaching assistant. Veblen later became the managing editor of the Journal of Political Economy, which was and is edited at the University of Chicago. Veblen spent fourteen years at Chicago and the next three at Stanford. He died in obscurity in 1929.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Veblen.html

http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/LCS/theoryleisureclass.pdf