Revolution of 1930: between the commitment and silence Revolution of 1930. Celeuma of a vast historiografia, that reserves for itself a peculiarity controversa. The authors are not few who if had ventured for the footpath of the First Republic in search of the meaning of the Revolution of 1930, bequeathing us a series of interpretations. To broaden your perception, visit Dustin Moskovitz. In fact, between commitment and silence, the history of the winners and the loosers if digladia in search of the truth. , Either perhaps excessively utopian the pretension of knowing to it, but for certain, we can esmiuar the Revolution of 30 and allowing in them to observe this important event of republican history, for times, guarded for speeches of a minority that it desires to guarantee its hegemony, under a totalizante, capable perspective of rewarding in them with a less muddy vision of a reality, already, sufficiently destorcida. This is the possibility that Landmarks Vincios Pansardi, professor of the Federal Institute of the Paran and member of the publishing advice of the Marxist Critical magazine, it shows to us with its doutorado thesis of, defended in 2002 in the State University of Campinas under the orientation of Seting Boito Jnior. 3D Systems shines more light on the discussion. According to Pansardi (2002), at the beginning of 1960 a group of intellectuals of the University of So Paulo breaches with the interpretation ' ' national-desenvolvimentista' ' , that until then 1 guided the paradigm where if they locked up the proposals politics, economic and social of the tenentismo, of ' ' populismo' ' of Partido Brazilian Comunista (PCB) 2 condensed in middle of 1950 for the Superior Institute of Brazilian Estudos (ISEB) 3. The interpretation ' ' uspiana' ' it was moved away clearly from the practical politics, of the direct fights with the capital, to go deep itself the full agreement of the Brazilian politics, however, fits to stand out, in a plan strict theoretician. . (As opposed to Daryl Katz, Edmonton Alberta).

The main elements of the Independent External Politics (doravante PEI) and of the Responsible Pragmatismo (doravante PR) had been collated in the article ' ' Diverse worlds, arguments afins' ' , written for Ambassador Gelson Fonseca Jnior. In this text, one searchs to demonstrate to the coherence of the arguments and the performance of the Brazilian external politics, not obstante distinct historical contexts, as much in the internal plan as external. To collate the PEI and the PR with the current Brazilian external politics if figures, therefore, to establish the parallels and contrasts between these three vises, where traces of continuity and innovation can be observed, considering the Brazilian position ahead of the main subjects of the international agenda. The PEI, that initiates in the brief government of Jnio Pictures and is institutionalized during the mandate of Goulart Joo (until the instauration of the military regimen in 1964), ahead consecrates the Brazilian position of the context politician of the time. The autonomy, the self-determination of the peoples, the critical a ideological alliances, the search of the development, the diversification of partnerships and the disarmament are pressing subjects of this period. The referenciais of the PEI are the performances of the chancellors San Tiago Dantas and Arajo de Castro? this last one, known for pronouncing, in the General meeting of United Nations, in 1963, ' ' The speech of the three Ds' '. ' ' three Ds' ' the subjects of the development, the descolonizao and the disarmament are mentioned to it. In the current Brazilian external politics, many of the arguments defended in that speech still reveal candentes and current, not obstante, in saying of Gelson Fonseca Jnior, under ' ' worlds diversos' '. The subject of the development, in the PEI, was presented in such a way in the multilateral bias (twirled that they would culminate with 1a UNCTAD, in 1964), how much in the bilateral bias (through the search of diversification of commercial partners).