Participación de los jóvenes
El análisis DAFO es un proceso para identificar dónde somos fuertes y dónde somos vulnerables, dónde debemos defender y dónde debemos atacar. Nos dice cuáles son nuestros puntos fuertes, nuestros puntos débiles, las oportunidades que prevalecen en el mercado y las amenazas a las que podemos enfrentarnos por parte de nuestros competidores y de otros factores potenciales.
Los usuarios del análisis DAFO deben formular y responder preguntas que generen información significativa para cada categoría (puntos fuertes, oportunidades, puntos débiles y amenazas) con el fin de maximizar los beneficios de esta evaluación y encontrar su ventaja competitiva.
. Un análisis DAFO puede llevarse a cabo para un producto, un lugar, una industria o una persona. Consiste en especificar el objetivo de la empresa o el proyecto y en identificar los factores internos y externos que son favorables y desfavorables para lograr ese objetivo. La técnica se atribuye a Albert Humphrey, que dirigió una convención en el Instituto de Investigación de Stanford (ahora SRI International) en los años 60 y 70 utilizando datos de las 500 empresas de la lista Fortune[1][2] El grado de adecuación del entorno interno de la empresa con el externo se expresa mediante el concepto de ajuste estratégico.
Because young people do not participate in politics
Cuban Revolution, as a historian I place myself before Cuban revolutionary thought, a term we use much more in history. And that thought has two central lines: on the one hand, there is the radical Cuban nationalism that is artificial and obeys, above all, to an indistinctness that is
artificial and obeys, above all, to an unpleasant indistinction between the term and the concept. One thing is clear to me: in both cases (Marx and Engels on the one hand; Lenin and Lukács, on the other), the term is used in dissimilar meanings.
The meaning that the ancient Greeks attributed to the term matema or to the term episteme, usually translated with the word science -among others-, which carries the imprint and the meaning of what we call modern science today,
who invented the term, which does not seem to me to be accurate. In the Collected Works of the first general secretary of the party founded by Lenin, this term appears for the first time in 1928. Except in the Manual of the History of the CPSU that
Miguel Limia David: I am going to refer to other aspects. First, I am against the use today of the hyphen that links the terms Marxism and Leninism. The terms are historical, they have their role in communication,
What is the political participation of young people limited to?
In this talk (1) I propose to reflect on Latin American populisms of the 21st century from a critical comprehensive point of view. A topic that has returned to the center of the political agenda, and on which there is an enormous bibliography as well as theoretical-ideological controversies.
Secondly, I will introduce the concept of populism, the discussion of which is not associated with the beginning of the change of epoch, but above all with the consolidation of progressive governments and the end of the cycle. I will synthesize the different positions to finally present my own reading of Latin American populisms.
In a Latin America decimated by decades of neoliberalism, progressivism emerged as a sort of lingua franca, beyond the diversity of political experiences, which rapidly generated a new regional space. This arc ranged from the Chile of Patricio Lagos and Michele Bachelet, the Brazil of the PT, with Lula Da Silva and Dilma Roussef, Uruguay under the Frente Amplio, the Argentina of Néstor and Cristina Kirchner, the Ecuador of Rafael Correa, the Bolivia of Evo Morales, the Venezuela of Chávez-Maduro, to the failed government of Fernando Lugo in Paraguay and even the Sandinista Daniel Ortega, in Nicaragua.
Young people in political participation
Lenín Moreno’s Ecuador requested the definitive exit from Unasur, the South American regional organization created in 2008 in Brazil. After Colombia, it is the second country to make such a request. It happens that from Iván Duque, Alvaro Uribe’s dauphin, something like this could be naturally expected, given and considering his conception of Latin America and the world: Moreno, however, came to government with the votes of Rafael Correa, making then a frantic turnaround, which led him to embrace the International Monetary Fund, to recognize and receive the self-proclaimed Venezuelan president Juan Guaidó, and to be a standard-bearer for the end of Unasur.
Moreno’s announcement regarding the removal of the monument to Néstor Kirchner from the Unasur headquarters named after the former Argentine president deserves a separate paragraph: it is the faith of the convert taken to its maximum expression, and an absolute disregard for the memory of a politician who, at the helm of the General Secretariat of the bloc, carried out the historic Cartagena Agreement between Hugo Chávez and Juan Manuel Santos, avoiding a possible warlike conflict that dated back to Uribism. Moreno’s thrust, planned outside Ecuador, is not only aimed at Unasur, but also at the long integrationist heritage that our countries and peoples have had for two centuries.
