Domesticated animals need to be treated as fellow citizens: only if we conceive of domesticated animals as full members of our political communities can we do justice to their moral standing—or so Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka argue in their widely discussed book Zoopolis. In this contribution, we pursue two objectives. Firstly, we reject Donaldson and Kymlicka’s appeal for animal citizenship. We do so by submitting that instead of paying due heed to their moral status, regarding animals as citizens misinterprets (...) their moral qualities and thus risks treating them unjustly. Secondly, we suggest that Donaldson and Kymlicka’s reinforced focus on membership should draw our attention to the moral standing of a further ‘species’, namely robots. Developments within artificial intelligence have advanced rapidly in recent years. With robots’ gaining ever greater capacities and abilities, we need to ask urgent questions about the moral ramifications of these technical advances. (shrink)

Political psychology and rational choice approaches are often regarded as standing in direct competition with one another. In this paper, we put this postulated rivalry to the test by examining the conditions which would need to be fulfilled so as to set up a conflict between political psychology and rational choice. Since our analysis shows that the perceived competition rests on a mistaken conception of the respective approaches, we argue that our main aim should be to investigate how to combine (...) these approaches so as to maximise their fruitfulness for political science. (shrink)

The concept of rationality, predominantly in the guise of rational choice theory, plays a key role in the social sciences. Yet, whilst rational choice theory is usually understood as part of positive political science, it is also widely employed within normative political theories. In this paper, we examine how allegedly positive rational choice arguments can find application within normative political theories. To this effect, we distinguish between two interpretations of rationality ascriptions, one empirical, the other normative. Since, as we demonstrate, (...) empirical readings of the rationality assumption cannot convincingly explain the role of rational choice arguments in normative theories, we argue that the rationality assumption should be given a normative interpretation. We conclude by considering what this result implies for the use of rational choice arguments in normative and positive political science. (shrink)

Marx says of alienated labor that it does not "belong" to the worker, that it issues in a product that does not belong to her, and that it is unfulfilling, unfree, egoistically motivated, and inhuman. He seems to think, moreover, that the first of these features grounds all the others. All of these features seem quite independent, however: they can come apart; they share no obvious common cause or explanation; and if they often occur together this seems accidental. It (...) is not clear, then, how Marx's concept of alienated labor could possess the strong unity which he takes it to have. I defend a reinterpretation of the concept which explains this unity. The various features of alienated labor, I argue, all follow from a single, hitherto underappreciated feature of its formal motivational structure: the fact that such labor is motivated not by its product but by an incentive. (shrink)

The following is a critical reconstruction of the collaboration between Bauer and Marx between 1839 and 1842. The turbulences in the period in question reveal themselves in Marx’s thought as well as in his relationship with Bruno Bauer. Correspondingly, Marx’s detours, false paths, dead ends and abandoned work are therefore made the focus of this study. The ambivalent initial relations between the two of them, which both made their collaboration possible and hindered it, clearly go back further (...) than 1841, when Bauer was not yet an atheist and was still a proponent of church doctrine. This was the Bruno Bauer that Marx had come to know in the Doctor’s Club. We then meet Bauer the atheist at the end of 1839 or perhaps the beginning of 1840, as he was planning a comprehensive attack on orthodox theology and wanted Marx to fight on his side. This attack continued in Bauer’s Trumpet and in Hegel’s Doctrine. (shrink)

In Marx’s posthumously published manuscripts from 1857–1863, we find a systematic exposition of his concept of subsumption. Though much has been written about it, significant interpretative gaps persist. In this article, I begin filling these gaps by examining the emergence of Marx’s concept of subsumption. I will argue that in the Grundrisse Marx brings together distinct but complementary elements from Hegel’s theories of judgment and teleology to coin two new and well delineated concepts of subsumption that prefigure (...) his later concepts of formal and real subsumption. These two concepts may be defined as: (a) the process of acquiring the social relational property of being a means to an end; (b) the process by which changes in non-relational properties occur in something due to this acquisition – and occur to better suit said end. (shrink)

Should Marxists support universal basic income (UBI), i.e., a regular cash income paid to all without a means test or work requirement? This paper considers one important argument that they should, namely that UBI would be instrumentally effective in helping to bring about communism. It argues that previous answers to this question have paid insufficient attention to a logically prior question: what is Marx’s account of communism? In reply, it distinguishes two different accounts: a left-libertarian version that associates communism (...) with the freedom to live and work how one wants, and a perfectionist version that associates communism with the overcoming of alienated labour and self-realisation in work. It argues that UBI would make steps towards the left-libertarian account but not the perfectionist account. Ultimately, then, the question “should Marxists support basic income?” is shown to partly depend on which account of communism Marxists want to bring about. (shrink)

Marx is generally reckoned to have had too little to say about what has come to be defined as ‘social reproduction’, largely as a consequence of too narrow a focus on industrial production, and a relative disregard for issues of gender. This paper argues in contrast that the approach he developed with Engels and in Capital, Volume 1, provides a powerful framework for its analysis. After an introductory discussion of recent literature on social reproduction the second section sets out (...) Marx’s approach to the ‘production of life, both of one’s own in labour and of fresh life in procreation’. The third addresses his account of reproduction in Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 23. The fourth and fifth compare the relationship of the family to industry and exchange as depicted in Capital and in the present day respectively. The conclusion suggests some implications for theories of social reproduction. (shrink)

This article reconstructs and defends Theodor Adorno’s social theory by motivating the central role of abstract domination within it. Whereas critics such as Axel Honneth have charged Adorno with adhering to a reductive model of personal domination, I argue that the latter rather understands domination as a structural and de-individualized feature of capitalist society. If Adorno’s social theory is to be explanatory, however, it must account for the source of the abstractions that dominate modern individuals and, in particular, that of (...) value. While such an account remains undeveloped in Adorno, Marx provides resources for its development, in positing the constitution of value neither in production nor exchange alone, but in the social totality. This article argues that Marx’s account is compatible with Adorno’s, and that it may be used to render Adorno’s theory of domination more credible on explanatory grounds. (shrink)

Karl Marx’s 1852 work The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte opens with the famous remark that men “make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please.” He goes on to argue that whatever happens in the present time arises from and is a reaction to a political past. Recollecting and interpreting the past for present purposes requires a language. Such a language is not naturally given but needs to be socially constructed. What is more, (...) its vocabulary and grammar stem from linguistic legacies of past ideologies. Marx draws in this regard an analogy, comparing acquisition of a political language with mastering a natural language: “a beginner who has learnt a new language always translates it back into his mother tongue, but he has assimilated the spirit of the new language and can freely express himself in it only when he finds his way in it without recalling the old and forgets his native tongue in the use of the new.”. (shrink)

In his book On the Nature of Marx’s Things Jacques Lezra inherits another Marx and another materialism. It is an aleatory materialism: a materialism of the dynamic contingency of Marx and his “things”. This “subterranean current” of aleatory materialism is excavated by Lezra in his swerve through the letters, notebooks, and “private notes” of a young Marx working on his doctorate thesis. Following Lezra’s necrophilological thread –which encounters Lucretius and his “things”– we find that, in a (...) parallel fashion, Marx is also searching for a concept of science in his dissertation. This is what here is tentatively called a science of contingency. This science – though not in the usual disciplinary sense– opens the possibility of an alliance with Karen Barad’s performative materialism that displaces the humanism of the “new materialisms” by thinking alongside another science of contingency, also of a certain Lucretian inheritance, and which Marx did not get to think: quantum mechanics. -/- -- -/- En su libro On the Nature of Marx’s Things Jacques Lezra hereda otro Marx, y otro materialismo. Un materialismo aleatorio, un materialismo de la contingencia dinámica de Marx y sus “cosas”. Tal “corriente subterránea” del materialismo aleatorio es excavada por Lezra en su desvío por las cartas, cuadernos y notas “privadas” de un joven Marx que trabajaba en su tesis de doctorado. Siguiendo el hilo necrofilológico de Lezra, que se topa con Lucrecio y sus “cosas,” encontramos que, paralelamente, Marx también busca un concepto de ciencia en su tesis: lo que tentativamente nombramos ciencia de la contingencia. Ciencia, no ya disciplinaria, que abre la posibilidad de una alianza con el materialismo performativo de Karen Barad que desplaza el humanismo de los “nuevos materialismos” desde una reflexión critica que piensa a la par de otra ciencia de la contingencia, también de cierta herencia lucreciana, con la cual Marx no llegó a pensar: la mecánica cuántica. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that Marx's central concern, consistent throughout his works, is to challenge and overcome hierarchical oppositions, which he considers as the core of modern, capitalist societies and the cause of alienation. The young Marx critiques the hierarchical idealism/materialism opposition. In this opposition, idealism abstracts from and reduces all material elements to the mind (or spirit), and materialism abstracts from and reduces all mental abstractions to the body (or matter). The mature Marx sophisticates this (...) critique with his theory of the commodity fetish. The commodity fetish abstracts the exchange-value (the mind) from the commodity's use-value (the body). Although Marx aims to challenge capitalism by abolishing the hierarchical relation among binary oppositions, I show that in his early and later writings on the working-class woman, he reinforces hierarchical binaries, pointing at the gendered unconscious structure of capitalism. (shrink)

It is common to assimilate Marx’s and Spinoza’s conceptions of democracy. In this chapter, I assess the relation between Marx’s early idea of “true democracy” and Spinozist democracy, both the historical influence and the theoretical affinity. Drawing on Marx’s student notebooks on Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise, I show there was a historical influence. However, at the theoretical level, I argue that a sharp distinction must be drawn. Philosophically, Spinoza’s commitment to understanding politics through real concrete powers does not (...) support with Marx’s anti-institutional conception of true democracy. And as a matter of social theory, the gap between civil society and the state which so troubles Marx is a development of modernity that has not entered Spinoza's premodern field of view. Marx’s true democracy was also influenced by his study of Rousseau, and theoretically, it is just as close if not closer to Rousseau as to Spinoza. (shrink)

Over the past 40 years a tradition of Marx interpretation has built up around a single passage concerning black slavery in an 1853 letter from Marx to Engels, in order to demonstrate that Marx’s support for emancipation was conditional on the level of ‘civilization’ attained by black slaves. I will argue that this interpretation, which attempts to prove Marx’s racist defense of slavery, is overdetermined by an inattention to historical context and a hypersensitivity to Marx’s (...) nineteenth-century epithets. This is important because the alleged anti-black racism of Marx and the place black workers occupy in his historical materialist vision of class struggle are of the utmost significance for properly conceptualizing the relationship between Marxism and black liberation. (shrink)

G. A. Cohen’s pathbreaking book, Karl Marx‘s Theory of History: A Defence (1978), prompted extensive reconsideration of historical materialism. This effort recast ongoing debates about Marx‘s theory of history by defending the view that historical materialism embodies a set of substantive claims as appropriately subject to analytical scrutiny as those of any other viable theory. Specifically, Cohen advances one central substantive claim that summarizes his reading of the “Preface” to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. “History (...) is, fundamentally, the growth of productive power, and forms of society rise and fall according as they enable or impede that growth.” This premise affirms that the same set of factors that explain changes societies undergo within a given historical epoch also explain transitions between historical epochs. The theoretical account of intraepochal historical development suffices equally to cover interepochal, revolutionary change. In this paper we reject this premise and argue that even on the most plausible reconstruction of Marx’s theory of history—a reconstruction that employs, among other things, a careful ownership-based criterion of historical epochs and the use of functional explanations—Marx’s theory of history cannot explain social revolutions. -/- . (shrink)

"Capital is moved as much and as little by the degradation and final depopulation of the human race, as by the probable fall of the earth into the sun. Apres moi le deluge! is the watchword of every capitalist and of every capitalist nation" (Marx, CAPITAL Vol 1, 380-381).

In a recent paper, David James argues for a new understanding of the compatibility of freedom and necessity in Marx's idea of a communist society. According to James, such compatibility has less to do with anything distinctive about the nature of labour and more to do with how communist producers organize the sphere of material production. In this paper, I argue that James provides a nuanced and plausible account of one part of Marx's story of the compatibility of (...) freedom and necessity in communist society but that his account misses another, and, in my view, more fundamental part of the story. The part I have in mind centres on Marx's claim that communist producers achieve their freedom through the performance of necessary labour—by helping others to satisfy their needs. I argue that Marx is committed to a stronger claim than James wishes to make, namely, that freedom and necessity are not merely compatible but that participation in the realm of necessity is required for human freedom. (shrink)

The relationship between Marxism and psychoanalysis has been frequently debated; nonetheless, one rarely comes upon a thoroughgoing, in-depth treatment of this connection. The Capitalist Unconscious is therefore a belated but welcome inquiry into the points of intersection between the two, a project whose contours could be traced back to the works of Marx and Freud. It is in the work of Lacan, however, that this correlation between Marxism and Psychoanalysis becomes visible. This article explores Samo Tomšič’s analysis of the (...) logical, epistemological, and political continuity of Marx’s critique of political economy and Freud’s theory of libidinal economy, meanwhile appraising the possible emancipatory potential of this project. (shrink)

Marx in his early Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right (1843) declared "Democracy is human existence, while in other political forms man has only legal existence". In the Grundrisse and his late Ethnological Notebooks he studied the emergence of "the political" from primordialism, or the rule of family, tribe and clan .

Book synopsis: This collection of essays from the Royal Institute of Philosophy shows the connections and interrelations between the analytic and hermeneutic strains in German philosophy since Kant, partly to challenge the idea that there are two separate, non-communicating traditions. The distinguished contributors include David-Hillel Ruben on Marx, Robert Solomon writing on Nietzsche, Michael Inwood on Heidegger, P. M. S. Hacker on Frege and Wittgenstein, Christopher Janaway on Schopenhauer, Thomas Uebel on Neurath and the Vienna Circle, and Jay Bernstein (...) on Adorno. The collection is rounded off by a paper by Jürgen Habermas specifically on hermeneutic and analytic philosophy. (shrink)

Marx’s theory of historical materialism seeks to explain human history and development on the basis of the material conditions underlying all human existence. For Marx, the most important of all human activities is the activity of production by means of labor. With his focus on production through labor, Marx argues that it is possible to provide a materialistic explanation of how human beings not only transform the world (by applying the “forces of production” to it) but also (...) transform themselves in transforming the world (by entering into “relations of production” with one another). For Marx, the productive labor of human beings – and the resulting interplay between the forces and relations of production – function together as the engine which drives all historical change and development. By understanding how the productive activities of human beings give rise to the division of labor and class conflict, it becomes possible, according to Marx, to understand how different historical epochs succeed one another, and how the trajectory of human history points towards a communist society within which the division of labor and class conflict will be abolished. (shrink)

Marx’s vision of unalienated production is often thought to be subject to decisive objections. This article argues that these objections rely on a misinterpretation of Marx’s position. It provides a new interpretation of Marx’s vision of unalienated production. Unlike another well-known account, it suggests that unalienated production involves realizing oneself through providing others with the goods and services they need for their self-realization. It argues that this view is appealing and that it offers a more successful response (...) to objections than previous interpretations. In doing so, it hopes to put Marx’s concern with alienation and nonalienation back on the table. (shrink)

In a Times Literary Supplement review of some recent literature on Marx and Marxism for a general readership, Jonathan Wolff claimed that Marx’s solution to the so-called “transformation problem” is “half-baked.” The aim of this paper is to challenge this complacent dismissal of some of Marx’s central economic ideas. In the process, I want to show that although the issues here are subtle and complex, Marx’s ideas retain a great deal of intuitive appeal, and his “solution” (...) to the so-called “transformation problem” is neither conceptually implausible nor mathematically dubious. Crucial to this aim is to show that Marx viewed the categories of (what he called bourgeois) economics through a social lens, which is given in the first chapter of the first volume of Capital. (shrink)

Preface to the Hebrew Translation of Karl Marx's Introduction and Preface to the Critique of Political Economy .

WEBARTIGOS -/- KARL MARX: TRABALHO E CLASSES SOCIAIS Publicado em 12 de June de 2019 por Emanuel Isaque cordeiro da silva -/- KARL MARX: TRABALHO E CLASSES SOCIAIS(1) -/- KARL MARX: WORK AND SOCIAL CLASSES -/- Alana Thaís Mayza da Silva - CAP-UFPE(2) Eduarda Carvalho da Silva Fontain - CAP-UFPE(3) Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva – IFPE-BJ, CAP-UFPE e UFRPE(4) -/- Dentro do mundo marxista, como para a Sociologia, a fundamental e principal obra de Karl Marx (...) foi O capital (1867 o primeiro volume e os demais volumes -2- foram publicados pós-morte de Marx, em 1883). Karl Marx é considerado um dos maiores pensadores da Economia, da Sociologia e da Filosofia de seu tempo até os dias atuais. Seus estudos centraram-se na devassa dos nexos de força entre os sujeitos. Para Marx, a principal questão para a elucidação das metamorfoses sociais é o nexo conflituoso entre forças sociais, isto é, entre esferas sociais divergentes entre si e com interesses completamente contrários. -/- Nessa perspectiva, Marx explana: -/- A história de toda a sociedade até aqui é a história de lutas de classes. [Homem] livre e escravo, patrício e plebeu, barão e servo [Leibeigener], burgueses de corporação [Zunftbürger] e oficial, em suma, opressores e oprimidos, estiveram em constante oposição uns aos outros, travaram uma luta ininterrupta, ora oculta ora aberta, uma luta que de cada vez acabou por uma reconfiguração revolucionária de toda a sociedade ou pelo declínio comum das classes em luta. [...] A moderna sociedade burguesa, saída do declínio da sociedade feudal, não aboliu as oposições de classes. Apenas pôs novas classes, novas condições de opressão, novas configurações de luta, no lugar das antigas. A nossa época a época da burguesia, distingue-se, contudo, por ter simplificado as oposições de classes. A sociedade toda cinde-se, cada vez mais, em dois grandes campos inimigos, em duas grandes classes que diretamente se enfrentam: burguesia e proletariado. (MARX e ENGELS, 1988).(5) -/- A alegação principal de Marx é a de que os corpos sociais se fracionam em esferas ou classes sociais. Esse fracionamento é consequência de um processo histórico de embates em que uma das esferas/classes torna-se hegemônica e imperante e acaba subjugando os interesses das demais classes. No capitalismo, o filósofo observa que a chamada burguesia(6), tornou-se hegemônica e imperante em todo os países industrializados. A burguesia, primeiramente venceu a nobreza e a hegemonia do feudalismo, o sistema que imperava na Europa até a Revolução Francesa e, posteriormente, instaura um novo tipo de sodalismo(7). A elite(8) ou a alta sociedade, ou ainda, os burgueses, passaram a designar e constituir as formas de governo, a cultura e a política, de acordo com seus interesses. Isso implica dizer que as regras sodalísticas, as leis instauradas mediante o diálogo social e os magistrados, as normas coercitivas ou não, os gostos e os arquétipos de consumo, de estruturação e conformação da economia, da ciência e da política passaram a ser estabelecidas e designadas pelos anseios e interesses da elite. Isto é, o corpo social capitalista em que subsistimos tem como primordial finalidade a reprodução da forma de vida da elite, alicerçada na formação do lucro e arquitetada na produção de mercadorias. Para demonstrar o feitio de vida da elite, é imprescindível que haja uma esfera que produza as mercadorias, cujo trabalho dessa classe produtora é explorado pelos capitalistas. Com efeito, ao passo em que se constitui historicamente uma classe de elite, também é formada uma esfera antagônica à burguesia, que nada mais é do que a classe dos trabalhadores, ou como Marx designa de proletariado(9). Diante do processo histórico de estruturação e organização do capitalismo, a elite que acabara de nascer já gozava da exploração do trabalho de pequenos produtores. Logo, ao passo da ascensão desse feitio de produção, a elite torna-se imperante e o coletivo de laboradores, antigos servos e agricultores, também ascende vigorosamente conformando-se em um feitio de proletariado industrial. Logo, as esferas sociais essenciais do corpo social capitalista são a elite de burgueses (a classe capitalista, que detém o poderio) e os laboradores ou o proletariado. -/- Não obstante, aparecem algumas indagações quanto ao dualismo burgueses e proletários, e uma das principais questões gira em torno do por que a classe laboral deixa ser explorada? E por que não há uma equidade econômica entre os sujeitos? Segundo o filósofo, ao longo da História, a esfera laboral foi desapoderada de seus meios de produção, isto é, de suas propriedades, de suas ferramentas e de seus locais de trabalho. A elite que se empoderou dos meios de produção dos trabalhadores, passaram a subjugar os trabalhadores a vender seu trabalho em troca de um salário.(10)(11) Com a desapropriação de suas posses e a oferta de empregos para subsistência, os trabalhadores são submetidos a oferecer seu labour-power(12) a determinado salário, a certas condições e jornadas de trabalho, a um ritmo ditado pelo burguês e, sobretudo, a uma certa demanda de produtividade. Com todas essas determinações da elite, a esfera laboral não tem escolha. Se o trabalhador quiser sobreviver nesse mundo capitalista, deve a todo momento vender seu labour-power a um capitalista, seja no meio comercial, seja no meio industrial, seja numa instituição de ensino particular ou até mesmo à campo, cortando cana-de-açúcar para uma usina produtora de álcool. A esfera capitalista (elite) tem como ponto motriz de sua imperância a reprodução e a exploração do trabalho. Para tanto, a produção industrial caba se tornando cada vez mais incrementada, tanto na esfera dos feitios de gerência quanto as novas tecnologias que são introduzidas para maximizar a produção e produtividade. Com efeito, surgem implicações como o por que é tão essencial a introdução de mais e mais tecnologias para desenvolver a produção de mercadorias? O filósofo entende que quanto mais o trabalhador é comedido, maior será sua produtividade, todavia menor será seu poder político no corpo social. Dessarte, a permuta do trabalhador por uma máquina é uma tendência do capitalista para obtenção maximizada de mercadorias, ascendendo a produtividade da atividade laboral. Vale salientar que com a máquina a produção ascende, mas também aumenta o controle do capitalista sobre os trabalhadores, uma vez que os mesmos, para não perder o emprego, terão que responder ao mesmo ritmo que as máquinas. Isto é, o patrão goza da máquina ou robô para aumentar a produtividade e para aumentar seu poder político sobre os trabalhadores. Ao submeter o trabalhador ao mesmo ritmo da máquina, ritmo esse que ele não comanda, o patrão subjuga a aumentar sua produtividade com relação ao seu trabalho para que o mesmo não venha a perder seu emprego. -/- Podemos sintetizar essa inquirição com uma frase de Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa(13): "é preciso que tudo mude para que tudo se mantenha”. Isto quer dizer que é essencial desenvolver novas tecnologias para a produção e feitios de organização, fazendo com que: 1. Ascenda a produção e, com efeito, o lucro dos capitalistas também maximizem; 2. É importante também que aumente o controle e o poderio do patrão sobre a esfera laboral. Em vista disso, para Karl, a ascensão desenfreada do capitalismo é alicerçada mediante a exploração e imperância da classe trabalhadora pela esfera capitalista. Assim, as esferas sociais esbarram-se e as metamorfoses históricas e sociais se desenrolam. -/- Ante todo o supracitado texto, observemos que de um lado estão os proletários, que reivindicam seus direitos por intermédio de sindicatos, na busca por melhores salários e condições de trabalho. Em contrapartida, estão os burgueses ou os capitalistas, que visam somente a maximização de seus lucros. Logo, ante esse dualismo, existe um embate entre forças sociais completamente divergentes e opostas. Os capitalistas querem maximizar os lucros, e para isso empregam técnicas produtivas cada vez mais sofisticadas; a outra esfera, a dos trabalhadores, resiste, com o objetivo de manter e/ou ampliar suas condições materiais de sobrevivência na sociedade. Temos, assim, um corpo social alicerçado em relações divergentes, que inspiram embates políticos provindos da fragmentação social em classes. -/- Notas: -/- (1) In. AMORIM, H.; BARROS, C. R. de.; MACHADO, I. J. de R. Sociologia Hoje. 1ª. ed. São Paulo: Ática, 2013. 127-129. -/- (2) Estudante do Colégio de Aplicação da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (2018-2020). Cursa Especialização em História Geral e do Brasil na Universidade Católica de Pernambuco. (3) Atualmente estuda o ensino médio no Colégio de Aplicação da Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (2018-2020). Cursa Inglês e Francês no Instituto Brasileiro de Línguas no Bairro Derby em Recife. Cursa ballet clássico na Escola de Ballet Marisa Queiroga. -/- (4) Bacharelando em Zootecnia pela Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco – UFRPE (2019-). Tecnólogo em Agropecuária pelo Instituto Federal de Pernambuco Campus Belo Jardim (2016-2018). Normalista (magistério) pela Escola Estadual Frei Cassiano Comacchio (2014-2017). Professor substituto e de reforço do Colégio de Aplicação da UFPE e do Colégio Santa Maria. Pesquisador assíduo de assuntos com cunho educacional, filosófico, político e social. Contatos: [email protected] / [email protected] e WhatsApp: (82)9.8143-8399. -/- (5) ENGELS, F.; MARX, K. Manifesto do Partido Comunista. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1988. p. 66-67. -/- (6) Para o professor Emanuel Isaque, por burguesia pode-se entender a camada ou classe social de Capitalistas modernos (ao tempo de Marx) ou contemporâneos, proprietários de indústrias ou quaisquer meios lucrativos e de produção social e que empregam por meio do trabalho assalariado, em que o indivíduo trabalha por horas semanais e ao fim do mês é lhe conferido um salário correspondente ao seu trabalho. -/- (7) Para o professor Emanuel Isaque, Sodalismo nada mais é do a doutrina relacionada à tudo que se conecta diretamente com a sociedade, à exemplo, vida sodalícia significa vida em sociedade. Nada mais é do que um simples sinônimo. -/- (8) O termo burguesia é trocado pelo termo elite para designar a classe social que detém o poder político, econômico, etc. -/- (9) Para o professor Emanuel Isaque, por proletariado pode-se entender a classe de trabalhadores assalariados modernos, aos quais não tendo meios próprios de produção nem de subsistência, são reduzidos a vender sua força de trabalho (labour-power) para que possam viver no corpo social capitalista. -/- (10) O professor Emanuel Isaque diz que é sumamente essencial lembrar e salientar que para o filósofo, o trabalho que enfrentamos cotidianamente tem como suma finalidade a geração de lucros para o capitalista. Toda a produção de uma indústria, à exemplo, é organizado de acordo com essa finalidade suprema. Todavia, os proletários ficam apenas com uma pequena parcela equivalente à produção. O resto é exatamente o lucro do capitalista proveniente do labour-power do trabalhador. -/- (11) Uma profícua ampliação do tema poderá ser encontrado em: MAIOR, J. L. S. Um conceito marxista de salário. Germinal: Marxismo e Educação em Debate, Salvador, v. 6, n. 2, p. 95-109, dez. 2014. -/- (12) Nota de Engels à edição inglesa do manifesto do Partido Comunista de 1888. -/- (13) Escritor italiano (1896-1957). -/- -/- SBS - Sociedade Brasileira de Sociologia PUCRS - PPG em Ciências Sociais Avenida Ipiranga, 6681 - Partenon CEP: 90619-900 - Porto Alegre, RS [email protected] -/- Quaisquer meios de reprodução do artigo é extremamente proibida. Os infratores estarão sujeitos à pena de três meses à um ano de prisão conforme artigo 184 do Código Penal e Lei 9.610/98. -/- Todos os direitos reservados para Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva. ©2019. (shrink)

ABSTRACT In The Longing for Total Revolution, Bernard Yack argued that Marx’s thought is plagued by a recurring contradiction. On the one hand, Marx criticized his Idealist predecessors for failing to get beyond the dichotomy between human freedom and natural necessity; and he identified labor, activity determined by the necessity of having to satisfy material needs, as the primary activity of human freedom. On the other hand, Marx’s account of what makes us distinctively human, as well as (...) his view that capitalism dehumanizes workers, implicitly rely on the same dichotomy. However, while Yack identified a real tension in Marx’s writings, he overlooked the resources Marx has to escape it. (shrink)

Picking up on Marx’s and Hegel’s analyses of human beings as social and individual, the article shows that what is at stake is not merely the possibility of individuality, but also the correct conception of the universal good. Both Marx and Hegel suppose that individuals must be social or political as individuals, which means, at least in Hegel’s case, that particular interests must form part of the universal good. The good and the rational is not something that requires (...) sacrificing one’s interests for the community or denying one’s particular character so as to become an equal rational agent. Very much to the contrary, the rational or the common good is nothing but the harmonious structuring of particular interests. While Section I introduces Marx’s and Hegel’s conceptions of individual and social beings, Sections II and III discuss their respective views of individuality, and Sections IV and V discuss the notion of a universal good containing individual interests. (shrink)

For decades, the question of whether dialectics applies to nature has been a hotly debated topic in the Marxian literature. A number of authors have claimed that the Marxist outlook on nature and natural sciences has been for-mulated by Engels alone. According to this view, Marx, unlike Engels, was concerned not with trans-historical laws governing the universe but with some particular laws of society. This anti-Engels camp, so to speak, mainly tended to draw bold lines between Marx and (...) Engels, and charged Engels with dis-torting Marxʼs original ideas of dialectics by some kind of reductionism, sci-entism and positivism that might also end up in an obsolete idealism. Engels was „following Hegelʼs mistaken lead“ by extending „the method to apply also to nature“. However, dialectics was „limited ... to the realms of history and society“.2 Some others objected to this view, and characterized any at-tempt to sharply contrast Engels with Marx as concealed mysticism and idealism. For the pro-Engels camp, Engelsʼs conception of nature was „in full conformity“ with Marxʼs materialist philosophy.4 Dialectics of nature was „no invention of Engels“. On the contrary, „it was worked out in collaboration with Marx and had his full agreement. (shrink)

Il concetto di rivoluzione e di conflitto in Marx.

Eco/logical R/evolution, is the story of mankind, told with words of a great and wonderful subjective odyssey, the never-ending quest; for objective truths and collective Eudaimonia. The author raises the issues; of political weakness and widespread confusion, about logical analytical errors, of which we find many of in Old Marxist Ideology. As a conscious effort, is thus made, to expel the mental subjugation of Platonic Idealism, away from the clenches Aristotelian Realism, and its bastard offspring; Old Historical Materialism. The book (...) identifies, in the works of Darwin and Marx, a wide range of worrying philosophical incompatibilities, such that are clearly found; in their respective theories and research methodologies. -/- We hereby propose; that a New Marxist Philosophy of Science, stands a probable chance; at unifying the Natural and Social Sciences. As the convergence of truths is manifest, thus, it is mapped out in detail by the author, out of necessity. It invokes, a Marxist Metaphysical Identity, for the sole purpose off; presenting a teleological framework, for New Marxist Theory. -/- NOTE: Reader must look up each word in a dictionary, which they see on both sides of the "/" when found in the middle of a word. (shrink)

This article examines Karl Marx’s distributive justice principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” contained in the Critique of the Gotha Program (1875). It argues that Marx advocates for “unequal equality,” since the end result of his principle is unequal contribution (due to the contributors’ different abilities) and unequal distribution (due to recipients’ different needs); that Marx’s principle avoids many pitfalls of contemporary desert theories; that while Marx is critical of (...) formal, abstract right (Recht), he maintains that right will be enhanced in the future communist society; that Marx’s attitude toward work is contradictory, since for him work is both “life’s prime want” and a hindrance to the intellectual and social flourishing possible only in leisure time; that the widespread interpretation of the communist society as one of abundance where all needs can be satisfied has scant textual basis; and that Marx’s principle continues to inspire theories of distributive justice and efforts to expand welfare and social services, and endeavors to establish a classless, cooperative society. (shrink)

Although it was, until recently, unfashionable in certain circles to say this, Marx was not a philosopher in any interesting sense. He was a social theorist. As social theory, I am thinking primarily of two areas : the methodology of social inquiry, and its metaphysical presuppositions, and normative philosophy.

For over last two centuries, education in the West has been destructively influenced by the philosophical thought of Jean Jacques Rousseau. Following the route of exposing threats, which waylay the Catholic understanding of human being and education, I would like to point out that Rousseau’s educational utopianism is actually neither alone, nor prevailing. For the contemporary culture seems to be under the dramatic impact of many idealistic thinkers which actually are captained by Karl Marx.

This paper considers whether Marx's views about communism change significantly during his lifetime. According to the ‘standard story’, as Marx got older he dropped the vision of self-realization in labour that he spoke of in his early writings, and adopted a more pessimistic account of labour, where real freedom is achieved outside the working-day, in leisure. Other commentators, however, have argued that there is no pessimistic shift in Marx's thought on this matter. This paper offers a different (...) reading of this debate. It argues that there are two visions of the good life in Marx. However, it suggests that these two visions cannot be understood in terms of a simple shift between a ‘young’ and ‘mature’ Marx. Rather, it claims that Marx moves between these two visions throughout his writings. In this way, it suggests that Marx's intellectual development on this issue is best understood as an oscillation rather than a shift. Once this interpretive claim is advanced, the paper then moves on to consider some potential causes and implications of Marx's life-long oscillation between two different conceptions of the good life. (shrink)

Inspired by Charles Taylor’s locating of Herder and Rousseau’s “expressivism” in Marx’s understanding of the human as artist, I begin this essay by examining expressivism in Taylor, followed by its counterpart in M. H. Abrams’s work, namely the wind as metaphor in British Romantic poetry. I then further explore this expressivism/wind connection in Percy Bysshe Shelley’s “Ode to the West Wind” and Marx’s The German Ideology. Ultimately I conclude that these expressive winds lead to poetic gesture per se, (...) and thereby, to a kind of poetry at the heart of Marx’s philosophy. (shrink)

There is hardly any theme in Karl Marx’s theoretical corpus that has garnered as much traction as his theory of fetishism. Ever since Marx introduced the term into his critique of political economy in Capital, fetishism became a field of theoretical force, creating its own gravitational center toward which the interest of later generations of historians, social theorists, and political activists has been pulled. While much ink has been spilled on the specific content and theoretical scope of fetishism (...) in Capital for over one and a half centuries, young Marx’s initial exploration of the term rarely enjoyed critical attention. This is especially true in regard to the period from his early journalism in the Rheinische Zeitung (1842–43) to his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. (shrink)

Some of the world's most powerful corporations practise what Shoshana Zuboff (2015; 2019) calls ‘surveillance capitalism’. The core of their business is harvesting, analysing and selling data about the people who use their products. In Zuboff's view, the first corporation to engage in surveillance capitalism was Google, followed by Facebook; recently, firms such as Microsoft and Amazon have pivoted towards such a model. In this paper, I suggest that Karl Marx's analysis of the relations between industrial capitalists and workers (...) is closely analogous to the relations between surveillance capitalists and users. Furthermore, three problematic aspects of industrial capitalism that Marx describes – alienation, exploitation and accumulation – are also aspects, in new forms, of surveillance capitalism. I draw heavily on Zuboff's work to make these parallels. However, my Marx-inspired account of surveillance capitalism differs from hers over the nature of the exchange between users and surveillance capitalists. For Zuboff, this is akin either to robbery or the gathering of raw materials; on the Marx-inspired account it is a voluntary sale. This difference has important implications for the question of how to resist surveillance capitalism. -/- Joint winner of the 2020 Philosophy essay prize. (shrink)

Focusing on the conceptual terms of the idealist-realist debate, the paper shows that the inability of the realists to recognize Marx’s idealist heritage is out of the realists’ limited understanding of the category of idealism in their reading. To prove the paper’s case, the first section starts with elucidation of Marx’s concept of epistemological idealism as read by his interpreters. It shows the actual meaning of epistemological idealism as used by Kolakowski, Lukacs, and other idealist readers of (...) class='Hi'>Marx. The second section shows how the realists conflate the two idealisms, how the realist reading is erroneously grounded on failure to clarify the difference between the concept of ontological and epistemological idealism. The third section highlights the differences between epistemological and ontological idealism. It explains that Ontological idealism claims that idea is the fundamental reality, while epistemological idealism suggests that knowledge is dependent upon the subject. (shrink)

Written in 1949, La Scoperta di Marx was first published in 1958 in Pier Paolo Pasolini, L'usignolo della Chiesa Cattolica (Editore Longanesi). It is published here, along the first English translation of the poem, with the permission of Garzanti Libri.

The paper aims to provide a critical analysis of Marx’s normative conception, both in terms of his economicistc mistakes and in relation to the normative principles implied in his general theoretical framework. The attention is then focused on Marx’s immanent critique of capitalism, also in relation to the normative interpretation of socialism recently presented by Axel Honneth; the Author highlights as Marx’s concept of freedom is linked to the idea of liberation from forced labour.

The paper aims to provide a critical analysis of Marx’s normative conception, both in terms of his economicistc mistakes and in relation to the normative principles implied in his general theoretical framework. The attention is then focused on Marx’s immanent critique of capitalism, also in relation to the normative interpretation of socialism recently presented by Axel Honneth; the Author highlights as Marx’s concept of freedom is linked to the idea of liberation from forced labour.

This essay investigates triadic patterns of argument in the thought of Moses Hess. Three kinds of triadic thinking are distinguished: the triadic pattern of three succeeding ages of mankind; the triadic pattern of original unity, fallen or alienated existence, and return to unity on a higher level; and the triad of head, heart and stomach, a symbolism which recurs in the writings of the Young Hegelians. Distinguishing these patterns throws an interesting light on the similarities and differences between the views (...) of Hess and Marx on the role of the proletariat in history. A translation by the author of Hess's "On the Essence of Money" is appended to the essay. (shrink)

The problem of poverty and the emergence of a rabble (Pöbel) in modern society does not find any reasonable solution in Hegel's Philosophy of Right (henceforth PR). Some scholars have stressed how unusual this is for Hegel, claiming that it would have been uncharacteristic for him to leave a major, acknowledged problem of his system unsolved: "On no other occasion does Hegel leave a problem at that." The importance of this problem is not limited to the threat it poses to (...) the sphere of ethical life (Sittlichkeit). It also pertains to some central issues in Hegel's philosophy of history and the role he assigns to philosophy and philosophers in the making of history. In the present paper, I have three objectives. First, I will point out some bold, radical claims in Hegel’s discussion of poverty and examine the way he restrains them. Second, in contrast to the common view which holds that Marx ignores Hegel’s discussion of poverty in the PR, I will point to one of Marx’s early works which clearly refers to this discussion and in fact makes an intriguing use of Hegel’s claims by uncovering their radical elements and setting them free. Finally, I will argue that the deep reason for Hegel’s avoidance of social radicalism lies in his philosophy of history. The last point will also serve to explain Hegel’s willingness to leave the problem of poverty unsolved. I will begin however, with a short summary of Hegel’s discussion of poverty. (shrink)