3,391 research outputs found
Practice and form : economic critique with Marx and Bourdieu
No full textThe chapter argues to combine Marx and Bourdieu for the purpose of economic critique. Whereas Marx reveals the crucial importance of social forms and capital fetishism, Bourdieu is a strong weapon against rational choice theory. And he convincingly criticizes Marxism for its inability to overcome basic theoretical oppositions like idealism vs. materialism. But Bourdieu’s capital theory also contributes to the proliferation of capital concepts in social science and therefore contains some complicity with economic imperialism, that is, the colonizing of research fields by the economic approach. When Marx wrote his Critique of Political Economy, economics did not yet exist. Only later the new economic orthodoxy emerged, propagating the economic approach as the best and only serious way to explain all human behaviour. As a sociological antidote to this, Bourdieu’s theory of practice is of crucial importance. And if Marx may be somewhat outdated as a critical economist, he remains powerful as economic critique. In order to challenge economic imperialism all disposable sources of critique can be mobilized, but contradictions and tensions between them should not be ignored. This approach is what Bourdieu calls a reflexive eclecticism, and the author entirely adheres to this concept
Observations sur la structure du roman gallois de Peredur
No full textMarx Jean. Observations sur la structure du roman gallois de Peredur. In: Etudes Celtiques, vol. 10, fascicule 1, 1962. pp. 88-108
Economia política em Aristóteles e a perspectiva de Marx
No full textTese (doutorado) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Centro de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas. Programa de Pós-Graduação em FilosofiaConsiderando as peculiaridades da formação sócio-econômica antiga, verifica-se uma germinal e coerente economia política em Aristóteles que, devido o esforço analítico e a coerência contextual, tornou-se importante marco teórico para as escolas econômicas modernas, especialmente para Marx o qual, sem pretender reviver Aristóteles para adotá-lo sob condições modernas, apreende os preceitos aristotélicos assumindo-os como ponto de partida fundamental de sua teoria econômico-filosófica. Apesar de na Grécia antiga a economia não estar separada da política, Aristóteles trata-a de modo objetivo e coerente, conforme a importância e os limites epistêmicos da economia naquele contexto. Na Ética a Nicômacos a análise econômica encontra-se associada ao tema da justiça devido a necessária distribuição equitativa dos bens, e para que coisas diferentes sejam trocadas é preciso algo que possa igualá-las a fim de se manter a comunidade. Aristóteles contempla como possibilidades o trabalho, o dinheiro e a necessidade para ser o padrão de comensurabilidade, não obstante, aceita a necessidade mas apenas de um modo "suficientemente admissível", resposta ambígua que desperta polêmica quanto às possíveis implicações metafísicas. Na Política, preocupado com a influência sobre a ética e política, Aristóteles busca delimitar o escopo da economia apresentando suas diferenças com a crematística natural (voltada à aquisição) e a crematística não-natural (voltada ao ganho), de acordo com suas diferentes finalidades. Apóia-se também na distinção entre uso próprio (valor de uso) e uso não-próprio (valor de troca) de cada coisa, e entre práxis (ação) e poiésis (produção) - baseada na noção de limite e imanência do fim na ação - para estabelecer os limites entre política, economia e crematística. O desenvolvimento da troca comercial, com a prática do monopólio e da usura, promove alterações no comportamento dos indivíduos, mas a causa principal da confusão quanto à finalidade da economia é moral: a ganância. Depois de considerar os fatores econômicos Aristóteles elabora uma constituição com leis e educação fundamentadas na virtude e, ao mesmo tempo, capaz de conceder, com restrições, cidadania àqueles envolvidos diretamente no comércio. As aproximações entre Marx e Aristóteles são verificadas em diferentes âmbitos e muitos filósofos encontram semelhanças entre os dois filósofos a partir da ética, antropologia e política, destacando inclusive a apropriação marxiana dos conceitos aristotélicos de ato e potência. Realmente Marx apresenta o trabalho sob duas perspectivas que juntam o que em Aristóteles estavam separados: o trabalho como atividade que dá conta das necessidades básicas do homem, semelhante à poiésis; e o trabalho que realiza as potencialidades para a emancipação da classe produtora assalariada, característica da práxis, considerando sempre que o trabalho é categoria central na economia política de Marx. Independentemente das semelhanças ou diferenças éticas, antropológicas e políticas, defendemos que Aristóteles é a pedra fundamental na filosofia da economia de Marx, é o elemento teórico que ressalta aquelas diferenças nos modos de produção que confirmariam a dialética marxiana. Antes de se apropriar de alguns princípios filosófico-econômicos de Aristóteles, Marx por meio de avaliação histórica, ressalta as singularidades econômicas da sociedade antiga. Depois Marx analisa os êxitos e hesitações de Aristóteles na busca do padrão de comensurabilidade, na distinção entre valor de uso e valor de troca, na delimitação da economia e em todos os outros conceitos que servem para Marx fundamentar sua crítica da economia política.Considering the peculiarities of the old social-economical formation, it is verified a germinal and coherent politics economy in Aristotle which, due to the analytical strength and the contextual coherence, it became an important theoretical march for the modern economical schools, specially for Marx who, having no intentions to bring Aristotle alive in order to adopt him under modern conditions, apprehend the Aristotle's rules assuming them as a fundamental starting point of his philosophical-economical theory. Although, the economy is not apart from the politics in Greece, Aristotle treats it as an objective and coherent way, in relation to the importance and the epistemic limits of the economy in such context. In the Nicomachean Ethics, the economical analysis is related to the topic of justice due to the need of equitable distribution of goods, and in order to change different things, it is necessary something that can equalize them with the aim to maintain the community. Aristotle contemplates as possibilities: work, money, and the need to be the ideal of commensurability, nevertheless, he accepts the necessity, but only as a "sufficiently acceptable" manner, ambiguous answer that provokes polemic regarding the possible metaphysical implications. In Politics, worried with the influence on ethics and politics, Aristotle searches to delimit the purpose of economy presenting its differences with the natural chrematistics (in relation to the acquisition) and the non-natural chrematistics (in relation to the gains), regarding to their different finalities. Aristotle also supports himself in the distinction between the self use (value of use) and the non-self use (value of exchange) of each object, and between praxis (action) and poiesis (production) - based on the notion of limit and immanency of the end in the action - to establish the limits between politics, economy, and chrematistics. The commercial exchange development, with the practice of monopoly and usury, promotes alterations in the behavior of the individuals; however, the main cause of the confusion regarding the end of the economy is moral, and it is the rapacity. After considering the economical factors Aristotle elaborates a constitution with law and education which are based in the virtue and, at the same time, they are capable of conceding, with restrictions, citizenship for those who are directly involved with commerce. The approximation between Marx and Aristotle are verified in different ambits and several philosophers find similarities between both philosophers from the ethics, anthropology, and politics, inclusively detaching the Marxism appropriation of Aristotle#s concepts of act and potency. It is truth that Marx presents the work under two perspectives which join together what in Aristotle were separated: the work as an activity that handles the men basic needs well, similar to poiesis; and the work that does the potentialities for the emancipation of the employed producer class, a praxis characteristic, always considering that work is a central category in Marx political economy. Regardless the ethical, anthropological, and political similarities or differences, we argue that Aristotle is the fundamental stone in the philosophy of Marx economy, it is the theoretical element that detaches those differences in forms of production which would confirm the Marxism dialectics. Before appropriating of some economical-philosophical principals of Aristotle, Marx stands out - through descriptive historical observation in both To the Critic of Political Economy, and in Grundrisse and The Capital - the economical singularities of the ancient society. Just after this, Marx analyses Aristotle#s exits and hesitations in the search of the commensurability ideal, in the distinction between the value of use and the value of exchange, in the economical delimitation and in all the other concepts which work for Marx to base his critic of the political economy
Book Review: R. Morstein-Marx. Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late Roman Republic. Cambridge, 2004. XIV, 313 p.
No full textВ рецензии делается попытка, во-первых, представить основные идеи и аргументацию Р. Морстейн-Маркса, а во-вторых, отметить сильные и слабые стороны его работы, показать возможные пути дальнейшего исследования римских contiones с опорой на результаты, полученные автором рецензируемой монографии.
The review tries, firstly, to present main R. Morstein-Marx’ ideas and argumentation, secondly, to note strengths and weaknesses of his paper and to show possible directions of the further examining of Roman contiones on the basis of results obtained by the author of the reviewed monograph
Beyond the Foreigner: representations of non-roman individuals and communities in latin historiography, from Sallust to Ammianus Marcellinus
No full textFrom the foundation of the city of Rome in 753 BCE to the capture of the same in 476 CE, the ancient Romans came into contact with a diverse range of peoples. The Romans did not want only to conquer these peoples and incorporate them into the empire, but also they displayed a genuine interest in learning about foreigners. Roman historical narrative demonstrates clearly this prevailing curiosity. This thesis examines the representations of foreign individuals and communities in five works: SaUust, helium lugurthinum; Livy, Ab Vrhe Condita 21-30; Justin, Epitome of Pompeius Trogus, Historiae Philippicae 11-12; Tacitus, Germania; Ammianus MarcelHnus, Res Gestae 23.6. These authors represent a broad range of types of history writing (monograph, AUG history, universal history), and they span most of die history of Rome as an empire (40s BCE to the late 300s CE). Moreover, these works represent a diverse range of geographic locations in that they include the three major parts of the world as understood by the Romans: Africa, Europe and Asia. Finally, they cover—or they exist within the context of—the full range of the Roman-Foreign experience: victory (Numidia, Carthage), defeat (Persia), and non- result (Germani).This thesis demonstrates that Roman historians employ a diverse range of presentations of non-Roman individuals and communities. Roman historians appear not to have been constrained by a narrow set of rules when it comes to writing non- Romans; rather, each author can be seen to be engaging in a wider Roman discourse on the foreigner. And this discourse extends beyond the Roman world and Roman historical writing: the historians of Rome can be seen as building upon, and responding to, the so-called father of history, Herodotus, whose own narrative established firmly that exploration of the foreigner is an important part of historical inquiry. Close analysis clearly demonstrates each presentation of a non-Roman character or community to be an intricate and fascinating construction, and understanding how the foreigner is conceptualised in the work is of critical importance. On the one hand, the presentation of foreigners fits into the historian’s overarching aims and objectives in his work; on the other hand, the representation of foreigners can dictate the ways in which the Roman history is narrated. Non-Romans both fit into and they provide direction for, Roman historical narrative. By studying the complexities of the presentation of non-Romans, therefore, this thesis enhances our understanding of the sophistication of Roman historical writing. Despite the continuing acknowledgement of the important role ethnography plays in writings of Herodotus and his Greek and Roman successors and imitators, there has not so far been a genre-wide detailed study of the ethnography in Greek or Roman historiography. This thesis, therefore, seeks to rectify partially this omission on the part of scholarship, and establish a foundation for future study of the non-Roman in Latin literature and Roman culture
Forum and Comitium: the Organization of Space of Roman Official Contiones (R. Morstein-Marx' Papers)
No full textСтатья посвящена анализу представленного в монографии Роберта Морстейн-Маркса «Публичное красноречие и политическая власть в поздней Римской Республики» обобщения накопленных археологических, письменных, нумизматических свидетельств об устройстве, архитектурном облике и "символическом контексте" основных мест проведения римских официальных contiones – форума и Комиция. The article considers generalization of accumulated archaeological, written, and numismatic evidencies about arrangement, physical setting, and “symbolic context” of Forum and Comitium where Roman official contiones were generally held. This generalization is represented in Robert Morstein-Marx’ monograph “Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late Roman Republic”
Le cortège du château des merveilles dans le roman gallois de Peredur
No full textMarx Jean. Le cortège du château des merveilles dans le roman gallois de Peredur. In: Etudes Celtiques, vol. 9, fascicule 1, 1960. pp. 92-105
Curtis (Renée). Le Roman de Tristan en prose, t. I., Munich, Max Hueber, 1963
No full textMarx Jean. Curtis (Renée). Le Roman de Tristan en prose, t. I., Munich, Max Hueber, 1963. In: Etudes Celtiques, vol. 11, fascicule 2, 1966. pp. 551-553
A Crítica da economia política em O Capital de karl Marx
No full textDissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Centro de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Filosofia, Florianópolis, 2011A presente dissertação é uma análise das críticas ao capitalismo feitas por Karl Marx em sua obra madura, com especial ênfase no primeiro livro de O Capital. Contrariando a leitura tradicional (que reduz toda a crítica marxiana à exploração da classe dos capitalistas sobre a classe trabalhadora), defendo que Marx critica o capitalismo tanto por este sistema social ser fetichista e irracional (crítica esta vinculada principalmente ao tópico do fetichismo da mercadoria e indicadora da principal peculiaridade deste modo de produção, que consiste em ter por finalidade a valorização do valor e não a satisfação de necessidades), quanto por ser exploratório e injusto (argumento oriundo do exame da categoria da mais-valia e que mostra a continuidade de uma situação de desigualdade social já presente nas formas sociais precedentes ao capitalismo # apesar de agora disfarçada sob o manto da igualdade formal). Defendo que as duas críticas são complementares, e que estas podem ser sintetizadas na afirmação de que a sociedade capitalista é incapaz de propiciar uma vida boa para seus participantes. Além disto, discuto a questão da superação do capitalismo, mostrando que Marx concebe a sociedade comunista como uma associação de indivíduos livres, na qual o intercâmbio de mercadorias é abolido e a criação de #tempo livre. (um tempo que não é dispendido para garantia da subsistência) substitui a valorização do capital como objetivo da produção.The present text is an analysis of the critiques of capitalism present in Karl Marx.s mature works, especially in the first book of The Capital. Contradicting the traditional interpretation (which reduces the whole of the Marxian criticism to the working class' exploitation by the capitalist class), I claim that Marx criticizes capitalism both for being a fetishist and irrational social system (a criticism that is mainly associated to the topic of commodity fetishism, which is indicative of the main peculiarity of this mode of production: that it aims principally at the valorization of value and not at the satisfaction of necessities), and for being exploratory and unjust (an argument that originates from the analysis of the category of surplus value, and that shows the continuity of the situation of social inequality already present in the social forms that precede capitalism # despite of being now disguised under the mantle of formal equality). I claim that these criticisms are complementary and that by them one can argue that the capitalist society is unable to propitiate a good life for its participants. Furthermore, I discuss the question of overcoming capitalism, showing that Marx conceives the communist society as an association of free individuals in which the commodity exchange is abolished and the creation of #free time. (a time that is not subordinated to subsistence) replaces the valorization of capital as the goal of production
Der Mahdi und die Realpolitik: Zur Dynamik endzeitlicher Szenarien in der islamischen Geschichte Afrikas
No full text- …
