No description available.

No description available.

Zugl.: Bochum, Univ., Diplomarbeit, 2007

Diss. Phil. I Bern, 1923.

Univ., Habil.-Schr.--Bielefeld, 2003. / Literaturvereichnis S. [349]-356.

Restoration seeks to heal the environment and make amends for damages done by human interference. Preservationists, however, claim that restoration is anthropocentric, hubristic, and ultimately misguided. I defend restoration against these criticisms, and examine narratives from Karl Marx and Lynn White, Jr. to explain human alienation from nature. I use a synthesis of lessons from Marx and White to favor a restoration paradigm over a preservationist model.

The problem of the history and development of Karl Marx University at Leipzig (KMU) contains two fundamental questions:1) When did KMU begin? 2) Was there a continuity of traditions that influenced the development of KMU? The study examines the events contributing to the evolution of the university and explores the conflict of traditions and change. This study is a historical narrative of the development of KMU as a socialist university under the influence of Marxist-Leninist ideology based on a review of literature.

A critical review of Marx on population is made to determine if the modern Marxist population thepry can validly claim to follow from Marx. An historical review of population thought from the Greeks to Malthus is made and a dominant trendline is identified. Marx's population thought is presented and it is compared to Malthus. Anomalies in Marx are discovered. A new perspective on Marx using the history of demography is advanced in which Malthus is found deviating from the dominant trend line and Marx's criticism of Malthus as focusing on these specific points of deviation. Marx is found defending the dominant trendline against Malthus and not as advancing an original theory of population. Remaining problems with Marx are noted. The conclusion rejects the modern Marxist claim.

<p>Jean-Paul Sartre's central purpose in writing the Critique of Dialectical Reason was to render intelligible Karl Marx's principle that circumstances make people just as much as people make circumstances. With the intent of complementing Marx's work, Sartre sought to theoretically connect the marxist outline of social process with its constituting parts--individuals. He sought to do this without ascribing to circumstances a superorganic existence, and in terms of the general structure of individual action per se. In place of a super organic being he attributed unintended consequences to all individual action (as well as intended consequences). The actual influence of circumstances upon people he explained by the fact that. products bear some trace of the intentions of those who made them. The product becomes a sign, and people construct about them a world of signs.</p> <p>Within this world of signs people tend to become separated as mediations between constructed things. It is in this sense, that is, in explaining how social relations tend to occur indirectly through the products of praxis, that Sartre sought to justify a rejection of organicism by developing his interpretation of Marx's theory of fetishism.</p> / Thesis / Master of Arts (MA)

Teria sido Marx um pensador inescapavelmente eurocêntrico? Como Marx pensou o colonialismo? Qual sua análise a respeito de formações sociais ditas periférias? Esta dissertação pretende propor algumas respostas para estas questões. Para isso, acompanhamos as idas e vindas do autor em textos sobre a colonização britânica na Índia, na China e Irlanda. Como ponto de partida de nossa análise, seguimos o princípio metodológico de observar como as lutas sociais impactaram o filósofo alemão. Mostramos que seu pensamento político está intimamente ligado a seu contexto histórico. Marx é interpelado pelas lutas dos povos periféricos e responde a elas. Sua reflexão se constitui, assim, em um pensamento-luta. Com efeito, a alcunha também serve para descrever outra face do filósofo: seu profundo engajamento com essas mesmas lutas. Se Marx se deixou contaminar por elas foi porque ele se encontrava envolvido, seja diretamente no caso da Irlanda , seja indiretamente no caso de Índia e China, se solidarizando com a luta do povo oprimido. Nessa chave, observar o percurso da análise do filósofo a respeito do colonialismo implica um olhar duplo: por um lado, teremos de percorrer suas inflexões teóricas que se manifestam em suas análises conjunturais; por outro, é preciso observar sua mudança de postura para com os povos outros todos aqueles com os quais Marx não se identifica a princípio, sejam indianos e chineses (orientais), russos (eslavos) ou irlandeses (celtas). Espera-se, com isso, evidenciar algumas mudanças na visão do autor, que irá, progressivamente, se des-europeizar, assumindo uma concepção de história multilinear e estabelecendo uma crítica contumaz do colonialismo. Destacamos no decorrer da pesquisa alguns momentos-chave dessas mudanças: 1857-1858 para a Índia e a China, 1867 para a Irlanda e os textos do fim da vida, sobre a Comuna Russa. Estes, considerados uma espécie de culminação desta nova visão de Marx sobre a história, são analisados em nossa conclusão, de modo a marcar a perspectiva marxiana final. Por fim, procuramos defender, a partir desta nova posição encontrada, a possibilidade de um diálogo mais profundo entre a obra de Marx e o chamado pós-colonialismo. Dado que a posição de Marx com relação ao colonialismo e ao capitalismo irá se modificar no decorrer de sua vida, movendo-se em um sentido mais crítico, indagamos se não haveria a possibilidade profícua de, por meio de um diálogo com a perspectiva marxiana, reconectar a teoria pós-colonial à crítica do capitalismo contemporâneo. / Had Marx been an inescapably Eurocentric thinker? How did Marx think colonialism? What is his analysis about so-called peripheral social formations? This dissertation intends to propose some answers to these questions. Thus, we follow the comings and goings of the author in texts on British colonization in India, China and Ireland. As a starting point for our analysis, we follow the methodological principle of observing how social struggles affected the German philosopher. We show that there is a connection between his political thinking and the historical context. When challenged by the struggles of the peripheral peoples, Marx responded to them and thence reelaborated his theories. His reflection thus constitutes a \"thought-struggle\". In fact, the label also serves to describe another face of the philosopher: his deep commitment to these same struggles. If Marx allowed himself to be contaminated by them, it was because he was involved, either directly - in the case of Ireland - or indirectly - in the case of India and China, in solidarity with the struggle of the oppressed people. For this reason, to observe the course of the philosopher\'s analysis of colonialism implies a double look: on the one hand, we will have to go through his theoretical inflections that show themselves in his conjuncture analyzes. On the other hand, it is necessary to observe the change of attitude towards the \"other\" peoples - all those with whom Marx does not identify at first, whether Indian or Chinese (\"oriental\"), Russian (Slavic) or Irish (Celtic). It is hoped, therefore, to point out some changes in the author\'s vision, which will progressively \"de-Europeanize\", assuming a multilinear conception of history and establishing a contumacious critique of colonialism. In the course of our research, we highlight some key moments of these changes: 1857-1858 for India and China, 1867 for Ireland and the texts of the end of his life, on the Russian Commune. These specifically are considered a kind of culmination of this new vision on history, and therefore are analyzed in our conclusion, in order to mark the final Marxian perspective. Finally, we try to defend, from this new perspective, the possibility of a more fruitful dialogue between Marx\'s work and the so-called post-colonialism. Since Marx\'s position on colonialism and capitalism will change over the course of his life, moving in a more critical sense, we ask whether there would be no fruitful possibility of, through a dialogue with the Marxian perspective, reconnecting postcolonial theory with the critique of contemporary capitalism.