Nos últimos anos, sobretudo na esteira do acirramento do belicismo norte-americano e da subseqüente crise econômica mundial, veio à tona um conjunto de temas que tradicionalmente constituíram objetos da análise marxista, e sobre os quais diversos membros desta tradição continuam a se debruçar. Nesse contexto, e a despeito do pouco espaço de circulação de suas teses, torna-se oportuno, por um lado, analisá-las com respeito ao abrangente quadro a que visam, qual seja, o da apreensão conceitual da hodierna fase de desenvolvimento capitalista; e, por outro, confrontar esse aparato teórico com um fenômeno empírico como o da última crise econômica mundial, cujos efeitos ainda se fazem sentir, e cujos desdobramentos são dignos de interesse. Grosso modo, tendo como objetivo último fornecer uma contribuição ao debate marxista acerca da atual dinâmica da acumulação de capital e de suas principais tendências, buscamos, em primeiro lugar, perscrutar sua emergência à luz da fase do desenvolvimento capitalista que lhe precedeu, e fixar alguns elementos mais salientes de seu processo histórico de consolidação, bem como da configuração geral que veio a assumir. Na sequência, procuramos sintetizar e considerar criticamente determinados esforços marxistas de conceituação dessa nova fase, os quais organizamos por meio de noções-chave a saber, de pós-modernidade e pós-modernismo; de globalização; de neoliberalismo; de financeirização; de hegemonia e de imperialismo. Por fim, valendo-nos desse conjunto de fatores, concentramos nossa atenção sobre o evolver e o significado da mais recente crise econômica mundial. / In recent years, especially in the wake of the intensification of north american bellicosity and the subsequent global economic crisis, came to the surface a set of topics that have traditionally constituted objects of Marxist analysis, and on which several members of this tradition continue to address. In this context, and in despite of the limited room for the circulation of their thesis, it becomes appropriate, on the one hand, to analyze them with respect to the comprehensive framework they aimed at, namely, the conceptual apprehension of the coeval stage of capitalist development; and, on the other hand, to confront this theoretical apparatus with an empirical phenomenon as that of the last global economic crisis, whose effects are still being felt, and whose unfoldings are worthy of interest. Roughly speaking, with the ultimate goal of providing a contribution to the Marxist debate concerning the present dynamics of the capital accumulation and its main trends, in the first place we have looked for peering its emergence in the light of the stage of capitalist development that preceded it, and fix some salient elements of its historical process of consolidation, as well as the general configuration that it came to assume. After that, we have sought to summarize and to critically consider certain Marxists efforts of conceptualizing this new phase, which we organized throught \"key-notions\" - namely, post-modernity and postmodernism; globalization; neoliberalism; financialization; hegemony and imperialism. Finally, based on this set of factors, we have concentrated our attention on the development and the significance of the latest global economic crisis.

Le présent mémoire retrace l’évolution du concept de contradiction dans l’œuvre de Karl Marx de la rédaction de L’Idéologie allemande (1845-1846) à la publication du Capital (1867). Il se concentre sur le rôle de la contradiction dans l’explication du processus par lequel un mode de production peut produire les conditions de son propre dépassement. Au-delà de la formule générale selon laquelle les forces productives entrent en contradiction avec les rapports de production au sein desquels elles se développent, nous verrons une transformation de l’appareil conceptuel marxien qui modifie la manière dont est pensée la contradiction. Cette transformation, déterminée principalement par la construction de sa critique de l’économie politique, conduit Marx à penser la contradiction du capital à partir de catégories lui étant spécifiques et non seulement à partir de catégories applicables à l’ensemble des modes de production. Ce changement de perspective centre le caractère contradictoire d’un rapport donné sur ses modalités de reproduction le rendant intenable et pousse à interroger les conséquences tirées des premières utilisations marxiennes du concept de contradiction. En suivant une pensée en constante évolution, ce mémoire permet de situer les origines d’un concept clé autant dans l’œuvre de Marx que dans les traditions s’inspirant de celle-ci. / This master’s thesis follows the evolution of Karl Marx’s concept of contradiction from the German Ideology (1845-1846) to the publication of the Capital (1867). It focuses on the role of contradiction in explaining how a mode of production can produce the conditions of its own overcoming. Beyond the general view according to which the development of the forces of production ‘‘contradicts’’ the actual relations of production, we will also examine how this contradiction is conceived at different points in Marx’s intellectual trajectory. We will see how this evolution is essentially a result of the development of Marx’s critique of political economy. In particular, progress at the level of theory leads him to conceive the contradiction of capital in terms of categories specific to this mode of production, instead of categories applicable to all modes of production. With this shift and from that point forward, the contradiction is based on the modes of reproduction of given relations of production which prevent their sustainability. By following a theoretical production in constant evolution, this master’s thesis specifies the origins of a key concept both in Marx’s work and in the traditions inspired by it.

J. S. Mill a été l’une des cibles privilégiées de toute une littérature critique dénonçant la prétention de l’économie à l’universalité, c’est-à-dire à établir des lois naturelles. Parmi ces critiques, on peut déceler deux angles d’attaque différents : celui d’auteurs qui, comme Durkheim, Veblen ou Schmoller, fustigent la prétention de l’économie à réduire l’homme à un homo œconomicus, et par suite à faire l’apologie du « laissez-faire » ; celui de Marx qui dénonce le caractère naturalisant de la propriété privée capitaliste dans le discours économique. Pourtant, en examinant de près les textes épistémologiques de Mill, nous montrons que ce dernier se trouve justement être l’avocat – et par anticipation – de ses critiques. Toutefois, rien ne garantit que Mill dise tout le vrai sur sa propre pratique d’économiste. Or, nous dévoilons que certains de ses écrits économiques présentent bien une forme d’universalité, n’étant pas uniquement valables dans les économies de marchés capitalistes. / J. S. Mill was one of the main targets of a whole critical literature denouncing the pretention of economics to universality, that is to say, to establish natural laws. Among the criticisms one can detect two different angles of attack: that of authors such as Durkheim, Veblen or Schmoller who criticize the claim of political economy to reduce man to a mere homo œconomicus, and consequently to glorify “laissez-faire”; that of Marx who castigates the naturalizing character of capitalist private property in the economic discourse. However, by closely examining Mill’s epistemological texts, we show that this author just happens to be the advocate of his own critics. However, there is no guarantee that Mill says all the truth about his own practice as an economist. Now, we demonstrate that some of his economic writings present indeed a form of universality, in as much as they are not only valid in capitalist market economies.