Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T14:53:47Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Wanderley Todai Junior.pdf: 814624 bytes, checksum: 01a958c6d4849c0164bd9fab10c5182d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-10-08 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / This dissertation aims think about the historic-ontologic content, contained in the relation between the realm of necessity and the realm of freedom, exposed by Karl Marx in book three of his work The Capital. Search examine their fundamental relations in the historical processes that creates social being, according as the being of freedom, as Marx says, have be sought in your own "root". Verifies that the work activity appears, in this historic processuality, as constitutive, but too formed in own jump that give origin to being social, containing insuperable determinations of development of freedom face to necessity. This way, comes up divers activities that are not work activities, but, keeping it how preponderant moments for who have to answer realm necessity , are activities that make feed the individual creativity and define the own purposes realm of freedom. Marx demonstrated that capitalist social relations are boosters the productive forces, expanding unprecedented the capacities and possibilities for to construction of a realm of universal freedom, but their antagonisms effectively tends to turn in realm of necessity. Only overcoming the capitalism for a upper economic formation can accomplish the possibilities of freedom created by him / Esta dissertação tem como objetivo a reflexão sobre o conteúdo histórico ontológico presente na relação entre o reino da necessidade e o reino da liberdade, exposta por Karl Marx no livro terceiro da obra O Capital. Trata-se de buscar suas relações fundamentais nos processos históricos constituintes do ser social, na medida em que o ser da liberdade, conforme adverte Marx, deve ser buscado na própria raiz humana. Verifica-se que a atividade do trabalho aparece, nesta processualidade histórica, como constitutiva, mas, também, constituída no próprio salto que dá origem ao ser social, contendo em si determinações fundamentais inafastáveis do desenvolvimento da liberdade em face da necessidade. Neste caminho, aparecem atividades diversificadas que não são apenas atividades de trabalho, mas que, mantendo-o como momento predominante ao qual têm de responder reino da necessidade , são atividades capazes de nutrir a criatividade individual e definir os próprios fins reino de liberdade. Marx demonstrou que as relações sociais capitalistas impulsionaram as forças produtivas, ampliando, de modo inédito, as capacidades e possibilidades de construção dum reino de liberdade universal, mas seus antagonismos tendem efetivamente a transformá-las em reino de necessidade . Apenas a superação do capitalismo para uma formação econômica superior pode realizar as inéditas possibilidades de liberdade por ele criadas

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T14:57:02Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Ivan Cotrim.pdf: 2422094 bytes, checksum: 6a25f2bfe2e26b29dd74ada5c9e5224f (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-04-28 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / Our purpose with this work is to demonstrate that Marx s discovery of the ontologically negative determination of value takes place back in his earliest critique on political economy. Marx s critical analysis aims directly at private property, labor division, and wage labor: all forms that express themselves in value. The reproduction of these conditions leads necessarily to preservation of class opposition, as well as estrangement and alienation. We showed that political economy, whose position is radically opposed to Marx s, assumes value as a positive determination along its one hundred and fifty years trajectory culminating in Smith and Ricardo. While the ontologically negative determination of value, set by Marx, takes value as alien to human essentiality, political economy, by advocating the positive character of value, assumes it as a form of being inherent to individuals, though paying the price of not recognizing alienation and estrangement which correspond to it. The foundations of political economy traces back to conceptions that assign innate features to human being: either state of nature or moral sentiments and economical acting. On the contrary, in Marx s view men are selfconstructed through their practical activity, producing both their objective world and subjectivity / Procuramos demonstrar que Marx descobre a determinação ontonegativa do valor no período originário de sua crítica à economia política. Sua análise crítica atinge diretamente a propriedade privada, a divisão do trabalho, o trabalho assalariado; categorias, todas elas, que assumem a forma de valor. A reprodução destas condições obriga à manutenção da contradição de classe, bem como do estranhamento e da alienação. Mostramos que, em posição radicalmente oposta à de Marx, a economia política, em sua trajetória de um século e meio, culminada com Smith e Ricardo, tomou o valor como positividade. Enquanto a determinação ontonegativa do valor, por Marx, indica a exterioridade deste em relação à essencialidade humana, a economia política, ao defender a positividade do valor, aceita-o como forma de ser intrínseca aos indivíduos, mas ao preço de não reconhecer a alienação e o estranhamento que lhe correspondem. A base de sustentação da economia política remonta às concepções do homem que lhe atribuem qualidades inatas seja o estado de natureza, sejam os sentimentos morais e o agir econômico. Com Marx, ao contrário, os homens se autoconstroem por meio de sua atividade prática, produzindo seu mundo objetivo e sua subjetividade

Submitted by Lucas Carvalho Peto null (lucaspeto@gmail.com) on 2017-02-15T19:19:07Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Peto, Lucas. NATUREZA, ATIVIDADE SENSÍVEL E PROCESSO DE TRABALHO: fundamentos para se pensar a corporeidade a partir da filosofia de Marx.pdf: 710301 bytes, checksum: c3c3ed955b959571a10e8c90d0e7f5cb (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Juliano Benedito Ferreira (julianoferreira@reitoria.unesp.br) on 2017-02-21T18:08:00Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 peto_lc_me_assis.pdf: 710301 bytes, checksum: c3c3ed955b959571a10e8c90d0e7f5cb (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-02-21T18:08:00Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 peto_lc_me_assis.pdf: 710301 bytes, checksum: c3c3ed955b959571a10e8c90d0e7f5cb (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-01-24 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) / Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) / Objetiva-se apresentar os fundamentos que tornam possível pensar a questão da corporeidade [Leiblichkeit] a partir dos escritos de Marx. É importante observar que a questão da corporeidade não fora objeto de sistematização nos postulados marxianos. Não obstante, em Marx há fundamentos que possibilitam versar sobre a questão da corporeidade. De modo geral, pensar a corporeidade a partir dos postulados marxianos é concebê-la como o fundamento da atividade humana sensível que instala o ser humano na sensibilidade concreta. Para alcançar o objetivo estipulado, são apresentadas as conceituações de Marx acerca da atividade objetiva [gegenständliche Tätigkeit], da natureza [Natur] e do processo de trabalho [der Arbeitprozeß]. / The objective is to present the fundamental principles that make it possible to study the body [Leiblichkeit] based on Marx's writings. It is important to note that the body was not a systematic study object in the marxian postulates. Nevertheless, there are some principles in Marx that make it possibile to study the body based on his philosophy. To achieve the objective, we present Marx's concepts of objective activity [gegenständliche Tätigkeit], nature [Natur] and the labour process [der Arbeitprozeß]. / FAPESP: 2014/19916-8

Thomas Pynchon’s novel, The Crying of Lot 49, details Oedipa Maas’ quest to unearth a possibly centuries-old clandestine mail system, the Trystero. Oedipa is immersed in notions of sociality and she must navigate the social landscape, searching for clues as to the existence of the social system. In her quest she assumes the role of a detective who searches for meaning, as she looks for clues and questions others who might potentially be privy to the secrets of the Trystero. She necessarily performs the process of symbolic exchange with those she encounters in an attempt at ascertaining some greater meaning within the world that she thinks might lie behind the Trystero. In this, the nature of the circulation of meaning is revealed as a cultural construct.

Thomas Pynchon’s novel, The Crying of Lot 49, details Oedipa Maas’ quest to unearth a possibly centuries-old clandestine mail system, the Trystero. Oedipa is immersed in notions of sociality and she must navigate the social landscape, searching for clues as to the existence of the social system. In her quest she assumes the role of a detective who searches for meaning, as she looks for clues and questions others who might potentially be privy to the secrets of the Trystero. She necessarily performs the process of symbolic exchange with those she encounters in an attempt at ascertaining some greater meaning within the world that she thinks might lie behind the Trystero. In this, the nature of the circulation of meaning is revealed as a cultural construct.

This essay examines two communist parties in Sweden; The Communist Party (Kommunistiska partiet [KP]) and Sweden's Communist party (Sveriges kommunistiska parti [SKP]). Furthermore, this essay is a comparative study where the two parties' political agendas are compared. The method with which the study was conducted is a quantitative content analysis, where the frequencies of usage pertaining to certain words and expressions have been measured. The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx has also been compared to these two parties' political agendas concerning words and expressions. This was done in order to determine which of the examined parties stands closer to the aforementioned original document from an ideological perspective. The result reveals which differences that were detected.

This work provides an overview of Cornel West's moral thought. I begin by analyzing West's characterization of a promising viewpoint in moral inquiry that he believed Karl Marx adhered to--radical historicism. This viewpoint, which West presents in an early work of his, The Ethical Dimensions of Marxist Thought, leads one to discard the traditional philosophical pursuit of certainty in ethics in favor of a historically situated attempt to enact meliorative social change. After outlining the details of this viewpoint and West's characterization of Marx's relationship to it, I examine some of West's subsequent work in light of radical historicism. In this section, I indicate that West still maintains the efficacy of ideals in the moral realm despite his abandonment of the traditional philosophical pursuit of apodictic foundations. For West, these ideals mainly stem from three main traditions: the tragicomic, the deep democratic, and the prophetic Christian.

Submitted by Maykon Nascimento (maykon.albani@hotmail.com) on 2015-10-02T18:56:29Z No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 23148 bytes, checksum: 9da0b6dfac957114c6a7714714b86306 (MD5) Trabalho imaterial e a teoria do valor uma analise da producao de conhecimento na sociedade capitalista.pdf: 1655567 bytes, checksum: fe3161e6e1a46ff8fef6f6825210edd7 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Patricia Barros (patricia.barros@ufes.br) on 2015-10-15T15:51:44Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 23148 bytes, checksum: 9da0b6dfac957114c6a7714714b86306 (MD5) Trabalho imaterial e a teoria do valor uma analise da producao de conhecimento na sociedade capitalista.pdf: 1655567 bytes, checksum: fe3161e6e1a46ff8fef6f6825210edd7 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-10-15T15:51:44Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 23148 bytes, checksum: 9da0b6dfac957114c6a7714714b86306 (MD5) Trabalho imaterial e a teoria do valor uma analise da producao de conhecimento na sociedade capitalista.pdf: 1655567 bytes, checksum: fe3161e6e1a46ff8fef6f6825210edd7 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015 / FAPES / Esta pesquisa tem por objetivo discutir a problemática central existente entre a teoria do valor de Karl Marx e a chamada ―teoria do trabalho imaterial‖. Refere-se essa divergência à tese da superação da teoria do valor trabalho de Marx para compreensão da atual dinâmica do modo de produção capitalista, que para alguns, encontra-se hoje sob a égide da produção imaterial. Segundo os autores alinhados a essa corrente, como André Gorz, Antônio Negri e Mauricio Lazzarato, por ser essa produção repleta de caráteres subjetivos e, portanto irreprodutíveis, torna-se impossível estabelecer uma relação entre seu preço e o tempo de trabalho dispendido para sua reprodução. Logo, a teoria marxista do valor torna-se insuficiente para subsidiar as análises desse novo momento econômico. Nosso trabalho apresenta uma crítica a essa perspectiva, chegando à conclusão que a teoria do valor de Marx tem ainda enorme pertinência para análise das novas formas assumidas pelo capitalismo contemporâneo e que, principalmente, fornece as bases teóricas para a compreensão das temáticas referentes ao que se denomina imaterial. Para isso, avançamos em um aspecto central, que reside na constatação de que há uma incompreensão acerca da [verdadeira] natureza do imaterial, que podemos entender como toda ideia e elaboração intelectual humana. A não apreensão desse sentido faz com que aqueles autores vinculados à teoria do trabalho imaterial, incorram em dois equívocos essenciais: em primeiro lugar, essa confusão leva-os a classificar os setores produtores de serviços – muitos deles produtivos e materiais para Marx – como parte da produção imaterial. Revelamos dessa forma, como a determinação dos preços desses serviços ainda se assenta sobre a magnitude de seus valores. Em segundo, há um desconhecimento da verdadeira forma de produção desse imaterial – a produção do conhecimento – e de como se determina seu preço. Assim, à luz da teoria de Marx, é possível perceber que o conhecimento em si não é criador de riqueza e que sua remuneração ocorre por meio da apropriação de parcela do valor gerado na produção material, de forma semelhante ao que ocorre à renda da terra, de modo que a compreensão de sua dinâmica só é possível a partir da categoria marxista do valor. / This research aims to discuss the existing problems between the central theory of value of Karl Marx and the so-called "theory of immaterial labor". It refers to the thesis of this divergence overcoming Marx's labor theory of value to understand the current dynamics of the capitalist mode of production, which for some, is today under the aegis of immaterial production. According to the authors aligned to this current, as André Gorz, Antonio Negri and Maurizio Lazzarato, being this production full of subjective characters and thus irreproducible, it is impossible to establish a relationship between its price and the time spent in it‘s production. Hence, the Marxist theory of value becomes insufficient to support the analysis of the ―new‖ economic times. Our work presents a critique of this perspective and concludes that Marx's labor theory of value is still relevant to the analysis of the new forms taken by contemporary capitalism, and that it mainly provides the theoretical basis for understanding the issues related to it is called ―immaterial‖. In order to carry it out, we move forward in an central aspect, which lies at the realization that there is a misunderstanding about the true nature of the immaterial, understood as every idea and human intellectual development. The failure to grasp this meaning makes those authors linked to the theory of immaterial labor, incur in two basic misconceptions: first, this confusion leads them to classify the sectors producing services - many of them productive and materials for Marx - as part of immaterial production. We show that the pricing of these services is still based on the magnitude of their values. Second, there is a lack of understanding the form of production of immaterial - the production of knowledge - and how to determine its price. Thus, in the light of Marx's theory, one can see that knowledge itself is not wealth creator, and that its revenue is obtained through the appropriation of the share of the value generated in the material production, similarly to what happens to the ground rent so that understanding of its dynamics is only possible from the marxist value category.

Karl Marx's relationship to republicanism proceeds in three stages: he began his political career as a republican, he subsequently transitioned to communism, and then he finally reconciled his republicanism and communism. Marx's early political writings reveal his commitment to central republican ideas, including popular sovereignty, widespread political participation and universal suffrage. These commitments led him to reject absolute and constitutional monarchy. But they also led to a critique of the modern republic, which Marx argued gave insufficient space for citizens to participate publicly for the common good. He thus gives a republican critique of the republic. Marx's disillusionment with the ability of a modern republic to deliver human emancipation eventually led him to transition to communism. He now argued that the republic would be a bourgeois republic, which would subject the proletariat to the capitalist. He attacked republicans for neglecting social depredation in favour of political reform. However, his transition to communism also carried with it several republican commitments. Unlike the many apolitical versions of communism at the time, Marx insisted that the workers had to establish the republic before communism could emerge. He also extended key republican political ideas, including the objection to arbitrary power, to the social sphere. But what was absent was an account of a more participatory and accountable political alternative to the modern republic. However, the experience of ordinary workers carrying out the legislative and public administration of Paris during the Commune, led Marx to return to many of those early republican themes. He celebrated ordinary citizens' capacity for self-government and advocated popular control over the state and transforming representative democracy into popular delegacy. He came to realise that these political structures were essential to achieving the social goals of communism. He thus came to a synthesis of his early republicanism and later communism.

L’appellation « jeune Marx » désigne les écrits marxiens, souvent publiés à titre posthume, allant de la Dissertation doctorale de 1841 tout au moins jusqu’aux articles des Annales franco-allemandes. Elle recouvre ainsi la période où Marx se réclame de la philosophie. Cette première période théorique a jusqu’à aujourd’hui fait l’objet d’une double et presque totale mise à l’écart théorique. D’une part, ces travaux de jeunesse ont été assimilés aux symptômes d’une formation intellectuelle encore incomplète, dont l’idéalisme aurait été dépassé par le matérialisme de la maturité. Cette approche était représentée en France d’une manière paradigmatique par Althusser. Elle a cependant aussi caractérisé, d’Engels à Cornu, presque toutes les traditions de lecture marxiste. Si des lectures symétriquement opposées, comme celle de Rubel, identifiant dans les théories du jeune Marx le fondement de son matérialisme à venir, ont inversé le diagnostic, elles n’en ont pas moins rejeté aussi l’approche immanente pour interroger les écrits du jeune Marx seulement dans leur intégration à l’évolution marxienne d’ensemble. D’autre part, c’est le contexte et l’intertexte théoriques de développement du jeune Marx, en l’occurrence sa participation au mouvement jeune hégélien, qui ont été mis de côté. Ils n’ont été mobilisés que négativement, servant à la mise en relief de l’originalité théorique et politique de Marx. Or, cette période dite de jeunesse est pour Marx une période d’exploration théorique et politique qui demande à être interrogée pour elle-même. De plus, le travail théorique, voire parfois rédactionnel, de Marx dans cette période passe par la collaboration et la discussion avec des auteurs Jeunes hégéliens. On retient généralement de ces collaborations seulement celle avec Engels – dont on oublie qu’il fut un Jeune hégélien – en masquant celles qui la précédèrent ou furent simultanées, avec Bruno Bauer notamment jusqu’en 1842, avec Arnold Ruge à Paris, puis avec Moses Hess. Dans cette succession de collaborations et de polémiques, construire une théorie, pour le Marx de cette époque, implique toujours, d’une part, de se situer par rapport à Hegel, et d’autre part, de se situer par rapport aux autres Jeunes hégéliens. Notre projet consiste par conséquent, non à opposer Marx à l’ensemble des autres Jeunes hégéliens dont l’unanimité serait postulée, pour en valoriser l’originalité isolée, mais à retracer les évolutions théoriques de Marx en les situant à l’intérieur des débats qui constituent le jeune hégélianisme. Cette approche doit être appliquée, non seulement à la dimension philosophique des textes de « jeunesse » de Marx, mais aussi à ses travaux sur l’histoire, la religion, l’économie, la société et la politique. La « découverte » même de ces trois derniers domaines, généralement identifiée à un congé donné par Marx à la philosophie et à l’idéalisme qu’il laisserait aux Jeunes hégéliens, est à expliquer, du moins partiellement, selon une médiation jeune hégélienne. Comprendre le jeune Marx passe par une lecture génétique, contextuelle et intertextuelle de ses positions à l’intérieur du contexte jeune hégélien dans lequel les propositions de Marx prennent alors leur sens. / The term "young Marx" refers to Marxian writings, often published posthumously, ranging from the doctoral dissertation of 1841 to at least the articles of the Annales franco-allemandes. It thus covers the period when Marx claims to be a philosopher. This first theoretical period has suffered a double and almost total theoretical exclusion. On the one hand, these early writings have been considered as symptoms of an intellectual formation that was not yet complete, whose idealism would have been surpassed by the materialist position of the “mature” Marx. This approach was represented in France in a paradigmatic way by Althusser. However, it has also characterized, from Engels to Cornu, almost all Marxist reading traditions. If symmetrically opposed readings, such as Rubel's, identifying in the theories of the young Marx the foundation of his future materialism, reversed the diagnosis, they nonetheless rejected the immanent approach to question the writings of the young Marx only in their integration with the overall Marxian evolution. On the other hand, it is the theoretical context and intertext of the young Marx's development, in this case his participation in the young Hegelian movement, which have been put aside. They have been mobilized only negatively, in order to highlight the theoretical and political originality of Marx. Now, this so-called youth period is for Marx a period of theoretical and political exploration that requires to be interrogated for itself. In addition, Marx's theoretical and sometimes editorial work in this period involves collaboration and discussion with Young Hegelian writers. What is usually highlighted in this period are the collaborations with Engels – who had been a Young Hegelian, even if this is often forgotten – putting aside other anterior and simultaneous collaborations ; like the one with Bruno Bauer (until 1842), with Arnold Ruge (in Paris) and with Moses Hess. In this succession of collaborations and polemics, Marx’s construction of theories at that time always implies, on the one hand, to situate himself in relation to Hegel, and on the other hand, to situate himself in relation to other Young Hegelians. My project, therefore, is not to oppose Marx to all the other Young Hegelians whose unanimity would be postulated, in order to value its isolated originality, but to trace Marx's theoretical evolutions by situating them within the debates which constitute the young Hegelianism. This approach must be applied not only to the philosophical dimension of Marx's "youth" texts, but also to his work on history, religion, economics, society and politics. Marx’s so-called discovery of the last three domains - usually considered as an evidence for him leaving philosophy and idealism to Young Hegelians - must be explained, at least partially, in reference to Marx’s participation to Youn Hegelianism. Understanding the young Marx involves a genetic, contextual and intertextual reading of his positions within the young Hegelian context in which Marx's propositions make sense.