No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Submitted by Cristiane Oliveira (cristiane.oliveira@fgv.br) on 2013-09-24T13:50:57Z No. of bitstreams: 1 1198000052.pdf: 35849662 bytes, checksum: 15786f8635d703072a9a68b9b2a7d872 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Suzinei Teles Garcia Garcia (suzinei.garcia@fgv.br) on 2013-09-24T13:51:35Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 1198000052.pdf: 35849662 bytes, checksum: 15786f8635d703072a9a68b9b2a7d872 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2013-09-24T13:57:30Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 1198000052.pdf: 35849662 bytes, checksum: 15786f8635d703072a9a68b9b2a7d872 (MD5) Previous issue date: 1980 / Trata de uma proposta que foi formulada no século passado pelo movimento libertário, de modo especial por Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, como forma de recuperar o conjunto de idéias em que se desenvolve o projeto autogestionário, mas também para esclarecê-lo, visto que o próprio termo autogestão vem sendo empregado em sentidos diferentes, caracterizando experimentos esparsos de democracia industrial.

Tesis para optar al grado de Magíster en Filosofía / El objetivo general de esta tesis es presentar la ontología social del anarquismo tal como es desarrollada en los escritos filosóficos y políticos de Pierre-Joseph Proudhon y Mijaíl Bakunin. Esto se lleva a cabo mediante la revisión de las categorías de fuerza colectiva, poder social y razón colectiva en Proudhon, cuya idea central es la de que las instancias de acción colectiva, y en particular la sociedad, no son simples agregados de factores individuales, sino realidades sustantivas específicas; y del marco naturalista en el que Bakunin integra una teoría del individuo como constituido biológica y socialmente, de la sociabilidad como un desarrollo emergente natural característico de la humanidad y de la libertad como una conquista histórica colectiva que requiere tanto la condición subjetiva de la autonomía como la condición objetiva de la igualdad concreta en términos económicos.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

En ce jeune 21e siècle, l'espoir de changer le monde semble se dissiper à mesure que se renforce le jugement négatif par rapport aux expériences du communisme réel. L'étude des pratiques révolutionnaires du 20e siècle a de quoi laisser perplexe: dogmatisme idéologique, sectarisme militant et adoration de l'État comme outil d'émancipation. Ce mémoire propose une relecture critique des travaux de Pierre-Joseph Proudhon afin d'explorer certains chemins bloqués par l'orthodoxie marxiste. La confrontation de l'oeuvre proudhonienne avec les apports critiques de théoriciens post-totalitaires (Arendt, Abensour, Rancière) permet de voir en quoi le développement d'une pensée socialiste se doit de prendre comme pierre d'assise le respect de la pluralité et donc de l'indétermination du politique. Plus concrètement, il est démontré en quoi l'antidogmatisme et l'antiétatisme proudhonien sont les deux volets d'une même médaille permettant à notre philosophe d'avancer une proposition politique positive: le fédéralisme libertaire. ______________________________________________________________________________ MOTS-CLÉS DE L’AUTEUR : Proudhon, Arendt, Abensour, Rancière, pluralisme, fédéralisme, dogmatisme, étatisme, socialisme

Can states formally recognize cultural diversity and, at the same time, preserve their political and social unity and provide the main public goods of modern citizenship? Is such conciliation feasible? Is it morally desirable? In the current context of unprecedented expression and politicization of cultural identities, especially in democratic countries, such questions are more and more crucial. To answer these questions, the present study considers the contribution of the modern federal tradition. Within this tradition, I analyze four federal responses to the unity-diversity dilemma. The first two---the Belgian and Canadian federations---are practical. Each embodies one of the two dominant contemporary models of federalism: classical liberal individualist, and multinational. I study the experience of each country over the past thirty years to compare the effects of the two models on citizenship. The potential of the modern federal tradition is further assessed through an examination of two theoretical and normative reflections, those of Tocqueville and Proudhon. / The central thesis is twofold. First, I contend that in a context of increasing cultural diversity, unity and diversity have an equal value and are both essential to citizenship. This is true both from a moral and from a practical point of view. Second, I argue that the dominant conceptions of federalism are unable to satisfactorily conciliate unity and diversity. Such task requires the development of what I call an intercultural federalism, one centered on the good of identity pluralization or complexitication. From a strictly practical point of view, only an intercultural federalism can prevent identity fragmentation and the political and social fragmentation which come with it. From a moral perspective, intercultural federalism promises not only to protect, but also to maximize the primary goods which are the most affected by identity fragmentation---political liberty and social solidarity---while also promoting individual liberty. Intercultural federalism rests on three principles which summarize the teachings of the modern federal tradition with regard to the establishment of just citizenship institutions in a context of diversity. Such institutions are just in that they protect and maximize the primary goods of citizenship for all citizens. The three principles are: (1) mutual recognition; (2) intercultural dialogue; (3) multi-varied asymmetrical institutionalization.