Although Bakunin's 1842 article, "The Reaction in Germany," published in the organ of the Dresden Left Hegelians, Deutsche Jahrbucher, is generally held to be the most radical and eloquent manifesto of Left Hegelianism, the standard historical commentary tends to consider his pre-1842 Russian works as far removed from this revolutionary ideal. Most historians have long failed to discern the logical continuity in Mikhail Bakunin's thought before and after the "pivotal" date of 1840. Indeed, his intellectual development is usually dividied into two distinct, mutually exclusive periods. During the first period, pre-1840, Bakunin is presented as a conservative and a monarchist, dedicated to a spiritual and political compromise with the "rational reality of the Tsarist regime. After his arrival in Berlin in 1840, however, one is suddenly confronted with the political anarchist and instigator of world revolution. However, this abrupt dichotomy which appears in most historical commentaries dealing with Bakunin's writings and activities cannot be maintained. The hypothesis that there even occurred a break in the evolution of Bakunin's thought rests on a misinterpretation of his early Russian Hegelian works. / The goal of this study is to demonstrate that the concern with the practical application of philosophy into a political tool for revolutionary acton forms the central theme of Bakunin's early works; and to show that his Berlin period constitutes the logical continuation of his early theoretical position. In effect, the present study represents a revindication of the young Bakunin and attempts to prove that his Hegelianism was central to the formation of his radical position. At the same time, it situates Russian Left Hegelianism in the mainstream of European radicalism, by showing how the ideas developed by Bakunin were moving in a direction parallel to those of the Young Hegelian movement in Germany.

No description available.

This research report examines the relationship between state-sponsored worker co-operatives, local markets and the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (EMM, on the East Rand, South Africa) in the 2000s, to examine how state support impacts upon democracy in worker co-operatives (“co-ops”) more generally. Worker co-ops are democratic and voluntary organisations, simultaneously owned and managed by their members (“co-operators”), have a substantial history in South Africa and elsewhere, and have often been seen as a potential alternative to capitalism. But are they? An extensive literature demonstrates market pressures erode co-op democracy (e.g. Philips): to survive, worker co-ops develop increasingly into capitalist enterprises, which fundamentally challenges notions that co-ops can challenge capitalism. Several commentators (e.g. Satgar) admit this problem, but see the solution in state support, which can purportedly shield worker co-ops from the market, so enabling their democratic content and socialist potential to be maintained. This pro-state approach is tested by examining actually-existing worker co-ops in the EMM, where a number of state-sponsored worker co-ops were established from the 2000s; the two most successful co-ops are the subject of this case study. It is shown that, on the contrary, state sponsorship fostered dependency and subtle (and less subtle) forms of state control over the co-ops. Most of the co-operatives failed to survive, as state control foisted upon them impractical goals (e.g. competition in poor community markets with overwhelming rivals,) while creating additional problems (e.g. failing to allocate marketing budgets) and also undermining co-op democracy (e.g. through imposing external priorities on the co-ops). The co-ops that survived remain trapped between state patronage and the capitalist market: unable to ensure accumulation, they remain dependent on the state, but as a result, are continually pushed by the state back into the market. It is not the South African state’s push to constitute the co-ops as black-run capitalist firms that is crucial to this story, but what this push reveals: state sponsorship was irredeemably linked to state control, and it was state control that enabled the state to force its agenda on iii the co-ops in the first place; an alternative state policy framework would simply change the goals imposed. The hierarchical and elitist class logic of the state is fundamentally incompatible with the popular, self-managed logic of worker co-ops. In short, the findings on the interaction of internal co-op dynamics with the state and open market pressures suggest that democratic worker co-ops are basically fundamentally incompatible with both markets and states. They are also fundamentally incapable of transcending either, as their survival requires either emulating capitalism or embracing the state. Lastly, this research report argues that the erosion of democracy in worker co-ops cannot simply be reduced to external forces (the state, the market), although these play a central role in such erosion. Of the two co-ops examined as case studies, one is characterised by authoritarian decision-making, the other by a fairly democratic practice. A key factor in such divergence were the co-operators’ own political and work cultures. Argued Bakunin: while worker co-ops can play a demonstrative role, challenging authoritarian politics by showing the possibility of workers’ self-management, they cannot provide a transformative role, overcoming capitalism or the state. A state-sponsored worker co-ops movement cannot form the heart of a radical, democratic and working class strategy for fundamental change. To answer the research question, the research asks which factors are important in determining the internal democratic or authoritarian form of the co-ops under study. Two state-sponsored worker co-ops are taken as case studies. The first co-op is characterised by authoritarian decision-making, while the other is characterised experiences democratic decision-making. The findings of the research agree with Philip’s (2006) argument that market factors are important in determining the internal form of a co-op. However, this research clearly shows that while market factors are important, they are by no means the sole determinant of the internal dynamics of a co-op. Non-market factors are equally important in determining the internal form of a co-op.

Ce n’est guère le mouvement jeune-hégélien qui vient immédiatement à l’espritlorsque sont évoqués les noms de Bakounine, d'Engels, de Marx ou même deStirner. Le premier et le dernier sont généralement associés à l’anarchisme,les deux autres, plus indubitablement encore, au marxisme. L'histoire de cespersonnages et le devenir de leurs œuvres n'ont pu que faire de l'ombre à leurappartenance commune et concomitante, trente ans avant que ne se cristallisentlesdits courants politiques, à ce qui a parfois été apparenté à une écolephilosophiqueLa présente thèse propose une lecture immanente, laquelle ne s'efforce pasmoins de restituer un contexte, des principaux écrits rédigés par ces auteursentre 1842 et 1843. La pensée de chacun d'entre eux est présentée dans sesinterrogations et ses enjeux propres, en s'intéressant aux emprunts et auxinnovations conceptuelles réalisées pour y répondre et tout en maintenantd’incessants aller-retours avec le champ problématique relatif au mouvementdans lequel elle prend corps et s’introduit.Il ne s'agit pas, par là, de procéder à une simple mise au point en matièred'histoire des idées. L'un des intérêts majeurs des textes abordés réside dansce qu'ils nous disent, dans une perspective post-hégélienne, de la philosophie.Les descriptions du présent que l'on trouve dans ces textes concordent, eneffet, quant à l'impossibilité d'établir l'unité du rationnel et de l'effectif.Tout reste encore à faire pour qui ne renonce pas à la réalisation de laliberté dans l'histoire. À suivre Hegel, pourtant, la philosophie doit secontenter de décrire ledit procès ou ses résultats. Doit-on se résoudre à ceque la philosophie ne puisse concourir à un destin dont elle a donné la clé ?N'est-il pas possible de la renouveler ? Et comment ? S'agit-il plutôt d'ensortir et d'imaginer d'autres formes d'intervention théoriques et pratiques ?Et qu'en est-il alors de ce qui reste de philosophique ? / The names of Bakunin, Engels, Marx, or Stirner are hardly ever associated withthe Young Hegelian movement. Bakunin and Stirner are generally associated withanarchism and Marx and Engels with marxism. Their lives and the fate of theirworks could do no more than obliterate the mutual and concomitant contributionsof these authors to what has sometimes been described as a philosophicalschool. This participation, in any case, occured thirty years before thecristallisation of the aforesaid political movements.This research proposes an immanent, and at the same time contextual, reading ofthe main texts written by these authors between 1842 and 1843. The theories ofeach of them are presented in accordance with their own questions and issues,focusing on the conceptual borrowings and innovations realised as aconsequence. They are expounded through a perpetual to and fro between theproblematic field related to the movement from which they were born and inwhich they participated.Nevertheless this study cannot be reduced to a mere contribution to the historyof ideas. One of the key interests of the analysed texts lies in what they tellus, from a post-hegelian perspective, about philosophy. When they describetheir epoch, they all conclude that there is no identity of the rational andthe real. There is still much to do for those who do not abandon the idea of therealisation of freedom in history. However, according to Hegel, philosophy canonly describe the process or the results of this realisation. Cannot philosophycontribute to the destiny it revealed? And if not, is it possible to renewphilosophy? How? Would an exit from philosophy be preferable? Other forms oftheoretical and practical intervention could be invented. But then, what aboutthe "philosophical" that remains?

巴古寧是十九世紀最著名與最活躍的革命家之一。他橫跨歐洲的革命活動、領導俄國的革命民粹運動，以及在第一國際中與馬克思的爭論，使他成為歷史中的一股動力。另外，他的無政府主義思想更使他加入近代政治思想家的行列中。然而，巴古寧的個性、活動與思想的多樣與複雜，卻讓他擁有許多不同的面貌刻畫，有讚美也有毀謗；他的思想也獲得不同的闡釋，是真理也是矛盾。因此，以「革命」作為理解巴古寧生平與思想的關鍵字，本論文試圖探求巴古寧的革命信念源於何處？他的革命思想與實踐如何交互影響與演進？又要如何看待這位毀譽摻雜的歷史人物？ 　　本論文的研究架構主要將巴古寧的革命信念與實踐分成三個階段來討論：第一為思想的年代，期間巴古寧主要沈浸於哲學思想的領域，研讀與吸收德國唯心主義哲學、黑格爾主義以及各種社會主義的學說，沒有實踐革命的機會與行動。第二為泛斯拉夫主義的革命年代，巴古寧主張哈布斯堡帝國(Hapsburg Empire)的瓦解為歐洲革命的關鍵點，並以斯拉夫民族組織成的自由聯邦取代奧匈帝國，形成他革命泛斯拉夫主義的主張。不過，此一思想也曾一度倒退為保守性，轉為期望俄國沙皇變成為革命獨裁者，發起一個由上而下的革命，以便解放所有的斯拉夫人民。此一期間，巴古寧得到多次實踐革命的機會：一八四八年革命期間的布拉格暴動與德萊斯登叛亂，以及一八六三年波蘭叛亂。 　　第三階段是巴古寧無政府主義思想時期，分成「俄國」及「歐洲」兩部分。在俄國部分，巴古寧在瑞士創辦的雜誌《人民的事業》，讓他再度投入俄國革命的宣傳活動，成為俄國革命民粹運動的主要領導人之一。與俄國革命份子涅恰耶夫的合作中，巴古寧發展了個人的革命理論，並對「革命策略」與「革命道德」的問題做一省思。最後，巴古寧對俄國的革命指導形成俄國「到民間去」運動的一個革命派別。歐洲部分，主要探討巴古寧在歐洲的革命活動，包括在義大利以及第一國際中的活動。巴古寧的無政府主義思想，主要鼓吹破壞一切現有秩序，包括政治、社會與宗教制度，廢除國家、教會與私有財產等制度，並建立一個由各種自發性組織所形成的自由聯邦。他的革命方法乃是建立一嚴格紀律的革命密謀組織，組織社會低下階層的暴動成為全面起義，作為達成革命目標的方法。這樣的理念皆表達在參與法國里昂起義、義大利波隆那起義中。 　　研究發現巴古寧的革命信念主要來自三方面：一為黑格爾哲學作為革命的哲學基礎；二為對法國大革命原則「自由、平等、博愛」的追求；最後加上巴古寧的個性。他的革命實踐方法主要依靠宣傳與密謀兩種方式。而在原始社會運動的形式上，預示出革命如何形成與到來，巴古寧實為現代革命的真正先知。 / Michael Bakunin(1814-1876) was one of the most famous and active revolutionaries in the 19th century. His dazzling revolutionary activities across Europe and his famous controversy with Karl Marx(1818-1883) made him an influential historical actor. Besides, his anarchism also ranked him as one of the political thinkers in modern times. However, the complexity of his personality, activities and thoughts were portrayed from the diabolical to the glandular to the heroic; his thoughts were interpreted differently as truths or paradoxes. The purposes of this thesis were to explore where his revolutionary conviction came form, to examine how his thoughts and life interwove and evolved, most of all, to reassess his significance and relevance basing on the up-to-date research. 　　Bakunin's ideological and life odyssey was divided into three parts: a first, philosophic, stage lasting until 1847, in which he confined himself to German idealistic philosophy and socialist thoughts; a second, Pan-Slav phase lasting from 1848 to 1863, during which he saw the key to European revolution in the disintegration of the Hapsburg empire and its replacement by a free federation of Slavic peoples, contrary to this revolutionary PanSlavism, he also saw Russian emperors as revolutionary dictators issuing a revolution from above to emancipate all Slavic peoples; and a final, anarchist period. This period is divided into two parts: one, Russian, is to elaborate on his influences in Russian revolutionary movements and his reflections on the dilemma of the means and ethic of revolution; the other, European, is to examine his revolutionary activities in Europe, especially in Italy and the International Working Men's Association(the first International). The political philosophy of this time is a paean to destruction: all political, social and religious institutions must be destroyed, the goal being a free federation of independent associations. The means of revolution would be a universal rebellion of the lower orders of society, led by a secret group of conspirators bound together by an iron discipline. Four controversies was discussed, including the development of Bakunin's Hegelism interpreted as a continuous development or a leap in thought, whether his "Confession" diminished his integrity and reputation as a revolutionary, the problem of the joint authorship of "Catechism of a Revolutionary", and whether Bakunin's intrigues and secret societies were the main reason resulting in the disintegration of the first International. 　　The conclusion is drawn to point out that Bakunin's revolutionary conviction came from: (1)Hegelism as his revolutionary philosophy; (2)the search for the principals of French Revolution - Liberty, Equality and Fraternity; (3)his personality. His revolutionary means are chiefly propaganda and conspiracy. On the archaic forms of social movement, Bakunin was the true prophet of modern revolution.

In addition to his renowned musical output, Richard Wagner produced a logorrhoeic prose oeuvre, including a dramatic sketch of the last weeks of the life of Jesus Christ entitled Jesus von Nazareth. Though drafted in 1848-1849, it was published only posthumously, and has therefore been somewhat neglected in the otherwise voluminous Wagnerian literature. This thesis first examines the origins of Jesus von Nazareth amidst the climate of revolution wherein it was conceived, ascertaining its place within Wagner’s own internal development and amongst the radical thinkers who influenced it. While Ludwig Feuerbach has traditionally been seen as the most prominent of these, this thesis examines Wagner’s sources more broadly. The thesis then summarizes and analyzes Jesus von Nazareth itself, particularly in terms of Wagner’s use of biblical scripture. The thesis demonstrates how his not infrequent misuse thereof constitutes one way in which Wagner transmogrifies Jesus as mutable lens through which his own ideology of social revolution is reflected. It also attempts to provide a critical assessment of the relative dramatic merits of Jesus von Nazareth and looks into Wagner’s ultimate decision not to complete the work. The thesis then briefly summarizes the changes that occurred in Wagner’s mature Christological outlook subsequent to his drafting of Jesus von Nazareth, attempting to concisely demonstrate some developments beyond Wagner’s well-known encounter with the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer. The thesis concludes with an evaluation of how Jesus von Nazareth informed Wagner’s general religious outlook and the extent to which this worldview is a productive one.

Esta dissertação busca responder a algumas das inquietações e desafios que se instalam com a experiência de se realizar a inclusão digital num telecentro comunitário. Situada no campo da educação não formal, tal experiência se caracteriza pela ausência de parâmetros que norteiem as ações dos atores sociais que dela tomam parte. A pesquisa parte de uma intervenção que propõe o exercício do diálogo com os monitores (jovens responsáveis pelo atendimento à comunidade no telecentro Chico Mendes, em Porto Alegre), através de encontros presenciais e da utilização de um ambiente telemático interativo. A investigação busca caracterizar os modos de ação coletiva, as evidências de autoria e produção de sentidos, considerando os enunciados destes sujeitos na experiência relacional cotidiana de um projeto de inclusão digital. Os pressupostos teóricos de Mikhail Bakhtin e Alberto Melucci orientam a intervenção. O dialogismo, categoria bakhtiniana que conceitua a experiência relacional entre sujeitos e entre discursos, também esclarece a produção do sentido, que ocorre entre um enunciado e outro. A proposta de análise da complexa sociedade contemporânea construída por Melucci contribui para definir o olhar sobre o lugar em que vivem e se manifestam estes jovens, com suas marcas identitárias e modos específicos de ação coletiva. A análise se estrutura a partir de analisadores (momentos de ruptura, situações de conflito, que exigem escolhas e tomadas de posição) e do exercício de mapear sentidos na leitura dos enunciados dos monitores. Esta pesquisa desenvolveu-se junto ao Laboratório de Estudos em Linguagem, Interação e Cognição (LELIC), do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação da UFRGS e está inserida na linha de pesquisa O Sujeito da Educação: Conhecimento, Linguagens e Contextos.

Esta dissertação busca responder a algumas das inquietações e desafios que se instalam com a experiência de se realizar a inclusão digital num telecentro comunitário. Situada no campo da educação não formal, tal experiência se caracteriza pela ausência de parâmetros que norteiem as ações dos atores sociais que dela tomam parte. A pesquisa parte de uma intervenção que propõe o exercício do diálogo com os monitores (jovens responsáveis pelo atendimento à comunidade no telecentro Chico Mendes, em Porto Alegre), através de encontros presenciais e da utilização de um ambiente telemático interativo. A investigação busca caracterizar os modos de ação coletiva, as evidências de autoria e produção de sentidos, considerando os enunciados destes sujeitos na experiência relacional cotidiana de um projeto de inclusão digital. Os pressupostos teóricos de Mikhail Bakhtin e Alberto Melucci orientam a intervenção. O dialogismo, categoria bakhtiniana que conceitua a experiência relacional entre sujeitos e entre discursos, também esclarece a produção do sentido, que ocorre entre um enunciado e outro. A proposta de análise da complexa sociedade contemporânea construída por Melucci contribui para definir o olhar sobre o lugar em que vivem e se manifestam estes jovens, com suas marcas identitárias e modos específicos de ação coletiva. A análise se estrutura a partir de analisadores (momentos de ruptura, situações de conflito, que exigem escolhas e tomadas de posição) e do exercício de mapear sentidos na leitura dos enunciados dos monitores. Esta pesquisa desenvolveu-se junto ao Laboratório de Estudos em Linguagem, Interação e Cognição (LELIC), do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação da UFRGS e está inserida na linha de pesquisa O Sujeito da Educação: Conhecimento, Linguagens e Contextos.

Esta dissertação busca responder a algumas das inquietações e desafios que se instalam com a experiência de se realizar a inclusão digital num telecentro comunitário. Situada no campo da educação não formal, tal experiência se caracteriza pela ausência de parâmetros que norteiem as ações dos atores sociais que dela tomam parte. A pesquisa parte de uma intervenção que propõe o exercício do diálogo com os monitores (jovens responsáveis pelo atendimento à comunidade no telecentro Chico Mendes, em Porto Alegre), através de encontros presenciais e da utilização de um ambiente telemático interativo. A investigação busca caracterizar os modos de ação coletiva, as evidências de autoria e produção de sentidos, considerando os enunciados destes sujeitos na experiência relacional cotidiana de um projeto de inclusão digital. Os pressupostos teóricos de Mikhail Bakhtin e Alberto Melucci orientam a intervenção. O dialogismo, categoria bakhtiniana que conceitua a experiência relacional entre sujeitos e entre discursos, também esclarece a produção do sentido, que ocorre entre um enunciado e outro. A proposta de análise da complexa sociedade contemporânea construída por Melucci contribui para definir o olhar sobre o lugar em que vivem e se manifestam estes jovens, com suas marcas identitárias e modos específicos de ação coletiva. A análise se estrutura a partir de analisadores (momentos de ruptura, situações de conflito, que exigem escolhas e tomadas de posição) e do exercício de mapear sentidos na leitura dos enunciados dos monitores. Esta pesquisa desenvolveu-se junto ao Laboratório de Estudos em Linguagem, Interação e Cognição (LELIC), do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação da UFRGS e está inserida na linha de pesquisa O Sujeito da Educação: Conhecimento, Linguagens e Contextos.