Friedrich Engels

Prefácio à primeira edição/1884 1 Prefácio à quarta edição/1891 5 3 simas falsificações liberais do senhor Freeman. Tive que refazer toda a argumentação económica, que, se era suficiente para os objetivos de Morgan, não bastava, em absoluto, para os meus. Finalmente, respondo, sem dúvida, por todas as conclusões, desde que Morgan não seja expressamente citado.

Contemporary geographical thought is constrained by a political economic imagination rooted in binarism, which is exemplified in debates surrounding neoliberalism. Neoliberal proponents call for decentralization and increased capital flows, while Marxists respond by pairing centralization with capitalism’s abrogation. The latter view considers hierarchy necessary, a position that promotes authority and regards horizontal politics as propitious to neoliberalism. Anarchism’s coupling of decentralization with anti-capitalism is dismissed because Marxism cannot accommodate the processuality of prefigurative politics. Marxism demands a revolution with a masterplan, considering horizontality a future objective. Such a temporality ignores the insurrectionary possibilities of the present and implies a politics of waiting. The spatial implications of centralized hierarchy are also questionable, employing a vertical ontology, wherein horizontal organization is deemed inappropriate when ‘jumping scales’. Yet scale represents both a theoretical dis-traction from grounded everyday particularities and a ‘master-signifier’ by providing a point de capiton, or anchoring point, that rests on the exclusion of unconsciousness–the knowledge that is not known¬. Thus the point de capiton is the (Archimedean) point at which an essentialist illusion of fixed meaning is created, as scale is unconscious of geography’s ‘hidden enfolded immensities’. The discourse of scale accordingly dismisses the openness of rhizomic politics by predetermining the political as an arborescent register. Yet the inevitable terra incognita that scalar hierarchies produce becomes a powerful resource for the oppressed, which is why anarchist direct action often proceeds outside of authority’s view. A flat ontology has significant resonance with anarchism, imparting that politics should operate horizontally rather than vertically. This ontological shift suggests that we need not wait for the emergence of a ‘greater’ class-consciousness, as one can immediately disengage capitalism by reorienting economic landscapes in alternative ways. Consequently, a human geography without hierarchy gains significant traction when we reject scale and embrace an anarchist flat ontology.

This article is a manifesto for anarchist geographies, which are understood as kaleidoscopic spatialities that allow for multiple, non-hierarchical, and protean connections between autonomous entities, wherein solidarities, bonds, and affinities are voluntarily assembled in opposition to and free from the presence of sovereign violence, predetermined norms, and assigned categories of belonging. In its rejection of such multivariate apparatuses of domination, this article is a proverbial call to nonviolent arms for those geographers and non-geographers alike who seek to put an end to the seemingly endless series of tragedies, misfortunes, and catastrophes that characterize the miasma and malevolence of the current neoliberal moment. But this is not simply a demand for the end of neoliberalism and its replacement with a more moderate and humane version of capitalism, nor does it merely insist upon a more egalitarian version of the state. It is instead the resurrection of a prosecution within geography that dates back to the discipline’s earliest days: anarchism!

This book has been an unconscionably long time in the making. My interest in theories of the state and state power dates back some twelve years or more and my interest in epistemological and methodological issues in theory construction is even longer-lived. But the immediate stimulus to undertake a theoretical investigation into recent Marxist analyses of the capitalist state came from two discussion groups in which I have been involved during the last five years: the Conference of Socialist Economists group on the capitalist state and the ‘Problems of Marxism’ seminar at the University of Essex. Some preliminary results of this investigation were published in the Cambridge Journal of Economics in 1977 and I have since published several other papers on various aspects of postwar Marxist theories of the state, law, and politics. Nonetheless the greatest part of the current book is newly published here and the book as a whole draws together for the first time the principal theoretical and methodological conclusions of my various studies to date on these matters. [...]

The objective of the following observations is to offer a rough overview of central ways of reading Marx’s theory. These are to be presented – by means of a few selected topics – as Marxisms that can be relatively clearly delimited from one another, and the history of their reception and influence will be evaluated with regard to the common-sense understanding of “Marxist theory.”

The issue of “housing” has generally not been granted an important role in post-war political economy. Housing-as-policy has been the preserve of social policy analysis and of a growing field of housing studies; housing-as-market has been confined to mainstream economics. This paper insists that political-economic analysis can no longer remain relatively indifferent to the housing question since housing is implicated in the contemporary capitalist political economy in numerous critical, connected, and very often contradictory ways. The paper conceptualizes this implication by identifying the multiple roles of housing when “capital” – the essential “stuff” of political economy – is considered from the perspective of each of its three primary, mutually-constitutive guises: as process of circulation, as social relation, and as ideology. Mobilizing these three optics to provide a critical overall picture of housing-in-political-economy (more than a political
economy of housing), we draw on and weave together the many vital contributions of housing research to our evolving understanding of capitalism.

Keywords: housing, political economy, capital, circulation, ideology, social relations

Although Marx himself did not explicitly theorize the media, his postulations and adumbrations about the dialectics of cultural and ideological mediation have provided a robust springboard for a Marxist theory of the
media. In this article, I briefly chronicle the trajectory of scholarship and research on the mass media u,sing the Marxist paradigm and coalesce the disparate corpus of broad research traditions and paradigm shifts that
have occurred within the Marxist critical tradition. I conclude by calling attention to the points of convergence between Theodore Adorno and other Marxist media theorists. I particularly show how Adorno reconciles the
culturalist and political economic tendencies within the Marxist tradition of media theory. I argue that the time-honored distinction between the culturalist and political economic traditions in the taxonomies of Marxist media theory ignores Adorno's contributions to media theory, which not only creatively reconcile these tendencies but also represents the closest approximation of how Marx himself would have theorized the media in late capitalism.

The aim of this research is to unravel and interrogate critically the recent histories of the production and reproduction of Castlefield, Manchester. This unravelling is accomplished theoretically through the historicised application of Lefebvre‘s spatial triad. Production of space histories and Castlefield‘s ‗regeneration‘ are revisited principally through archival and interview evacuations of the neglected years of the 1970s. Urban public space is seen as the key city synecdoche. The thesis argues against what is called the ‗dominant academic narrative‘: challenging the narrative where it ignores or downplays the role of counter-representations and counter-projects in the production of urban public space. The empirical research is based mainly on archival data and complimentary interview and visual data; the analyses are qualitative. Visual representations of space largely neglected in the literature are foregrounded throughout the empirical research. Spaces of representation and spatial practice are interrogated from the perspective of public space analysis which emphasises the importance of the contested nature of representations of space within the public sector and the vulnerable and unstable character of some official representations of space. The thesis therefore does not seek to reproduce what might be called a ‗traditional‘ Lefebvrian analysis which counter-poses repressive official representations of space against quotidian heroic, poetic spaces of representation. The research challenges oversimplified characterisations of Castlefield as a space simply of heritage, leisure and exclusive residential enclaves. A dynamic, complex spatial portrait is revealed whereby ludic, ‗natural‘ and abstract space rise and fall though intricate spatial layering as time unfolds. Urban differential space and ludic space are found to emerge through the interstices of abstract space as key outcomes of the contestation of space. The thesis concludes that the potential for differential urban public space exists through the production of new spaces and their diverse politicised appropriation.

Gianmo Leopardi, Carlo Antici, Monaldo Leopardi, Adelaide Antici, Sebastiano Timpanaro jr., Sebastiano Timpanaro sr., Maria Cardini Timpanaro, la scienza greca, la filologia di e su Giacomo Leopardi, Epicuro, Lucrezio, il materialismo, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trockij, Pietro Citati.

In 2013, the world is entering the sixth year of the global crisis. In those six years, sparked by the unfolding events, there has developed a burgeoning literature regarding the origins, conjunctures and regional manifestations of the crisis. In many ways, this debate evolved from long-term disputes regarding the nature of the current phase of capitalism and its periodization (monopoly-finance capitalism, post-Fordism, finance driven accumulation regime, financial-market capitalism, neoliberalism, high-tech capitalism etc.) and has brought to light the epistemological and political differences between the various approaches. However, as Magnus Ryner (2012) has pointed out, with a few notable exceptions, the debate has shed insufficient light on the political articulation of the crisis and the interrelations between the political and the economic sphere. With regard to not only the origins of the crisis but also and particularly the viability of exit strategies from it, the struggles over hegemony occurring during the crisis are essential. Hence, complementing the Marxist and Marxian crisis debate, it is the goal of this paper to shed some light on the political articulations of the global crisis and assess the interrelations between global leadership efforts seeking exit strategies from the crisis and the hegemonic struggles underlying their agencies. While in looking at the struggle between left and right projects of leadership references will be made to numerous core and non-core capitalist countries, the main focus will be on the two dominant actors in NAFTA and the EU, the United States and Germany, which have shaped the politics of exit strategies from the crisis in North America and the Eurozone.

Este libro es una defensa apasionada del pensamiento de Federico Engels, en especial, de las ideas relacionadas con su Dialéctica de Ia naturaleza. Se sumerge y toma partido en una añosa y, sin embargo, actualísima polémica en torno al papel de Engels en Ia historia y la teoría del marxismo.
Podría sorprender a muchos que el inseparable amigo y colaborador de Carlos Marx haya sido -y siga siendo- objeto de rechazo e, incluso, de graves acusaciones por parte de conocidos marxistas occidentales. El autor de esta corta, pero sólida monografía, combate esas acusaciones con evidencias y razonamientos expresados en un lenguaje que procura ser accesible al mayor número posible de lectores, sin descuidar en ningún momento el rigor cientffico, Ia precisión conceptual y Ia
responsabilidad intelectual que exige el controvertido asunto.
El presente libro no constituye un recuento erudito de esa larga polémica. Su objetivo es más modesto y, a Ia vez, mas urgente: ganar el debate.

It is a commonplace that Marx did not produce an account of the state to match the analytical power of his critique of the capitalist mode of production in Das Kapital. Indeed, although this great work was to have included an extended treatment of the state, Marx did not succeed in committing it to paper. Instead his legacy in this respect comprises an uneven and unsystematic collection of philosophical reflections, journalism, contemporary history, political forecasts, and incidental remarks. It was left to Engels to develop a more systematic account of the origins and nature of the state and to discuss the general relations between state power and economic development. However, while it was Engels rather than Marx who first adumbrated a class theory of the state, the 'General' was no more successful than Marx himself in developing this insight into a complete and coherent analysis of the capitalist state. But this commonplace should not be taken to imply that Marx made no lasting contribution to political analysis. On the contrary it is as much for his theory of proletarian revolution as for his critique of political economy that Marx merits his eponym and continues to have an exceptional posthumous influence. Likewise Engels is as well known for his work on the state and politics as he is for his indictment of early English capitalism or his philosophy of 'scientific socialism'. In this respect it is worth noting that, although Lenin, Trotsky, and Gramsci also failed to produce a systematic analysis of the capitalist state, their contributions to Marxism are nonetheless heavily weighted towards political analysis and revolutionary practice. Accordingly it is most unfortunate that the rich and varied work of these five leading Marxists (and others) on the state and political power has still to be elaborated and transformed into a coherent theoretical analysis. Such a task is clearly beyond the scope of the present paper but some first steps can be taken in relation to the work of Marx and Engels.

L'analisi del libro sulla Origine della famiglia svolta dalla filosofa francese. Una critica al «monismo» proprio del materialismo storico che forse andrebbe più rivolta alla vulgata marxista che a Engels. Esistenzialismo, marxismo e hegelismo. Le letture di Carla Lonzi e Rosi Braidotti su de Beauvoir e sul materialismo storico.

One of the most important debates in contemporary social and political movements concerns the importance and value of “prefigurative politics”. Its meaning, along with its origins, is often misconstrued, and it has come under intense criticism. This article defends a strategic sense of prefigurative politics on the basis of a Marxist theory of practice. Thus it reconstructs Marx's theory of practice, clarifies the relevant meaning of "prefigurative politics", and presents three arguments for why prefigurative politics is essential to bring about a free and democratic socialist society. Prefigurative politics is important for (1) developing revolutionary subjects with the powers or real possibilities needed to organise deliberation and decision-making in free and democratic socialist ways. Secondly (2), it is important for developing revolutionary subjects with the needs or drives motivating them to institute such forms of deliberation and decision-making when able to do so. Thirdly (3), it is important for developing revolutionary subjects with the consciousness – i.e. the right knowledge, outlook, values, etc. – required to understand and implement such free and democratic modes of deliberation and decision-making. Finally, I defend this strategic commitment from three common criticisms.

Forthcoming in Constellations.

Patched Version. Fixed grammar and structure errors. A few new sentences added, some taken away. New paragraph added in the section on the development in measure.

Still 43 pages, and over 100 quotes, directly engaging Marx's economics like has not been done before.

Ireland is one of the few countries to be discussed systematically in Capital, Karl Marx's most important work. Ireland and the Irish were also discussed in Marx's lesser known economic writings and journalism. And famously, Engels' Condition of the Working Class in England devoted a chapter to the status of Irish migrant labourers in Industrial Britain. This paper discusses Marx and Engels' writings on Ireland and how they relate to three other important themes in their work: race, gender, and the nature of "Primitive Accumulation".  As with their writings on Jews or Indians, Marx and Engels rehearsed a number of common contemporary racial stereotypes about Irish people, specifically focusing on their supposed primitiveness, backwardness or even drunkenness and lack of hygiene. At the same time, however, Marx and Engels also saw the Irish in idealised terms: a revolutionary and masculine people who existed outside of the space-time of capitalism. Marx and Engels engaged in romanticised visions of Ireland and, this paper argues, race and gender (concepts not usually considered central to Marxian thought)
played a strong role in that romance.

To record the contradictionswithinthe life and writings of Alexandra Kollontai's to reclaim a largely unidentifiedpart of Marxist feminist history that attempted to extend
Engel's and Bebel's analysis of women's oppression but eventually went further to expose the inadequacy of prevalent Marxist feminist history and practice in analysing the woman's question. This essay is not an effort to reclaim that history uncritically, but to give recognition to Kollontai's efforts and understand her perspective.

Deleuze and Guattari’s conception of desire stands at the heart of their criticisms of psychoanalysis and the political program they develop in Anti-Oedipus. Although this notion is clearly divorced from a commonsense understanding in terms of wish, want, demand, etc., without these as touchstones not only is it difficult to conceive what they mean by desire but also desire’s political import. Despite the fact Deleuze and Guattari’s conception of desire is frequently referred to in secondary literature, it remains a stubbornly opaque notion.

Secondary works to date either largely dodge the issue, explaining “how the concept gets constructed and how it works” rather than “what desire means” (Holland 2005, 53), or explain Deleuze and Guattari’s conception of desire in polymorphous, early (Freudian) psychoanalytic terms, where the objects and aims of desire are variable. Although a conception of this type is by no means foreign to Deleuze and Guattari’s view, alone it fails to capture sufficiently what they mean by desire.

To better understand this notion my paper focuses on two claims Deleuze and Guattari make regarding the nature of desire in Anti-Oedipus. First, there is nothing specifically psychical about desire. Second, desire and labor are the same in nature while occupying different regimes. I argue these claims open onto two conceptions of desire, implying different understandings of the relationship between mind and body and supporting different understandings of the relationship between individuals and community. I show not only that these two conceptions of desire imply fundamentally different conceptions of philosophical anthropology – i.e., accounts of human nature – but also that each supports a different understanding of the nature of political activity.

“Depois da morte de Deus e do desmoronamento das utopias, sobre qual base intelectual e moral queremos construir nossa vida comum?” (TODOROV: 2006, p. 9) Com esta questão, que inaugura sua obra O Espírito das Luzes, Tzvetan Todorov situa alguns dos dilemas e desafios que enfrentamos diante do colapso da credibilidade da metafísica, com a consequência de que a ética e a política vivenciam uma espécie de crise do sagrado e necessidade de reinvenção em outras bases (imanentes e não mais transcendentes; profanas e não mais teológicas). Estes dilemas são alvo de reflexão de muitos pensadores/cientistas de relevância: da “morte de Deus” diagnosticada por Nietzsche ao “desencantamento do mundo” de que fala Max Weber, da noção de que “a religião é o ópio do povo” de Karl Marx à polêmica que opõe o criacionismo à teoria da evolução de Charles Darwin.
Na atualidade, uma caudalosa literatura, multidisciplinar e plurinacional, têm sido publicada no âmbito das críticas materialistas à religião, com pelo menos duas vertentes importantes: a anglo-saxã (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris etc.) e a francesa (Michel Onfray, André Comte-Sponville, Marcel Conche etc.)1. De modo sumário, podemos dizer que estes autores formulam argumentos que buscam provar a inexistência de Deus2; defendem a laicidade do Estado e criticam todo tipo de fanatismo, obscurantismo e fundamentalismo; afirmam a possibilidade de uma ética secular, a-religiosa, plenamente terrena, sem recompensas ou punições do além-túmulo; desenvolvem argumentos sobre a sabedoria, as virtudes, o bem-comum, considerados sempre na perspectiva desta vida e deste mundo etc.
No âmbito destas discussões, percebemos a recorrência de um problema filosófico muito debatido e que parece ter o dom de jamais receber resposta definitiva: não só a questão da existência de Deus, da alma imortal e do livre arbítrio, mas o debate sobre necessidade (ou não) da fé como fundamento para a ética e a política. Um dos nossos focos principais de nosso trabalho será a crítica empreendida pelas filosofias materialistas das conexões entre moral e religião, entre teologia e política.
A primeira delimitação de nosso tema consiste na eleição, como objetos de estudo, apenas dos filósofos da tradição materialista, que integram a “linha de Demócrito” de que fala Lenin (1962), que a contrastava com a “linha de Platão”. Estão colocados no ringue de batalha, pois, os dois velhos adversários: o materialismo e o idealismo.
A segunda delimitação temática consiste na primazia que concederemos em nossos estudos aos filósofos do materialismo de duas épocas:
I) na França do séc. XVIII, no período pré-Revolução Francesa, na obra dos radicais das “Luzes” (o Iluminismo ou Esclarecimento), em especial o barão D'Holbach (cuja magnum opus é O Sistema da Natureza), La Mettrie (autor de O Homem Máquina), Helvétius (cujos tratados Do Espírito e Do Homem marcaram época) e Denis Diderot (que além de filósofo foi autor também de obras literárias como A Religiosa, Jacques, o Fatalista e O Sobrinho de Rameau).Vale ressaltar que estes materialistas do séc. XVIII tiveram precursores, no século anterior, em figuras como Pierre Bayle, Jean Méslies e Pierre Gassendi (1592 – 1655), fontes em que também buscaremos pesquisar, dada a relevância deles como prefiguradores tanto do materialismo iluminista quanto do marxisma. Como escreve Onfray:
De fato, no verso do cartão-postal da historiografia dominante encontram-se felizmente pensadores candidatos à forca que celebram a volúpia desculpabilizada, anunciam a morte de Deus, professam a coletivização das terras, conclamam a estrangular os aristocratas com as tripas dos padres, incitam a filosofar para os pobres e para o povo, creem na possibilidade de mudar o mundo, ensinam uma moral eudemonista, se não hedonista, contam com a justiça dos homens. Chamo-os de ultras das Luzes, pois eles encarnam um pensamento radical. Ora, o que é um pensamento radical? Retomemos simplesmente a definição dada por Marx na sua Crítica da filosofia do direito de Hegel: ser radical é tomar as coisas pela raiz. (ONFRAY: 2012,  p. 34)

II) No século XIX, com a emergência do materialismo marxista, doutrina com enraizamento filosófico nas fontes atomistas gregas (Demócrito e Epicuro) e também nos materialistas franceses como Holbach, Helvétius etc. (vide item I). Em sua relação crítica e construtiva com o materialismo iluminista francês, pode-se dizer que Marx aumenta o ímpeto prático e transformador que o anima e que ele ganha “carne” como movimento político, força coletiva organizada, ímpeto revolucionário. Parece-nos que é bem conhecida e estudada a relação crítica que o marxismo estabeleceu com o idealismo alemão, em especial sua empreitada crítica contra Hegel e os hegelianos de esquerda como Bruno Bauer. Também é notória e bastante pesquisada a influência determinante exercida pelo materialismo ateu de Feuerbach ou pela teoria econômica-política anarquista de Proudhon sobre o pensamento do jovem Marx, que depois desenvolverá também uma crítica destes seus antigos mestres. Porém, nosso trabalho pretende focar a atenção nas relações, que parecem-nos menos pesquisadas e conhecidas, de Marx com a tradição materialista dos sécs. XVII e XVII no Iluminismo francês (Helvétius, D'Holbach, La Mettrie etc.). Ou seja, desejamos explorar sobretudo de que modo foi importante para a configuração da teoria e da práxis marxistas o influxo do materialismo iluminista francês, dos “ultras das Luzes”, como os chama Michel Onfray nos volumes da Contra-História da Filosofia a eles dedicados.

LEIA NA ÍNTEGRA:

L'Orestea di Eschilo appartiene ai drammi più influenti che siano mai stati scritti e gode di una posizione straordinaria nella letteratura mondiale e nella storia del teatro. Dalla prima messa in scena nel 458 a.C. fino ai giorni nostri ha avuto un'importanza straordinaria. Soprattutto a partire dal XIX secolo, epoca di sforzi tesi alla rivitalizzazione di drammi antichi nel teatro moderno, l'Orestea si è rivelata un testo chiave di riflessione filosofica e culturale capace di riunire una gamma di interpretazioni. Per questo, da allora, proprio la messa in scena di questo ciclo tragico ha acquisito un fascino particolare per il mondo teatrale. 1 Il confronto con l'antichissima trilogia, l'unica a essere conservata, è stato inteso dai registi per un verso come una sorta di ritorno alle fonti del teatro occidentale, una garanzia sul fondamento del proprio creare; per l'altro, il testo si è rivelato come possibilità di realizzare un particolare legame con il presente nel contesto sociale contemporaneo al pubblico destinatario. L'opera infatti si rivela particolarmente adatta a essere recepita in maniera eterogenea, caratteristica peculiare di discussioni e interpretazioni moderne.

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliographie; detaillierte bibliographische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. ISBN 978-3-88619-440-7 (Band 8/I) ISBN 978-3-88619-441-4 (Band 8/II) Alle Rechte vorbehalten © InkriT 2015; für diese Ausgabe Argument-Verlag Glashüttenstraße 28, 20357 Hamburg, www.argument.de Satz: Martin Grundmann, Hamburg. -Druck: freiburger graphische betriebe Abbildung auf dem Schutzumschlag: Pablo Picasso, Foulard für 3. Weltjugendfestival

Graduate thesis for Kingston University's CEP (Contemporary European Philosophy Program), supervised by Catherine Malabou

In critical assessments of the work of Karl Marx, the role of nature is often trivialized—he is portrayed as an incontrovertibly anthropocentric thinker, whose mature texts convey how humans shape an external reality wholly devoid of pregiven meaning. Yet examined more closely, we find that epistemic determinacy in Marx’s work only prevails insofar as man is already the product of aleatory natural structures—and that, furthermore, these natural structures furnish the very condition of man’s “metabolic,” material interaction with nature.  With a view to how Marx reconceives the Hegelian Aufhebung along materialist lines, this essay investigates how the “processes of nature” upon which constant capital depend eventually supply the technological and epistemological “key” for nature’s ontological (and veridical) comprehension—a transition described in Friedrich Engels’ Dialectics of Nature; a text that has been roundly dismissed by Western Marxists.  But the discovery of nature, and suprahuman agency more generally—a discovery akin, dialectically, to the revelation of “ontologically primary wholes” in Hegel’s Logic—does not result in the situation of man at the centre of the world. Rather, what it reveals is the increasingly important role of machinic agents (Andrew Ure’s “vast automatons,” which Marx repurposes in an Aristotelian vein) to capitalist production—and how capitalism’s dependency on the extraction of surplus-value must ultimately be abolished for machines, and their human stewards, to actualize their potentials.

The article argues for contemporary relevance of "Cosmology of the Spirit" by the outstanding Soviet philosopher Evald Ilyenkov, and explores its historical and intellectual contexts. This short treatise was written in the first half of the 1950s, but only published posthumously in the 1980s as it was too heretical to be published in the author’s lifetime. The text was heretical because of its enormous speculative drive. Addressing the physicist idea of the “entropic death of the universe” and using a combination of materialist dialectics and Spinoza’s concept of attribute, Ilyenkov claimed that thought is a necessary attribute of matter as it is able to prevent the terminal entropy of the universe. The paper uses the ideas of Ilyenkov’s cosmology in order to critically address contemporary currents of “speculative” philosophy.

Reading different or controversial intentions into Marx and Engels' works has been somewhat a common but rather unquestioned practice in the history of Marxist scholarship. Engels' Dialectics of Nature, a torso for some and a great book for others, is a case in point. A bold line seems to shape the entire Engels debate and separate two opposite views in this regard: Engels the contami-nator of Marx's materialism vs. Engels the self-started genius of dialectical materialism. What Engels, unlike Marx, has not enjoyed so far is a critical reflection upon the relationship between different layers of this text: authorial, textual, editorial and interpretational. Informed by a historical hermeneutic, inquiry into the elements that structure the debate on "Dialectics of Nature," and into the different political and philosophical functions attached to it, makes it possible to relocate the meaning of "dialectics" in a more precise context. Engels' dialectics is less complete than we usually think it is, but he achieved more than most scholars would like to admit.

Die sozialistische Arbeiterbewegung stand am Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts vor der Frage, welche Haltung zum Staat einzunehmen sei, mit dem man sich in der Tagespolitik auseinanderzusetzen hatte und von dem man, sollte eine ‚revolutionäre’ Ausrichtung beibehalten werden, einen Begriff haben musste, um gesellschaftliche Alternativen überhaupt denken zu können. Die Texte des Namensgebers der einflussreichen ‚Marxschen Schule’ enthielten keine ausgearbeitete Staatstheorie, auch wenn eine solche in den Aufbauplänen zu Marx’ Kritik der politischen Ökonomie noch vorgesehen war.  Die staatstheoretischen Überlegungen von Friedrich Engels haben diese Lücke gefüllt und die Staatsauffassungen der sozialistischen Theoretiker des 20. Jahrhunderts entscheidend geprägt.

Bu makale, mimari ürünün hammaddesi olarak kabul edilen kent mekanının dönüşümünü anlatmak amacıyla yazılmıştır. Kapitalist toplumlarda kentlerdeki mimari ürünler giderek birbirine benzemekte, birbirinden çok farklı coğrafyalarda da olsalar kent mekanları aynı işleve ve kimliğe bürünmektedir. Üzerine inşa edilen mimari yapıyı bir sonuç, mekanın dönüşümünü de bir süreç olarak kabul edersek, burada kavranmak istenen, varılan bu sonuca gelirken sürecin nasıl işlediği, kent mekanının nasıl bir dönüşüm geçirdiğidir.

« Se réapproprier le champ de la longue durée. Contribution écoféministe à une histoire après l'anthropocène » Mots clef : matriarcat, écoféminisme, anthropocène, Tsing, Haraway, Bachofen, anthropologie, d'Eaubonne, Engels, Federici Introduction Je voudrais profiter de cette invitation pour poursuivre ma réflexion au côté des écoféministes en prolonger leurs hypothèses et leurs questionnements 1 . J'aimerais en particulier tenter aujourd'hui de prolonger le geste théorique et politique des écoféministes de réappropriation de notre histoire, geste qui a pris chez ces dernières la forme d'un immense travail collectif de reconstitution et de fabulation de ce qui nous est arrivé. Ce geste de reprise/réappropriation/re--invention (reclaim) de notre histoire puise directement dans l'interrogation initiale des écoféministes, qui face à la menace de guerre nucléaire à laquelle elles étaient confrontées, posèrent la question de savoir « comment en sommes--nous arrivé--e--s là ? » et « que pouvons--nous faire et comment ? » (Starhawk 2015). Comment en sommes--nous arrivé--e--s à devoir subir la menace d'une possible guerre nucléaire entre les deux plus grandes puissances du moment ? Qu'est--ce qui nous est arrivé pourrait--on ajouter aujourd'hui, pour que l'on commence à imaginer plus facilement la fin du monde que la fin du capitalisme, (et donc aussi de la crise écologique) ? Cette tentative protéiforme de reconstitution et de fabulation de l'histoire ou plutôt des histoires qui nous ont amené à cette situation de désastre qui est la nôtre aujourd'huide double désastre devrait--on dire puisque la crise écologique ne s'est pas substituée à la menace nucléaire mais s'y est ajoutée --, est une des façons par lesquelles les écoféministes ont tentée de répondre (i.e. se sont rendues capables de répondre) à la situation qui était la leur. C'est--à--dire par laquelle les écoféministes se sont redonnées de la puissance (pas au sens de « pouvoir sur » mais de « pouvoir de pouvoir » --pouvoir de penser ; pouvoir d'être touchées par ce qui arrive ; pouvoir de lutter) contre le sentiment d'impuissance que peut engendrer l'ampleur de la situation ; contre la peur, la rage voire la paralysie que l'idée selon laquelle « les jeux sont faits » peut susciter.

This paper considers the importance of examples from India in the text of Marx’s Capital. In tracking Marx’s preoccupations, it is possible to show the relevance, especially for today, of his critique in a global frame, as political economy pivots and returns to its sources. Along the way, countering misreading and mistranslation, it becomes possible to see why studies of the agrarian, trading route and subaltern histories of capital in relation to the subcontinent, as well as of market spaces and early commercial exchange in Asia, are crucial for rethinking Marxist approaches to urbanism today. Targeting the archetypal corporate entity of his time, and its ideological supporters, the themes of tribute, exoticism, animals and the slave trade restore a reading practice that owes as much to Marx’s biography as to any one Marxist mode of analysis. The idea of a postcolonial, vegetarian or saffron Marx is not on the cards—since Asia is not simply a place to which Marx goes—but a more careful and at
the same time experimental reading can perhaps restore enthusiasm for the critique of political economy and provide ways of teaching old texts that remain relevant, and by remaining relevant, indicate what is to be done.

Edited version of published paper presented at 'Is Black and Red Dead?' Conference, Centre for the Study of Social and Global and Justice (CSSGJ) University of Nottingham, 7-8 September, 2009

https://socialhistoryportal.org/news/articles/110943

Apoiando-se no método marxista, Henrique Wellen analisou a função social da "economia solidária" nas suas relações com as determinações do capitalismo brasileiro atual. Além de expor seus principais pressupostos teóricos e metodológicos, o autor pesquisou diversos tipos de empreendimentos a partir de suas conexões com outros projetos sociais atualmente relevantes, como o "terceiro setor". Foram examinadas as condições de trabalho dentro dessas organizações, assim como suas relações com o mercado capitalista e, no que concerne à transformação social, Wellen demonstrou que a "economia solidária" representa um retrocesso na luta dos trabalhadores contra os imperativos do capital. Além de contribuir para o debate sobre esse projeto social, "Para a crítica da 'economia solidária'" conduz a uma importante reflexão na luta coletiva pela construção de uma sociedade emancipada.

The Critique of the Gotha Programme, written by Karl Marx in 1875 and posthumously published in 1891, contains his most detailed statements on the essential features of a communist economy. One of them, the end of the exchange of commodities, was a widely accepted hallmark of the post-capitalist society among German social democrats like Kautsky and Hilferding, as well as among Russian Bolshevists, who actually tried to apply Marxian theory in Soviet Russia. This essay follows the fortunes of Marx's theory through the entire history of the Soviet Union and of the East European " popular democracies " : from Bucharin's enthusiastic case for overcoming the exchange of commodities to Lenin's retreat from war communism in favour of the New Economic Policy; from the reasons given by Stalin for the existence of market relations under socialism to the use of such relations in the Sixties-by reformers like Brus, Šik, as well as by GDR economists in the Ulbricht era – as a tool for getting rid of the centralised planning model. At the end of the Eighties, some of the former reformers emphasized the victory of market relations over planning. In more recent debates, some marxist authors insisted on the incompatibility between exchange of commodities and true socialism, while others held Marx's model of socialism accountable for the failures of real socialism.

Cet article propose un résumé actualisé de mon livre « Le Communisme primitif n'est plus ce qu'il était. » (Smolny, 2012)
Il paraîtra en anglais dans le livre Beyond war: archaeological approaches to violence, A. García-Piquer and A. Vila-Mitjà (eds), Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

This paper criticizes a range of recent positions on Max Stirner’s
relationship to the anarchist canon. A recent rise in academic attention to Stirner offers a possibility for new analyses to clear away the misconceptions of the past, however some old mistakes are still consistently repeated, not all important insights find their way into the present discussion, and some new readings of Stirner even introduce new inadequacies. Addressing specifically the controversial definition of the anarchist canon in Black Flame and the debate surrounding the
concept of postanarchism, I show the theoretical and argumentative problems present in different texts, both those that identify Stirner as part of the anarchist canon and those that exclude him from it. Present difficulties in situating Stirner's thought are traced back to his original canonization as an anarchist, by Marxists on the one hand and individualist anarchists on the other.

En el artículo "Reflexiones sobre la dialéctica dominación/emancipación en el derecho desde el pensamiento marxista" se reflexiona acerca de cómo el derecho no puede ser visto sólo como un fenómeno de dominación, sino también como un fenómeno de emancipación en su devenir como fenómeno social que es. Es así que lo jurídico, como relación social se expresa dialécticamente, en una relación contradictoria de dominación/emancipación, que si es negada se está negando el carácter social del derecho mismo y su análisis marxista. Estas reflexiones se sustentan en textos del marxismo clásico, Marx y Engels y del neomarxismo gramsciano.

This essay explores some aspects of the debate led by Louis Althusser and Etienne Balibar on the strategy of the French Communist Party (PCF) in the 1970s. They saw the Eurocommunist turn of the party as a strategy that accepted the influence of social democrats
without addressing the crucial question of mass participation in the party. Their criticism of the PCF was also a criticism of the statist strategy in socialist countries at that time, which they saw as a fusion of the socialist state with the working-class party.
Althusser radicalized his stance when he demanded that a revolutionary party should stay outside the state, both before and after a socialist revolution. In this text, the
references made by Balibar and Althusser to works of Marx and Engels are compared with the political positions developed in the original texts, and some conclusions for
contemporary political strategies are hinted at.

Evald Vasílievich Iliénkov y el fin de la fllosofía clásica soviética E ste ensayo nos retrotrae a un momento que, separado de nosotros en el tiempo por una generación, es a pesar de ello tan extraño para los cubanos de hoy, como si desde entonces hubiera pasado un siglo entero. Y, sin embargo, este fue el preludio de otro «especial» período; y cuanto ha sucedido desde entonces en nuestro país viene a ser, en gran medida, el vestigio del Período especial. Según la periodización sugerida por Joaquín Santana (1995: 29), 1 en Cuba después de la Revolución nos encontramos en la tercera etapa de la filosofía (marxista), etapa marcada por la crisis del marxismo, que comienza a sentirse intensamente a partir de 1991. Retrotraigámonos a la fase de transición de la segunda etapa (mayor acercamiento a la URSS) a la actual. Lo primero que llama la atención de ella es su vertiginosa velocidad. No en vano, en su exquisito y «fabulado» ensayo «Iliénkov in memoriam», Gilberto Pérez Villacampa (1996) aseguraba que su generación «ya tiene derecho a hacer memorias, aun cuando todavía ande llegando, o un poco sobrepasando los treinta» (61). Hoy esta generación de viajes anecdóticos a la URSS ya peina canas. Antes de la Perestroika, en nuestro país imperaba la fe en la inevitabilidad del triunfo del comunismo a escala planetaria y, respectivamente, de la filosofía asociada a él: el marxismo-leninismo. «Fe» compartida no solo por los profesionales relacionados directamente con el marxismo, sino también por la inmensa mayoría de los cubanos. Este fenómeno no fue gratuito, el contexto lo justificaba perfectamente. El «fantasma» del comunismo ya no rondaba únicamente Europa, como en tiempos del Manifiesto comunista, sino que había penetrado en todos los rincones del mundo. Los Estados Unidos habían sido derrotados en Vietnam. En África, varios países se declaraban socialistas. La revolución filomarxista que derrocó a la monarquía feudal en Afganistán y la revolución antiyanqui de Irán cambiaban la correlación de fuerzas en el Medio Oriente. En Nicaragua triunfaba el sandinismo. En El Salvador, un movimiento guerrillero marxista gozaba de considerable fuerza. China comenzaba a despuntar como potencia mundial. Y el «bloque» de la URSS y sus aliados europeos parecía un coloso inexorable. En fin, era un espíritu confiado el de los orgullosos marxistas de aquella época contradictoria, 2 en la que «Cuba se sujetó ideológicamente a la URSS y consideró antisovietismo y diversionismo ideológico todo lo que se diferenciara de esa sujeción» (Martínez Heredia, 1995: 25). De pronto, tras el fallecimiento de varios viejos secretarios del Partido Comunista de la Unión soviética (PCUS), toma el poder Mijaíl Gorbachov. Adviene una cadena de eventos que, como avalancha, primero lentamente y después a una velocidad cada vez mayor, culminan en la desaparición de la URSS, del campo

"Studi Storici", 2/2018, pp. 403-435

Il saggio ha per tema il rapporto di Gramsci con una silloge di scritti di Marx ed Engels da lui conosciuta durante il suo soggiorno a Mosca. Tale antologia, edita nel 1924 da V.V. Adoratskij e A.D. Udal'cov, fu concepita nel quadro del lavoro di edizione e di interpretazione delle opere marx-engelsiane, poi sfociato nella Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe. A partire da uno studio ravvicinato del volume, si vanno ad indagare alcuni momenti dell'attività politica ed intellettuale gramsciana. Ad essere oggetto di analisi è innanzitutto la politica culturale del PCd'I così come progettata da Gramsci da Vienna. Quindi l'attenzione si sposta sui Quaderni, di cui si mettono a fuoco diversi aspetti, indagando possibili connessioni fra gli scritti carcerari e il volume russo. Le tematiche principali sono due. In primo luogo, il rapporto di Gramsci con un riassunto del primo capitolo dell'Ideologia tedesca contenuto nell'antologia russa e con l'analisi della questione dell'ideologia lì contenuta. In secondo luogo il richiamo alla concezione antideterministica del materialismo storico sviluppata da Engels in alcune sue lettere riportate nella silloge e variamente richiamata nella riflessione del carcere. 

This essay focuses on Gramsci's relation to an anthology of texts by Marx and Engels that was available to him while he was in Moscow. The volume was published by V.V. Adoratskij and A.D. Udal'cov in 1924; it is linked to the work of edition and interpretation of Marx' and Engels' oeuvre that led to the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe. Some crucial moments of Gramsci's political and intellectual activity are examined on the basis of a close comparison between the Gramscian texts and the extracts from the Russian anthology. In the first place, the cultural programme of the Italian Communist Party elaborated by Gramsci during his stay in Vienna is at stake. Secondly, I concentrate on the Prison Notebooks, by dwelling especially on two issues: Gramsci’s use of a summary of the first chapter of the German Ideology contained in the Russian volume and his conception of ‘ideology’; the connection between Engels’ antideterminism (as it unfolds in some letters mentioned in the anthology) and Gramsci’s conception of historical materialism.

1 "Tout ce que je sais, c'est que je ne suis pas Marxiste." (Karl Marx 1 ) Kein Gespenst ging 1989 um in Europa, sondern ein Aufatmen: Man vermeldete das Ableben des real existierenden Sozialismus, dem man als Beigabe das OEuvre Marxens gleich mit ins Grab legte, denn war Marx nicht mit dem sozialistischen Régime gestorben? Das Gespenst, das 1848 den alten Mächten Schrecken einjagte, stand nun für eine totalitäre Vergangenheit, die vor allem die Täter und Mitläufer von einst verfolgte und nicht selten auch einholte. Der Sozialismus ist tot, Marx ist tot, der Kapitalismus ist nun ‚alternativlos', die Geschichte gelangt an ihr Ende 2 . Die verständliche Freude über das Ende einer Diktatur mischte sich trübe mit dem Wunsch, nun auch aller Zweifel an der Deutungshoheit ‚neoliberaler' Theorien 3 , die schon seit Ende der siebziger Jahre die Wirtschaftswissenschaften ebenso wie die Politik bestimmten, ledig zu sein. Der Markt produziert unter den Vorzeichen von Konkurrenz und Profitinteresse 1 Friedrich Engels zitiert diese Äußerung Marxens in einem Brief an Conrad Schmidt vom 5. August 1890 (MEW 37, 436). Aus den Werken von Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels wird im fortlaufenden Text unter den jeweiligen Siglen mit (Abteilungs-,) Band-und Seitenzahl zitiert: Historisch-kritische Gesamtausgabe, im Auftrage des Marx-Engels-Instituts Moskau hrsg. von David Rjazanov, Berlin 1927-1935 (abgek.: MEGA 1 ); Gesamtausgabe (abgek.: MEGA 2 ), hrsg. vom Institut für Marxismus / Leninismus beim ZK der KPdSU und beim ZK der SED; ab 1990 hrsg. von der Internationalen Marx-Engels-Stiftung, Berlin 1975ff; Werke, hrsg. vom Institut für Marxismus/Leninismus beim ZK der KPdSU und beim ZK der SED, dem Institut für die Geschichte der Arbeiterbewegung und der Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung, 44 Bände, Berlin 1955-1999 (abgek.: MEW); zitiert wird im fortlaufenden Text. 2 Die Gespenster-Metapher griff Jacques Derrida auf und versuchte, sie für eine Re-Interpretation der Marxschen Theorie fruchtbar zu machen; vgl. ders., Marx' Gespenster. Der verschuldete Staat, die Trauerarbeit und die neue Internationale. Übersetzt von Susanne Lüdemann, Frankfurt/M. 5 2016; kritisch dazu Moishe Postone, Dekonstruktion als Gesellschaftskritik. Derrida über Marx und die neue Weltordnung, in: Krisis 21/22, Bad Honnef 1998, 115ff; auch im Netz unter http://www.krisis.org/1998/dekonstruktion-alsgesellschaftskritik/#1 (letzter Zugriff: 8. Juni 2018). 3

Las características del dêmos ateniense durante la democracia y, especialmente, las implicancias de la participación política de masas, han sido objeto de profunda atención por parte de distintos intelectuales modernos que reflexionaron sobre la antigua Atenas. Las consecuencias asociadas al desarrollo de la soberanía popular desde la Revolución Francesa, los procesos de democratización de las sociedades europeas occidentales, la organización la clase obrera como fuerza política y la revolución socialista en el siglo XX, son procesos históricos de nodal importancia que influyeron sobre quienes pensaron – a partir de diferentes elaboraciones conceptuales– en la demokratía ateniense y la inclusión política de las masas populares. El objetivo de este trabajo es exponer, analizando la trayectoria de determinados pensadores, algunas de esas conceptualizaciones que van desde el “gobierno de la muchedumbre” a la “dictadura del proletariado”.

The features of the Athenian demos and, specially, the implications of the political inclusion of the masses have been objects of deep attention by several modern intellectuals. The development of popular sovereignty since the French Revolution, the democratization of western European societies, the organization of the working class as a political actor and the socialist revolution in the twentieth century are key historical process with profound influence on those who had thought –with different conceptual tools– about the Athenian demokratia and the political incorporation of the popular masses. The aim of this paper is to review, through a few particular intellectual figures, some of those conceptualizations that encompass from the “mob rule” to the “dictatorship of the proletariat”.