"The concept of socio-economic formation in the work of José María Aricó: A comparison with the Marxian featherstone leigh sources" Alessio Bosch Constance and Laura Catena |
Home A Street it's time What to read? Calls Fight Economics classes Classics of Marxism Marxist Economics Marxist Feminism featherstone leigh Multimedia Marxist Philosophy Psychology Socio-ecology Marxist Theory Marxist criticism accumulated
Home> Theory cumulative review> "The concept of socio-economic formation in the work of José María Aricó: featherstone leigh A comparison with the Marxian sources" Alessio Bosch Constance and Laura Catena
This paper analyzes the reception of the concept of socio-economic formation in the work of José María Aricó, in light of the recent featherstone leigh edition of Nine lessons featherstone leigh on economics featherstone leigh and politics in Marxism (2012). We propose featherstone leigh to show that the interpretation of the original meaning differs Aricó Marx gives it the end, moving away, therefore, use that gives the Marxism of the Second International.
In 1973 the group nucleated around José María Aricó Papers published in its Past and Present featherstone leigh a volume devoted entirely to the analysis of the concept of social-economic formation (Luporini, Cesare et al.). Recognizing the centrality of the category occupies in the historical materialism, the editors presented a series of articles, featherstone leigh originally published between 1966 and 1972 - reflecting different featherstone leigh theoretical positions about the meaning of the concept. Larger trials belonged to Cesare Luporini and Emilio Sereni, both members of the Italian Communist Party between forty and sixty decades. By then, the PCI narrowed strong ties with the CPSU, through its leader Palmiro featherstone leigh Togliatti1. In one of the trials that made up the volume featherstone leigh in question, said Luporini-confronting Marx and Lenin about the category of social-economic formation that both authors differed featherstone leigh in the use of the concept:
The notion of 'economic formation of society' featherstone leigh is used here to refer to Marx continuity, non-interruption of the economic fabric in the discontinuity and plurality featherstone leigh of successive social formations. Not exactly generality denotes a (...) but rather, something that is not enclosed featherstone leigh within the specificity of a particular mode of production or of a particular social formation. This is a perfectly opposite concept that Lenin provided under the same term (...). In Lenin, the specificity of the social formation, is its economic connotation. In Marx, the continuity of (economic) between different social featherstone leigh formations (Luporini, Cesare, featherstone leigh 103).
While keeping some disagreement with Sereni Luporini about the meaning of the term, his vision also, as we shall see below-evident, a significant distortion of the Marxian sense: For Marx, the notion of 'social featherstone leigh formation' (...) is always understood in a dynamic and not static sense, as a process (...) rather than the substance (so to speak) of a time or a historical phase itself motionless and completed (Sereni, Emilio, 60).
It is, in short by these exponents of "Marxism of the Second International", featherstone leigh of complete misunderstanding (if not, without featherstone leigh more, the systematic rejection) of one of the fundamental categories of Marx's materialist conception of history; and when you consider the fact that similar considerations could be repeated with respect to most of the other examples of this same "Marxism of the Second International" (Sereni, Emilio, 68).
Misunderstanding, rejection, inconsistency, reductionism: such are the charges that Italian Stalinism featherstone leigh attributed to the Second International in relation to the level of socio-economic formation. And such bases from which José Aricó lash in the future against the concept. Below, we will attempt to show that the influence of PCI on Aricó eventually alienate him from the original Marxist sense of the category or "socio-economic" "socio-economic formation." To do this, first, we will expose the Aricó thesis on the concept, and then compare them with those of Marx and his disciples with the Second International (1889-1916). Finally, we discuss Lenin's use of the concept in question in his work.
Web
Activity Theory Accumulation of Capital Accumulation by dispossession primitive Alienation featherstone leigh Bakhtin featherstone leigh Capital Accumulation Interest Fictitious Capital Financial Capital Social Sciences Competition organic composition of capital Democracy Crisis Critique of Dialectical dialogy radical political economy and save money Domination Capital Epistemology Enslavement historical-cultural School Schemes Aesthetics play Eurocentrism Fetish Merchandise Form, Shape merchandise value
Home A Street it's time What to read? Calls Fight Economics classes Classics of Marxism Marxist Economics Marxist Feminism featherstone leigh Multimedia Marxist Philosophy Psychology Socio-ecology Marxist Theory Marxist criticism accumulated
Home> Theory cumulative review> "The concept of socio-economic formation in the work of José María Aricó: featherstone leigh A comparison with the Marxian sources" Alessio Bosch Constance and Laura Catena
This paper analyzes the reception of the concept of socio-economic formation in the work of José María Aricó, in light of the recent featherstone leigh edition of Nine lessons featherstone leigh on economics featherstone leigh and politics in Marxism (2012). We propose featherstone leigh to show that the interpretation of the original meaning differs Aricó Marx gives it the end, moving away, therefore, use that gives the Marxism of the Second International.
In 1973 the group nucleated around José María Aricó Papers published in its Past and Present featherstone leigh a volume devoted entirely to the analysis of the concept of social-economic formation (Luporini, Cesare et al.). Recognizing the centrality of the category occupies in the historical materialism, the editors presented a series of articles, featherstone leigh originally published between 1966 and 1972 - reflecting different featherstone leigh theoretical positions about the meaning of the concept. Larger trials belonged to Cesare Luporini and Emilio Sereni, both members of the Italian Communist Party between forty and sixty decades. By then, the PCI narrowed strong ties with the CPSU, through its leader Palmiro featherstone leigh Togliatti1. In one of the trials that made up the volume featherstone leigh in question, said Luporini-confronting Marx and Lenin about the category of social-economic formation that both authors differed featherstone leigh in the use of the concept:
The notion of 'economic formation of society' featherstone leigh is used here to refer to Marx continuity, non-interruption of the economic fabric in the discontinuity and plurality featherstone leigh of successive social formations. Not exactly generality denotes a (...) but rather, something that is not enclosed featherstone leigh within the specificity of a particular mode of production or of a particular social formation. This is a perfectly opposite concept that Lenin provided under the same term (...). In Lenin, the specificity of the social formation, is its economic connotation. In Marx, the continuity of (economic) between different social featherstone leigh formations (Luporini, Cesare, featherstone leigh 103).
While keeping some disagreement with Sereni Luporini about the meaning of the term, his vision also, as we shall see below-evident, a significant distortion of the Marxian sense: For Marx, the notion of 'social featherstone leigh formation' (...) is always understood in a dynamic and not static sense, as a process (...) rather than the substance (so to speak) of a time or a historical phase itself motionless and completed (Sereni, Emilio, 60).
It is, in short by these exponents of "Marxism of the Second International", featherstone leigh of complete misunderstanding (if not, without featherstone leigh more, the systematic rejection) of one of the fundamental categories of Marx's materialist conception of history; and when you consider the fact that similar considerations could be repeated with respect to most of the other examples of this same "Marxism of the Second International" (Sereni, Emilio, 68).
Misunderstanding, rejection, inconsistency, reductionism: such are the charges that Italian Stalinism featherstone leigh attributed to the Second International in relation to the level of socio-economic formation. And such bases from which José Aricó lash in the future against the concept. Below, we will attempt to show that the influence of PCI on Aricó eventually alienate him from the original Marxist sense of the category or "socio-economic" "socio-economic formation." To do this, first, we will expose the Aricó thesis on the concept, and then compare them with those of Marx and his disciples with the Second International (1889-1916). Finally, we discuss Lenin's use of the concept in question in his work.
Web
Activity Theory Accumulation of Capital Accumulation by dispossession primitive Alienation featherstone leigh Bakhtin featherstone leigh Capital Accumulation Interest Fictitious Capital Financial Capital Social Sciences Competition organic composition of capital Democracy Crisis Critique of Dialectical dialogy radical political economy and save money Domination Capital Epistemology Enslavement historical-cultural School Schemes Aesthetics play Eurocentrism Fetish Merchandise Form, Shape merchandise value
No comments:
Post a Comment