Diego Fusaro
The book is intended to produce a renewed focus on the work of Marx, one of the thinkers who have shaped the way we feel and think and have formed our moral conscience, determining our individual will to the end of the universal human emancipation, achievable through more effective security and protection of political freedoms, civil, social and economic, that today in Europe and the West - but not only - with the 'exception of a few rear guard, we believe should be guaranteed to all.
A work, which is in itself a monument, and that alone has turned the corner and built a civilization produced by the great revolution of the modern age and the Enlightenment. Difficult, therefore, to bury Marx, forgotten or ignored. If so, at some point, it became possible is due to a temporary eclipse, followed the historical events that marked the end of the so-called 'socialism real 'and the Communist system and the temporary and illusory triumph of ideology opposite that of neoliberalism.
Reacting to the silence of the intellectuals once faithful to Marxism and the deregistration of opponents concerned, the rate of Fusaro should reopen a debate. Of course, all wish the young scholar that his work would cross national boundaries and be appreciated abroad. But even if only for the Italian province, where the reflection langue and heavier is the neutralization of politics and its reduction to mere administration, its contribution is of great importance and could put in motion a cultural situation locked.
Fusaro gives us a interpretation of 'secular' and his reading of Marx 'criticism' (issues that are identified). On the one hand, he distinguishes between the original thought of Marx and the 'religion' Marxist (Engels and Paul were the founders of the two Churches, which have marginalized in Italy critical thinking). Second, against absolutizations Marxist propositions, and interpretations of the various 'Marxisms' which have mushroomed in the West, thanks to the combination and contamination with different philosophical perspectives, gives us a Marx, a philosopher, of course, but on the contrary to what is commonly held, not 'systematically, but rather problematic, and especially open and committed to continuously enrich his thought and munirlo more solid foundations, with input from the British sociological surveys, with the study of economics, with historical analysis, through which he went to identify the trends of society able to guide and support a practice change.
If I may indicate a lack, is that the text is not given on behalf of the Italian interpretation of Marx. I refer in particular to non-Marxist interpreters of Marx: a Gentile, especially at the cross and also to Guido Calogero, who contributed, ahead of its time and so remarkable, at this critical reading, setting, first the question of whether Marx, by emphasizing the role of human labor and the economy (as a principle of value) had developed a 'method' for the interpretation of history (Labriola), or a 'philosophy of history' ('philosophy of praxis '- Gentile), or a simple statement' canon 'of interpretation (the Cross) or expressed, with great strength and substance of analysis and documentation, the' ethical and legal vacuum 'to a new and different organization of economic life, in which everyone can fully enjoy the fruits of their work or enjoy rewards and alternatives to the more difficult existential condition, being able to enjoy, like others, properly equipped to satisfy their needs and their needs.
In a subsequent intervention, if necessary, I will focus on more specific issues and some confusion-oscillations that were found in Marx from the standpoint of the philosopher, the scientist's point of view and economic point of view of the historian. Despite this and despite the recent silence Marx looms in contemporary culture because he, like Fusaro said, was able to give shape and substance to the hope for a better world, and unlike men free and equal, outlining one of those 'regulative ideas', which can not be dropped.
Certainly his 'philosophy of history', array, at least superficially, is a Hegelian metaphysical myth, which inspired and quietistic fatalistic or, on the other side, fanaticism which have produced unintended consequences certainly by Marx.
Her portrayal of the 'contradictions' (which are such only in terms of ethical evaluation) of capitalist society, its development, its crisis, are still valid for understanding the reality in which we are engaged. But it has the characteristics of a historical description of a given period of human history or a general model to be verified each time, and can not be assumed, therefore, under the category of necessity. Just think that the evolution technology has resulted in the loss of value of human work, which will be less, therefore, the principle on which to base the social organization.
Everything considered: Marx welcome back! (If ever he had gone or will go away from our horizon).
And thanks to Diego.
A work, which is in itself a monument, and that alone has turned the corner and built a civilization produced by the great revolution of the modern age and the Enlightenment. Difficult, therefore, to bury Marx, forgotten or ignored. If so, at some point, it became possible is due to a temporary eclipse, followed the historical events that marked the end of the so-called 'socialism real 'and the Communist system and the temporary and illusory triumph of ideology opposite that of neoliberalism.
Reacting to the silence of the intellectuals once faithful to Marxism and the deregistration of opponents concerned, the rate of Fusaro should reopen a debate. Of course, all wish the young scholar that his work would cross national boundaries and be appreciated abroad. But even if only for the Italian province, where the reflection langue and heavier is the neutralization of politics and its reduction to mere administration, its contribution is of great importance and could put in motion a cultural situation locked.
Fusaro gives us a interpretation of 'secular' and his reading of Marx 'criticism' (issues that are identified). On the one hand, he distinguishes between the original thought of Marx and the 'religion' Marxist (Engels and Paul were the founders of the two Churches, which have marginalized in Italy critical thinking). Second, against absolutizations Marxist propositions, and interpretations of the various 'Marxisms' which have mushroomed in the West, thanks to the combination and contamination with different philosophical perspectives, gives us a Marx, a philosopher, of course, but on the contrary to what is commonly held, not 'systematically, but rather problematic, and especially open and committed to continuously enrich his thought and munirlo more solid foundations, with input from the British sociological surveys, with the study of economics, with historical analysis, through which he went to identify the trends of society able to guide and support a practice change.
If I may indicate a lack, is that the text is not given on behalf of the Italian interpretation of Marx. I refer in particular to non-Marxist interpreters of Marx: a Gentile, especially at the cross and also to Guido Calogero, who contributed, ahead of its time and so remarkable, at this critical reading, setting, first the question of whether Marx, by emphasizing the role of human labor and the economy (as a principle of value) had developed a 'method' for the interpretation of history (Labriola), or a 'philosophy of history' ('philosophy of praxis '- Gentile), or a simple statement' canon 'of interpretation (the Cross) or expressed, with great strength and substance of analysis and documentation, the' ethical and legal vacuum 'to a new and different organization of economic life, in which everyone can fully enjoy the fruits of their work or enjoy rewards and alternatives to the more difficult existential condition, being able to enjoy, like others, properly equipped to satisfy their needs and their needs.
In a subsequent intervention, if necessary, I will focus on more specific issues and some confusion-oscillations that were found in Marx from the standpoint of the philosopher, the scientist's point of view and economic point of view of the historian. Despite this and despite the recent silence Marx looms in contemporary culture because he, like Fusaro said, was able to give shape and substance to the hope for a better world, and unlike men free and equal, outlining one of those 'regulative ideas', which can not be dropped.
Certainly his 'philosophy of history', array, at least superficially, is a Hegelian metaphysical myth, which inspired and quietistic fatalistic or, on the other side, fanaticism which have produced unintended consequences certainly by Marx.
Her portrayal of the 'contradictions' (which are such only in terms of ethical evaluation) of capitalist society, its development, its crisis, are still valid for understanding the reality in which we are engaged. But it has the characteristics of a historical description of a given period of human history or a general model to be verified each time, and can not be assumed, therefore, under the category of necessity. Just think that the evolution technology has resulted in the loss of value of human work, which will be less, therefore, the principle on which to base the social organization.
Everything considered: Marx welcome back! (If ever he had gone or will go away from our horizon).
And thanks to Diego.
Vittorio Esposito
0 comments:
Post a Comment