Suchergebnisse

El republicanismo cada vez suscita mayor atención por parte de la filosofía política. Sin embargo, a menudo se emplea una aproximación meramente hermenéutica que tiende a desatender las circunstancias políticas, sociales y económicas que, en efecto, dieron forma a esta tradición de pensamiento. Este artículo aborda la concepción moderna de la libertad republicana a través del caso norteamericano y francés mediante la obra de dos de sus máximos representantes, Thomas Jefferson y Maximilien Robespierre. El artículo defiende que el gobierno político, jurídico y económico –la economía política republicana– ideado por ambos, guarda importantes similitudes que la filosofía política actual no puede obviar. Para ilustrar dicha relación, se muestra que ambos pensadores recibieron una honda y similar influencia de la filosofía del derecho natural y de la teoría fiduciaria a la hora de pensar y tratar de implementar sus modelos de gobierno y su idea de propiedad.

Republicanism is increasingly attracting more attention from political philosophy. However, a mere hermeneutical approach it is usually used, which tends to neglect the political, social and economic circumstances that shaped this tradition of thought. This article addresses the modern conception of republican freedom with the North American and the French case through the work of two of their most representative figures, Thomas Jefferson and Maximilien Robespierre. The article defends that the political, juridical and economic government – the republican political economy– devised by both, keeps important similarities that the current political philosophy cannot ignore. To illustrate this relationship, it is shown that both thinkers received a deep and similar influence of natural law philosophy and of fiduciary theory when thinking and trying to implement their models of government and their idea of ownership. ; El republicanismo cada vez suscita mayor atención por parte de la filosofía política. Sin embargo, a menudo se emplea una aproximación meramente hermenéutica que tiende a desatender las circunstancias políticas, sociales y económicas que, en efecto, dieron forma a esta tradición de pensamiento. Este artículo aborda la concepción moderna de la libertad republicana a través del caso norteamericano y francés mediante la obra de dos de sus máximos representantes, Thomas Jefferson y Maximilien Robespierre. El artículo defiende que el gobierno político, jurídico y económico –la economía política republicana– ideado por ambos, guarda importantes similitudes que la filosofía política actual no puede obviar. Para ilustrar dicha relación, se muestra que ambos pensadores recibieron una honda y similar influencia de la filosofía del derecho natural y de la teoría fiduciaria a la hora de pensar y tratar de implementar sus modelos de gobierno y su idea de propiedad.

Este artículo discute la llamada economía colaborativa para señalar, en primer y segundo lugar, algunas dificultades que aparecen (o pueden aparecer) a la hora de comprenderla tanto en términos analíticos como conceptuales. En tercer lugar, expone dos de las interpretaciones más extendidas actualmente para, en cuarto lugar, centrarse en aquella que atribuye a la economía colaborativa un carácter emancipador. En particular, se discuten tres importantes limitaciones a las que usualmente debe hacer frente dicha perspectiva: el excesivo protagonismo que otorga a las comunidades colaborativas y al principio de paraigualdad; su modo de entender la racionalidad humana; y su visión a-institucional y meramente psicológica de la naturaleza y el funcionamiento de los mercados. El artículo concluye sugiriendo que, para lograr que la economía colaborativa despliegue su potencial emancipador, se requieren instituciones sociales y políticas que pongan a funcionar dicha colaboración en beneficio de todas y todos. ; This paper discusses the so-called collaborative economy, first and second, by pointing out some difficulties that appear (or can appear) in its understanding, both in conceptual and analytical terms. In the third section, two of its most currently widespread interpretations are analysed, while the fourth section focusses in the one that imputes to it an emancipatory character. In particular, three of this interpretation's most usual boundaries are analysed: the excessive prominence that it confers to collaborative communities and to the principle of egalitarianism; its understanding of the human rationality; and its a-institutional and its mere psychologic approach to the nature and the functioning of markets. The paper concludes by suggesting that, in order to collaborative economy deploy its emancipatory potential, social and political institutions that turns collaboration in benefiting everyone are required.

El artículo aborda la proximidad entre el republicanismo y Karl Polanyi, defendiendo la hipótesis según la cual su obra puede ser comprendida como heredera de esta tradición de pensamiento. En primer lugar se identifican sus coincidencias metodológicas y epistémicas, lo que en el artículo se defiende como el uso compartido de una muy parecida ontología social. Seguidamente se analizan sus coincidencias sustantivas, en concreto, su similar concepción sobre la libertad y la propiedad. La segunda sección del artículo realiza una lectura en clave republicana de las principales aportaciones científicas de la obra de Polanyi, específicamente su teoría de la "incrustación económica" y la del "doble movimiento". Con ello el artículo concluye sugiriendo que el republicanismo puede ser interpretado como un modo de instituir políticamente los mercados y la economía, mientras que la vertiente más democrática de esta tradición puede entenderse como una suerte de movimiento de autoprotección social con una pretensión democratizadora.

The conception of property is usually moulded upon diverting historical and political-philosophical frameworks. The current interest on the commons illustrates these divergences when they come up between a 'pure' public and a 'pure' private form of ownership. This conceptual triad misleads by conflating private property with an absolute property right while equating public property with a centralised political regime. This article traces the republican conception of property in order to show how it draws a legal and philosophical continuum around different forms of ownership, based on a fiduciary principle underlying the relationship between the sovereign or principal (trustor) and its agent (trustee). Despite modern socialism apparently left aside the question of the commons, the republican-fiduciary rationale was reformulated according to the modern industrial capitalist society.

This book brings together insights and reflections following a set of interviews conducted with the main stakeholders involved in past, current, and future basic income experiments. It provides an analysis of some of the major elements and factors influencing experiments, as well of some of their most important outputs understood as results of their own experimental design, their sociological and political basis, and the epistemological status of their results. By pursuing a bottom-up strategy, where the interviews conducted take a pivotal role in the collection and analysis phase of the book, this book gathers key questions relating to policy experiments. Some questions reflected upon include the general idea of why one should engage and implement a basic income experiment, and the paradox consisting in the fact that most basic income experiments fall short of being closely considered "pure" basic income schemes. In facing the question and the paradox head-on, the book assesses questions of experimental design, the political and social context surrounding the policy, and the main results and what can they tell us about basic income.

Over the last two decades republican thought has attracted a growing interest from political, moral and legal scholars. These contemporary theoretical syntheses of 'neo-republican' thought have been closely related to intellectual history and the idea of recovering an overshadowed tradition of political thought. In this vein, a classical set of historical moments and places (e.g., ancient Rome, renaissance Italy, civil-war England or revolutionary America among others) and specific political practices within those contexts appear to be the main source of what republicanism meant – and what it could mean today.

Frontmatter -- Contents -- List of Figures -- Introduction -- Part I Reconstructing the History of Atlantic Modernity -- 1 The American Divergence, the Modern Western World and the Paradigmatisation of History -- 2 The Limits of Recognition: History, Otherness and Autonomy -- 3 On Being in Time: Modern African Elites and the Historical Challenge to Claims for Alternative and Multiple Modernities -- 4 The Sublime Dignity of the Dictator:1 Republicanism and the Return of Dictatorship in Political Modernity -- 5 The Luso-Brazilian Enlightenment: Between Reform and Revolution -- Part II Comparing Trajectories of Modernity in the South -- 6 Inconsistencies between Social-democratic Discourses and Neo-liberal Institutional Development in Chile and South Africa: a Comparative Analysis of the Post-authoritarian Periods1 -- 7 HIV/AIDS Policies and Modernity in Brazil and South Africa: a Comparative Critical Analysis -- 8 Land and Restitution in Comparative Perspective: Analysing the Evidence of Right to Land for Black Rural Communities in Brazil and South Africa -- Part III Claims for Justice in the History of Modernity and in its Present -- 9 An Unsettled Past as a Political Resource -- 10 Injustice at Both Ends: Pre- and Post-apartheid Literary Approaches to Injustice, Sentiment and Humanism in the Work of C. Louis Leipoldt, Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela and the Film Invictus -- 11 The Student Movement in Chile 2011-12: Rearming the Critique of Capitalism -- 12 Indignation and Claims for Economic Sovereignty in Europe and the Americas: Renewing the Project of Control over Production -- Notes on the Contributors -- Index