Suchergebnisse

In this article, I argue that Marx's philosophy does not commit us to Worrell and Krier's claim that a post-capitalist society will be a social formation in which all social relations appear unmediated to their agents. Quite the opposite is true: given his Hegelian background, which Marx never gives up, social relations are in principle to be mediated by the results of human productive acts, and although a socialist society no longer is mediated by capital, it still cannot be thought without a legal, ethical, and political form of these relations. Those meditations (which Worrell and Krier do not separate clearly from social-economic aspects) will be universal. Accordingly, the authors' claim that Marx is opposed to the concept of the universal is baseless. In addition, I demonstrate that Worrell and Krier's interpretation of Marx's concept of alienation as a romantic concept is misguided and, instead, that we would do well to focus on the concept of private property. Finally, I show that they do not properly grasp Marx's concepts of democracy and communism.

The thesis of my remarks is that Piketty's overall position understands capital as something that exists within society, whereas I submit (on the grounds of Marx's theory of society) that capital is the main category that determines the existence of capitalist society. Put differently, capital in the form of valorized labor determines the specific social form of capitalist society. Whereas Piketty's position is built upon a positivistic concept of capital, I argue that capital is not 'some-thing'; rather, capital is the central category of capitalist social reproduction. Capital, in other words, must describe the functioning of a social totality as a whole and cannot be related to a single aspect of it. Accordingly, though the focus on inequality is important, it tends to hide the real social organization of capitalist society.

Financing for peacebuilding has increased significantly and there are signs that it may continue to grow in the next few years. However, aid for peacebuilding is also characterised by problematic trends, including the existence of 'aid orphans', and volatility and delays of allocations. In order to reverse these trends and sustain higher levels of financing for peacebuilding, a broader concept of aid effectiveness is required that is better adapted to countries affected by conflict and fragility. Much of the debate has been focused on the advantages of pooled funds, but there is a need for a mix of aid instruments to achieve aid effectiveness.