The Natural Law political ethic has at times been considered as something vague and ill-defined; in this article the author outlines a way of analyzing the presentday political and ideological reality from the view-point of Natural Law. To this end he studies the relations that can arise between permissiveness in general and permissiveness in the juridical context, and then considers the implications of these relations in the Law-Morality binomial, together with the different solutions put forward in the course of history by Relativism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Marxism and by the Natural Law; finally he makes a special analysis of the criticisms that have been made of the principles of the Natural Law.
This article begins with a brief terminological clarification regarding the meaning of the term freedom of education and then proceeds to analyze the context of political philosophy, that is the relations that exist between Authority and the common citizen. It follows from this analysis that freedom of education is a special guarantee that ensures the survival of freedom in general. Afterwards the author proceeds to study the different approaches which several Marxist groups have followed with regard to the question of education in Spain, and to carry out a particular analysis of the document An Alternative for Education. The author's critique of this document is accompanied by that critique which comes from the radical Marxist wing. The main Marxist attitudes with regard to this topic can be placed within the framework of a global strategy of Gramscian origin which constitutes an attempt to conquer political power by means of a war of positions within the boundaries of the institutions which make up the civil society. In this sense, the school is a particularly favorable meeting-ground. The critique of this strategy gives rise to a new meaning of social freedom and of the defense of a Society which is at least as strong as the State. The author happens to be in favor of the multiplication of social institutions and of the benefits that derive from diversity, and sees this as asure guarantee of freedom for all citizens within society.
This article is an analysis of the topic of violence as treated in the writings of Marx which are anterior to 1845, that is, those which correspond to his earlier period. The results of this study are compared with those which derive from an analysis of the same topic as treated in Marx's later works. Whereas in the writings of Marx which postdate 1845 violence is a topic which derives from others as a result of the characteristics which historical evolution adopts according to the essential postulates of historical materialism, in his earlier writings the topic of violence presents itself in a more unpredictable, more romantic and less elaborate manner. This type of violence is manifested in Marx's writings which appeared before 1845 by his verbal virulence: «filthy selfishness», «immorality», «monstrosity», «helotism of the workers and of the capitalists», «universal exploitation of the social being of man», etc . The topic of violence as «revolutionary indignation» is much clearer in Marx the young man, precisely because his system lacks at this moment those «Marxist» postulates which pretend to be a scientific lesson of history. When, after 1845, Marx comes upon what he believes to be the scientific key of history, his tones lose their virulence: there still remains violence, but it is violence which will be brought about by history in successive situations. This violence will not be the key of revolution, since revolution, according to Marx, presents itself as an inevitable evolution. The violence found in the earlier writings of Marx -which is easier to understand than the later type- explains the reason why, since several years ago, these earlier works find a wider audience within intellectual and political milieux which desire to «reconquer» Marx, taking away the monopoly enjoyed at the present moment by the Soviet Communists.
This article begins with a brief terminological clarification regarding the meaning ofthe term freedom of education and then proceeds to analyze the context of politica1 philosophy, that isthe re1ations that exist between Authority and the common citizen. It follows from this anaIysis that freedomof education is a specia1 guarantee that ensures the survival of freedom in general. Mterwards the author proceeds to study the different approathes which severa! Marxist groups have followed with regard to the question of. education jn Spain, and to carry out a particular anaIysis of the document An . Alternative lor Education. The author's critique of this document is accompanied by that critique which comes from the radical Marxist wing. The main Marxist attitudes with regard. to this topic can be placed within the framework of a global strategy of Gramscian origin which constitutes an attempt to conquer politica1 power by mesns of a war of positions within the boundaries of the mstitutions which make up the civil society. Inthis sense, the school is a particularly favorable meeting-ground. The critique of this strategy gives rise to a new meaning of social freedom and of the defense of a Society which is at least as strong as the State. The author hap~ tobe in favor of the multiplication of social institutions and of the benefits that derive from diversity, and sees this as asure guarantee of freedom for all citizens within society.
This artiele is an analysis of the topie of violenee as treated in the writings of Marx whieh are anterior to 1845, that is, those whieh eorrespond to his earlier periodo The results of this study are eompared with those whieh derive from an analysis of the same topie as treated in Marx's later works. Whereas in the writings of Marx whieh postdate 1845 violenee is a topie whieh derives from others as a result of the eharaeteristies whieh historieal evolution adopts aeeording to the essential postulates of historieal materia-lism, in his earlier writings the topie of violenee presents itself in a more unpredietable, more romantie and less elaborate manner. This type of violenee is manifested in Marx's writings whieh appeared before 1845 by his verbal virulenee: .filthy selfishness», «immorality», «monstruosity», .helotism of the workers and of the eapitalists-, «universal exploitation of the social being of mano, etc . The topie of violenee as «revolutionary indignation» is mueh elearer in Marx the young man, preeisely beeause his system laeks at this moment those .Marx;st. postulates whieh pretend to be a seientifie lesson of history. When, a,fter 1845, Marx comes upon what he believes to be the seientifie key of history, his tones lose their virulenee: there still remains violenee, but it is violenee whieh will be brought about by history in suecessive situations. This violenee will not be the key of revolution, sinee revolution, aeeording to Marx, presents itself as an inevitable evolution. The violenee found in the earlier writings of Marx -whieh is easier to understand than the later type- explains the reason why, sinee several years ago, these ea'rlier works find a wider audienee within intelleetual and politieal milieux which desire to «reeonquer- Marx, taking away the monopoly enjoyed at the present moment by the Soviet Communists.
lhe Natural Law political ethic has at times been considered as something vague and ill-defined; in this article the author outlines a way of analyzing the presentday political and ideological reality from the view-point of Natural Law. lo this end he studies the relations that can arise between permissiveness in general and permissiveness in the juridical context, and then considers the implications of these relations in the Law-Morality binomial, together with the different solutions put forward in the course of history by Relativism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Marxism and by the Natural Law; finally he makes a special analysis of the criticisms that have been made of the principIes of the Natural Law.
