Suchergebnisse

"This book introduces Marx as a political philosopher to the 21st-century reader. Comprehensive, accessible, and engaging in equal parts, it presents an unconventional reinterpretation of class struggle. Maffettone sheds light on Marx the individual, the intellectual, the political leader and icon, and links his lasting legacy to contemporary theories of justice. As one of the most prominent intellectual presences in history, Marx should not be read as a theorist of communism and socialism. Rather, he was, remains today and for the foreseeable future a radical critic of liberalism and capitalism. Within this innovative interpretive framework, he must be kept absolutely present in the analysis of contemporary politics. Under such premise, the volume explores Marx's life, his thoughts, his most important writings, his works on historical materialism and economic theory with a focus on concepts of labour, commerce, capitalism and surplus. The book also includes discussions on the Manuscripts of 1844, the Manifesto of 1848, a brief critical summary of Capital. A truly definitive work on the "phenomenon" that is Marx, this critical introduction will be of immense interest to scholars and researchers of political science, modern history, cultural studies, social anthropology, political philosophy, critical theory, justice, and economics, as well as appeal to the general reader."

Maffettone defends the liberal thesis in the light of some religious objections via three arguments. To advance this threefold argument, he begins by stressing the difference between traditional and contemporary liberalism. Contemporary liberalism is here conceived in terms of Rawlsian political liberalism and confronted with 'comprehensive' doctrines. He defines and compares the two broad notions of liberalism and secularism. He concludes the argument that liberalism doesn't need to be secular to provide an acceptable normative framework for contemporary politics. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractA comprehensive ideal of global justice is not yet theoretically justifiable: nonetheless, it does not deserve the scepticism :(commonly expressed by) many statists express towards it. To create a kind of continuity between global justice –'Cosmopolis'– and interstate justice –'Leviathan'– a third, 'Liberal' option is proposed. The statist argument is presented through a discussion of Thomas Nagel's position on global justice. The cosmopolitan argument is presented through a discussion of Amartya Sen's overall vision of justice. The liberal view, modeled on Rawls' political philosophy, "proposes" that the right cannot consist in a mere realization of the good. Liberals that respect the 'priority of right' believe that morality has to be different from politics. By bypassing institutionalism through moralism, cosmopolitans contradict the priority of the right. Contrary to cosmopolitans, the author maintains that the only moral source of global justice compatible with the priority of the right consists in a duty to protect life in case of 'urgency'. This duty is not purely humanitarian – as statists would have it – and captures the ethical appeal of cosmopolitanism.Policy Implications
 The core problem of global justice is the lack of basic rights to security and subsistence. As such, obligations derived from the duty of justice based on urgency are binding.
 The duty of justice can be interpreted through the positions of statism or cosmopolitanism.
 The distinction between cosmopolitanism and statism is not only interesting from the point of view of political philosophy but also has a significant tradition within the context of international law and the interpretation of its main sources. While the UN Charter has a generally statist approach, (starting with) Article 2 (that strongly defends) the territorial integrity of states is strongly depended the discipline compromising humanitarian law as introduced in and human rights is largely inspired by cosmopolitanism.
 Taking the middle ground between statism and cosmopolitanism into account, based on Rawls' central idea of the 'priority of right', global politics requires more demanding norms than those dictated by humanitarianism. However, global politics of a less demanding type than the ones recommended by a cosmopolitan egalitarian approach.