AVELINO, Gilvanildo Oliveira. "Anarchisms and governmentality"

Thursday 25 August 2011
by  R.C.
popularity : 9%

Anarquismos e governamentalidade, DOUTORADO EM CIÊNCIAS SOCIAIS

Tese apresentada à Banca Examinadora
como exigência parcial para obtenção do
título de Doutor em Ciências Sociais
(área de concentração: Ciência Política),
pela Pontifícia Universidade Católica de
São Paulo, sob orientação do Prof.
Doutor Edson Passetti.
Co-orientação: Prof. Doutor Daniel
Colson, Université Jean Monnet (Saint-
Etienne, França).

PONTIFÍCIA UNIVERSIDADE CATÓLICA DE SÃO PAULO, PUC-SP. SÃO PAULO
2008.

This work endeavors to demonstrate the existence of a problem "anarchy and governmentality," described as a critical position on power. On the one hand, the analysis of government is addressed through its practices; on the other, technological terms are used to examine political comprehensibility and power relations.

It begins with the inaugural configuration presented by Proudhon, whose analyzis of government highlights the rationale of power in the field of political economy. It recaptures the thought of
Malatesta on the problems of domination, organization and government,
distancing his views on those themes from liberal and Marxist conceptions.

For Malatesta, the main problem in the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, was the principle on which organizations are based and their relation with domination.

It suggests another approach of anarchist revolution, different from the Bakuninist ethos and the model of the French Revolution. It considers the agonic dimension in anarchism, which always considers dangerous government activities. It studies propaganda by the deed, its evolution towards anarcho-terrorism and Malatesta’s views on the uses of violence and his opposition to the principle of terror. It considers the labor movement and syndicalism, suggesting that pauperism is the reality on which
rests political subversion. It offers a new look at the problems of World War One and of fascism, through the controversy that opposed Kropotkin and Malatesta, and the latter’s critique of democracy and dictatorship.


navigation titre