Auf ein Miniaturbild klicken, um zu Google Books zu gelangen.
Lädt ... Liberalism: A Counter-History (Original 2006; 2014. Auflage)von Domenico Losurdo (Autor), Gregory Elliott (Übersetzer)
Werk-InformationenLiberalism: A Counter-History von Domenico Losurdo (2006)
Keine Lädt ...
Melde dich bei LibraryThing an um herauszufinden, ob du dieses Buch mögen würdest. Keine aktuelle Diskussion zu diesem Buch. Por meio de uma surpreendente metodologia de pesquisa, manejada com maestria, e uma investigação histórica e filosófica inédita e corajosa, o professor Losurdo vira ao avesso a história do liberalismo convencionalmente divulgada e ensinada. Os resultados que o leitor poderá verificar neste lançamento são impactantes e polêmicos. Domenico Losurdo é professor titular de História da Filosofia na Universidade de Urbino (Itália), reconhecidamente um dos grandes pensadores mundiais da atualidade. Autor de mais de 20 livros e de mais de uma centena de outras participações como coordenador de livros e artigos, sempre com grande repercussão em toda a Europa e agora também no Brasil.Dentre seus livros traduzidos em vários idiomas, temos: La comunità, la morte, l`Occidente: Heidegger e l`ideologia della guerra (Torino 2001); Hegel e la libertà dei moderni (Roma 1999); Democracia ou bonapartismo (Torino 1993, já traduzido no Brasil); Nietzche, il ribelle aristocrático (Torino 2004), dentre outros. Zeige 2 von 2 keine Rezensionen | Rezension hinzufügen
In this definitive historical investigation, Italian author and philosopher Domenico Losurdo argues that from the outset liberalism, as a philosophical position and ideology, has been bound up with the most illiberal of policies: slavery, colonialism, genocide, racism and snobbery. Narrating an intellectual history running from the eighteenth through to the twentieth centuries, Losurdo examines the thought of preeminent liberal writers such as Locke, Burke, Tocqueville, Constant, Bentham, and Sieyès, revealing the inner contradictions of an intellectual position that has exercised a formative influence on today’s politics. Among the dominant strains of liberalism, he discerns the counter-currents of more radical positions, lost in the constitution of the modern world order. Keine Bibliotheksbeschreibungen gefunden. |
Aktuelle DiskussionenKeineBeliebte Umschlagbilder
Google Books — Lädt ... GenresMelvil Decimal System (DDC)320.51Social sciences Political Science Political Science Political ideologies LiberalismKlassifikation der Library of Congress [LCC] (USA)BewertungDurchschnitt:
Bist das du?Werde ein LibraryThing-Autor. |
Will put you off citing 17th/18th/19th century liberals for life. Reveals the ways liberalism's supposed commitment to freedom has been qualified to justify keeping a large portion of the population in slavery or servitude - with very few speaking out against slavery, seeing it as simply people disposing freely of their property. Shows how quite a few liberals at the time hated the French Revolution for going too far in empowering too many people, instead of following the example of England and restricting power to a privileged few.
Also notes how the defence of slavery required clearly "anti-liberal" policies - the maintenance of slavery was more important than, for example, white people's rights to distribute abolitionist pamphlets or even speak about it, and interesting also more important than slave owner's rights to give their slaves an education. This isn't meant as a "poor slaveowners!" thing, just showing that even the "liberty" defence of slavery was really just a fudge and maintenance of the economic order of slavery was the key priority above all else. It's a useful example to think about with other systems of domination that seemingly restrict the powerful's "freedom" but only in order to better dominate the oppressed.
I'll quote one astonishingly vile thing Losurdo mentions, I'm spoiler tagging it because it's one of the most racist things I've ever read
In this way, whites, who remained at the top of the social hierarchy as directors of production, could dispose of blacks as auxiliary instruments of production, or slaves proper, who would precisely be the anthropomorphic monkeys: However extraordinary, however immoral this idea might seem at first sight, I have reflected on it at length, and can find no other way in a great nation, especially in countries that are very hot or very cold, to reconcile the directors of works with the simple instruments of labour.
(halfway through) He seems to be suggesting a key difference between liberalism and radicalism, even when liberals seem to have some sort of radical view, is that radicalism completely legitimises the actions of the oppressed from below while liberalism can only ever see change coming from above.
I don't like that the translator regularly uses the term "redskins" even outside of quoted/paraphrased stuff - like it's a kind of offensive term and even if you're trying to show the horrifying white supremacist attitudes of the time it's not necessary outside of direct quotes... just seems a pretty big misstep imo, which is a shame. ( )