Search

There are several conceptions and collective practices in the agrarian space, such as the modern-industrial, libertarian anarchist, communal, peasant collectives, and others. The peasant collective, the main theme of this article, is essentially family and is realized, above all, from the division of labor, made according to gender and age of family members. The peasant family collective is not apart from the general process of social relations of production, and unlike idealized conceptions, it reproduces structural and internal inequalities, contradictions and conflicts within the family nucleus. The article takes a specific approach to the peasantry theme considering the existence of the peasant collective, built from unequal and hierarchical family relationships. The research information and data were accessed mainly from various studies carried out on the peasantry, when information and data were collected, which allowed a unique approach on the theme of the peasantry, that is, the existence and verification of the peasant collective raised from the hierarchical and unequal family division of work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I consider the main Marxist objections to Honneth's model of critical social theory, and Honneth's key objections to Marx-inspired models. I then seek to outline a rapprochement between the two positions, by showing how Honneth's normative concept of recognition is not antithetical to functionalist arguments, but in fact contains a social-theoretical dimension, the idea that social reproduction and social evolution revolve around struggles around the interpretation of core societal norms. By highlighting the social theoretical side of recognition, one can outline a model of critical social theory that in fact corresponds to the descriptive and normative features outlined by Marx himself. However, the price of this rapprochement for Honnethian critical theory is a greater emphasis on the division of labour as the central mechanism of social reproduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Belonging to the historical context of the instrumental rationality of the capitalism, the growing integration of science and technique has been translated into an exponential growth of the technologies of information and communication. As an essential common denominator, these ones combine energy, information and knowledge, which used to be polarized in the individual and collective action of the production factor work. On another side, the globalization, through its structuring effects, has become a more and more visible reality, on social and time-space areas at all levels: local, regional, national and world level. The social plasticity of this process can be very well observed when you consider the required capacities and qualifications of the production factor work. You also can observe it, if you analyse the structure of a new model of production, consummation, change and distribution of analytic-symbolic goods and services. From the time-space of the work's organization emerge new demands and challenges, on what concerns the professional profiles, the accomplishment of tasks and functions, the process of leadership and the process of decision making. As main sub-systems of any organisation, individuals and groups progressively become energy, knowledge and information processors, only concerned on analytic-symbolic goods and services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]