Stefano Petrucciani

La prima parte del saggio si sofferma sul conflitto e sulle possibili con­ver­genze tra il concetto di individualismo e quello di socialismo: sebbene sia­no stati spesso pensati in contraddizione, in­dividualismo e socialismo pos­so­no anche essere visti come due concetti sinergici e com­ple­mentari. Ciò è pos­sibile se si assume la validità della tesi, sostenuta da autori come Guyau e Kropotkin, secondo la quale nell’autentico sviluppo dell’individuo non c’è posto per la so­praf­fazione ai danni dell’altro. La seconda parte del­l’ar­ticolo si sofferma sul rapporto fra in­dividualismo e modernità, mostrando co­me la modernità sia stata intesa sia come l’epoca della in­divi­dua­liz­za­zio­ne, sia come il tempo della omologazione massificante; e si conclude con l’i­dea che la nostra epoca sia caratterizzata piuttosto da molte forme di pseu­do-individualismo.The first part of the essay revolves around the conflict and the possible con­vergence between the concept of individualism and the one of socialism: al­though often thought of as contradictory to each other, individualism and so­cialism can be also considered as complementary concepts. This be­comes possible if we adopt the thesis, supported by authors like Guyan and Kropoktin, according to which the very development of the individual is in­compatible with treating others with disrespect. The second part of the es­say focuses on the relationship between individualism and modernity, try­ing to show how modernity has been understood both as an age of in­di­vi­dualization and as an age of standardization. The conclusion is that our age is rather characterized by many forms of pseudo-individualism

La prima parte del saggio si sofferma sul conflitto e sulle possibili convergenze tra il concetto di individualismo e quello di socialismo: sebbene siano stati spesso pensati in contraddizione, individualismo e socialismo possono anche essere visti come due concetti sinergici e complementari. Ciň č possibile se si assume la validitÀ della tesi, sostenuta da autori come Guyau e Kropotkin, secondo la quale nell'autentico sviluppo dell'individuo non c'č posto per la sopraffazione ai danni dell'altro. La seconda parte dell'articolo si sofferma sul rapporto fra individualismo e modernitÀ, mostrando come la modernitÀ sia stata intesa sia come l'epoca della individualizzazione, sia come il tempo della omologazione massificante; e si conclude con l'idea che la nostra epoca sia caratterizzata piuttosto da molte forme di pseudo-individualismo.

Although widely present in the work of Marx and in Marxist writings, the concept of ruling class has never been fully clarified as to its meaning and implications. This essay thus seeks to point out some of the problems this concept entails, which have also emerged in the prolonged Marxist debate around it. After examining the way Marx and Engels depict the relation between the ruling class and the State, the main developments of the concept of ruling class in Marxist thought are analyzed. The article begins by a discussion of Ralph Miliband’s perspective. It then examines the proposals for a transformation of the Marxist concept of ruling class advanced by Jacques Bidet, Gérard Duménil and Dominique Lévy. After a brief comparison between the Marxist theses and Michael Mann’s theory of power, the article goes on to discuss the way in which the relation between ruling class and political institutions is transformed in the neo-liberalist era : the emergence of a global statuality, lacking in democratic legitimization, constitutes a fertile terrain for the coming to power of a transnational capitalist class, which controls political decisions in a much more direct way than in the traditional nation-state.

The aim of the article is to develop some considerations about the ways of reading Marx in the twentieth first century. The author claims that what is actually necessary is a completely new approach to the Marxian texts. Today Marx has to be red as a great classic of political and philosophical thought, and this means that it is necessary to discuss and to criticize the Marxian arguments with the same accuracy which is needed to read a page of Aristotle or of Kant. This means further that it is very important also to discover the main aporias in the Marxian thought ; and the author tries to show which kind of problems we meet if we confront seriously with some fundamental Marxian themes as the theory of history, the theory of the revolution, the labour theory of value. Marxian thinking is not a perfect and coherent construction. But the contribution of Marx to critical thought is in any case important because only Marx has a so clear view of the fundamental antinomy of modernity : the paradox of a form of domination which is at the same time based on the fundamental assumption of the equality of all men