Fonte: Marx, Karl. Manuscritos econômicos-filosóficos. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2010. p. 80.
Assinale a opção que corresponde à afirmação de Karl Marx acima.
Selecione os filtros para encontrar suas questões de concursos e clique no botão abaixo para filtrar e resolver.
Nada por aqui
Zygmunt Bauman (1925-2017), sociólogo autor de debates teóricos sobre a pós-modernidade ou, como ele denomina, a modernidade líquida, faz uma análise crítica ao que ele chamou de “amizade Facebook”, própria desses tempos de redes sociais-virtuais e das novas tecnologias de comunicação e informação. Em entrevista concedida ao projeto Fronteiras do Pensamento no ano de 2011, que é parte da programação do Café Filosófico CPFL – tal entrevista de Bauman é facilmente encontrada no site de compartilhamentos de vídeos Youtube –, este sociólogo conta que um “viciado em Facebook” se gabou que tinha feito em um dia, apenas, 500novas amizades, nesta referida rede social-virtual. Bauman retrucou, no entanto, dizendo que ele, na época com 86 anos, não tinha conseguido ter tantos amigos durante toda a sua vida. Porém, Bauman afirma que, provavelmente, os significados de “amigo” que ele e o referido “viciado em Facebook” possuem não são os mesmos, mas são, na verdade, bem diferentes.
Sobre os significados dessa “amizade Facebook” e da concepção de “amigo” que Bauman aponta ser diferente, é correto dizer que
Partido Comunista, 1848, elaborado por Karl Marx e Friedrich Engels:
“[...] A necessidade de mercados sempre crescentes para seus produtos impele a burguesia a conquistar todo o globo terrestre. A burguesia precisa estabelecer-se, explorar e criar vínculos em todos os lugares.”;
“Pela exploração do mercado mundial, a burguesia imprime um caráter cosmopolita à produção e ao consumo em todos os países. [...]. Ao invés das necessidades antigas, satisfeitas por produtos do próprio país, temos novas demandas supridas por produtos dos países mais distantes, de climas mais diversos. No lugar da tradicional autossuficiência e do isolamento das nações surge uma circulação universal, uma interdependência geral entre os países. E isso tanto na produção material quanto na intelectual.”;
“[...] Sob a ameaça da ruína, a burguesia obriga todas as nações a adotarem o modo capitalista de produção; força-os a introduzir a assim chamada civilização, quer dizer, a se tornar burgueses. Em suma, ela cria um mundo a sua imagem e semelhança”.
MARX, Karl e ENGELS, Friedrich. Manifesto do Partido Comunista, 1848.
Ao tratar da expansão da classe burguesa pelo
mundo, Marx e Engels, em 1848, lançaram luz sobre
um fenômeno que apenas iria ser bastante estudado
e debatido pelo mundo a partir do fim do século XX
– quase 150 anos depois. Partindo dos trechos
acima, é correto afirmar que Marx e Engels já
haviam analisado o recente debate teórico a respeito
da(s)
The World Might Be Running Low on Americans
The world has been stricken by scarcity. Our post-pandemic pantry has run bare of gasoline, lumber, microchips, chicken wings, ketchup packets, cat food, used cars and Chickfil-A sauce. Like the Great Toilet Paper Scare of 2020, though, many of these shortages are the consequence of near-term, Covid-related disruptions. Soon enough there will again be a chicken wing in every pot and more than enough condiments to go with it.
But there is one recently announced potential shortage that should give Americans great reason for concern. It is a shortfall that the nation has rarely had to face, and nobody quite knows how things will work when we begin to run out.
I speak, of course, of all of us: The world may be running low on Americans — most crucially, tomorrow’s working-age, childbearing, idea-generating, community-building young Americans. Late last month, the Census Bureau released the first results from its 2020 count, and the numbers confirmed what demographers have been warning of for years: The United States is undergoing “demographic stagnation,” transitioning from a relatively fast-growing country of young people to a slow-growing, older nation.
Many Americans might consider slow growth a blessing. Your city could already be packed to the gills, the roads clogged with traffic and housing prices shooting through the roof. Why do we need more folks? And, anyway, aren’t we supposed to be conserving resources on a planet whose climate is changing? Yet demographic stagnation could bring its own high costs, among them a steady reduction in dynamism, productivity and a slowdown in national and individual prosperity, even a diminishment of global power.
And there is no real reason we have to endure such a transition, not even an environmental one. Even if your own city is packed like tinned fish, the U.S. overall can accommodate millions more people. Most of the counties in the U.S. are losing working-age adults; if these declines persist, local economies will falter, tax bases will dry up, and localgovernments will struggle to maintain services. Growth is not just an option but a necessity — it’s not just that we can afford to have more people, it may be that we can’t afford not to.
But how does a country get more people? There are two ways: Make them, and invite them in. Increasing the first is relatively difficult — birthrates are declining across the world, and while family-friendly policies may be beneficial for many reasons, they seem to do little to get people to have more babies. On the second method, though, the United States enjoys a significant advantage — people around the globe have long been clamoring to live here, notwithstanding our government’s recent hostility to foreigners. This fact presents a relatively simple policy solution to a vexing long-term issue: America needs more people, and the world has people to send us. All we have to do is let more of them in.
For decades, the United States has enjoyed a significant economic advantage over other industrialized nations — our population was growing faster, which suggested a more youthful and more prosperous future. But in the last decade, American fertility has gone down. At the same time, there has been a slowdown in immigration.
The Census Bureau’s latest numbers show that these trends are catching up with us. As of April 1, it reports that there were 331,449,281 residents in the United States, an increase of just 7.4 percent since 2010 — the second-smallest decade-long growth rate ever recorded, only slightly ahead of the 7.3 percent growth during the Depression-struck 1930s.
The bureau projects that sometime next decade — that is, in the 2030s — Americans over 65 will outnumber Americans younger than 18 for the first time in our history. The nation will cross the 400-million population mark sometime in the late 2050s, but by then we’ll be quite long in the tooth — about half of Americans will be over 45, and one fifth will be older than 85.
The idea that more people will lead to greater prosperity may sound counterintuitive — wouldn’t more people just consume more of our scarce resources? Human history generally refutes this simple intuition. Because more people usually make for more workers, more companies, and most fundamentally, more new ideas for pushing humanity forward, economic studies suggest that population growth is often an important catalyst of economic growth.
A declining global population might be beneficial in some ways; fewer people would most likely mean less carbon emission, for example — though less than you might think, since leading climate models already assume slowing population growth over the coming century. And a declining population could be catastrophic in other ways. In a recent paper, Chad Jones, an economist at Stanford, argues that a global population decline could reduce the fundamental innovativeness of humankind. The theory issimple: Without enough people, the font of new ideas dries up, Jones argues; without new ideas, progress could be imperiled.
There are more direct ways that slow growth can hurt us. As a country’s population grows heavy with retiring older people and light with working younger people, you get a problem of too many eaters and too few cooks. Programs for seniors like Social Security and Medicare may suffer as they become dependent on ever-fewer working taxpayers for funding. Another problem is the lack of people to do all the work. For instance, experts predict a major shortage of health care workers, especially home care workers, who will be needed to help the aging nation.
In a recent report, Ali Noorani, the chief executive of the National Immigration Forum, an immigration-advocacy group, and a co-author, Danilo Zak, say that increasing legal immigration by slightly more than a third each year would keep America’s ratio of working young people to retired old people stable over the next four decades.
As an immigrant myself, I have to confess I find much of the demographic argument in favor of greater immigration quite a bit too anodyne. Immigrants bring a lot more to the United States than simply working-age bodies for toiling in pursuit of greater economic growth. I also believe that the United States’ founding idea of universal equality will never be fully realized until we recognize that people outside our borders are as worthy of our ideals as those here through an accident of birth.
[N]ão existe contraposição maior à exegese e justificação puramente estética do mundo [...] do que a doutrina cristã, a qual é e quer ser somente moral, e com seus padrões absolutos, já com sua veracidade de Deus, por exemplo, desterra a arte, toda arte, ao reino da mentira –isto é, nega-a, reprova-a, condena-a.”
NIETZSCHE, F. O nascimento da tragédia, ou helenismo e pessimismo. –“Tentativa de autocrítica”. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 1992, p. 19.
Leia atentamente o seguinte excerto:
“A liberdade do homem em sociedade consiste em não estar submetido a nenhum outro poder legislativo senão àquele estabelecido no corpo político mediante consentimento, nem sob o domínio de qualquer vontade ou sob a restrição de qualquer lei afora as que promulgar o poder legislativo, segundo o encargo a este confiado”.
LOCKE, John. Dois tratados sobre o governo. Martins Fontes, 1998, p. 401-402. Adaptado.
Considerando a definição de liberdade do homem em sociedade, de John Locke, atente para as seguintes afirmações:
I. A concepção de liberdade do homem em sociedade de Locke elimina totalmente o direito de cada um de agir conforme a sua vontade.
II. A concepção de liberdade do homem em sociedade de Locke consiste em viver sob a restrição das leis promulgadas pelo poder legislativo.
III. A concepção de liberdade do homem em sociedade de Locke consiste em viver segundo uma regra permanente e comum que todos devem obedecer.
É correto o que se afirma em