首页> 外文期刊>Journal of economic issues >The 'Practical Reason' of Reformers: Proudhon vs. Institutionalism
【24h】

The 'Practical Reason' of Reformers: Proudhon vs. Institutionalism

机译:改革者的“实践理性”:蒲鲁东与制度主义

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Besides the common faith in the effect of collective action to change economic institutions and, above all, the distribution of income, the most remarkable similarity between Proudhon's theory and old institutionalism resides in their epistemology. In both cases, we find applications of some sort of classical "practical reason" approach to social order. The former tends to be centered on the idea of justice, the latter on democracy. The major difference is that law tends to be instrumental for institutionalists, while for Proudhon, the law is based on morals and is an expression of justice. Thus, institutionalism accepts public law as a mechanism of allocation and sees the state as an important factor in the enforcement of rights. On the contrary, Proudhon opposed any form of political control and based his "revolution" on social law.
机译:除了对改变经济制度的集体行动效果的普遍信念,尤其是对收入分配的信念外,蒲鲁东理论和旧制度主义之间最显着的相似之处在于它们的认识论。在这两种情况下,我们都发现了某种经​​典的“实践理性”方法在社会秩序中的应用。前者往往以正义为中心,后者则以民主为中心。主要的区别是法律倾向于对制度主义者有用,而对于蒲鲁东来说,法律是基于道德的,是正义的体现。因此,制度主义接受公法作为分配的机制,并把国家视为行使权利的重要因素。相反,蒲鲁东反对任何形式的政治控制,并将其“革命”基于社会法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号