How 'dynasty' became a modern global concept : intellectual histories of sovereignty and property

The modern concept of ‘dynasty’ is a politically-motivated modern intellectual invention. For many advocates of a strong sovereign nation-state across the nineteenth and early twentieth century, in France, Germany, and Japan, the concept helped in visualizing the nation-state as a primordial entity sealed by the continuity of birth and blood, indeed by the perpetuity of sovereignty. Hegel’s references to ‘dynasty’, read with Marx’s critique, further show how ‘dynasty’ encoded the intersection of sovereignty and big property, indeed the coming into self-consciousness of their mutual identification-in-difference in the age of capitalism. Imaginaries about ‘dynasty’ also connected national sovereignty with patriarchal authority. European colonialism helped globalize the concept in the non-European world; British India offers an exemplar of ensuing debates. The globalization of the abstraction of ‘dynasty’ was ultimately bound to the globalization of capitalist-colonial infrastructures of production, circulation, violence, and exploitation. Simultaneously, colonized actors, like Indian peasant/‘tribal’ populations, brought to play alternate precolonial Indian-origin concepts of collective regality, expressed through terms like ‘rajavamshi’ and ‘Kshatriya’. These concepts nourished new forms of democracy in modern India. Global intellectual histories can thus expand political thought today by provincializing and deconstructing Eurocentric political vocabularies and by recuperating subaltern models of collective and polyarchic power.PostprintPeer reviewe

A economia clássica contra os fatos ou Sismondi entre os ricardianos The classical economics against the facts or Sismondi among the Ricardians

O artigo trata do debate ocorrido entre Sismondi e os economistas ricardianos, na primeira metade do século dezenove, a respeito do equilíbrio dos mercados, do papel da competição e dos efeitos da maquinaria nas sociedades industriais. A seção inicial reconstitui os principais termos do discurso crítico de Sismondi direcionado à ortodoxia clássica. A seguir, detalham-se as respostas elaboradas por McCulloch e Torrens em defesa da livre concorrência, do caráter ilimitado da demanda e do avanço da mecanização na atividade produtiva. A terceira seção considera a argumentação posterior de Sismondi na qual ele reitera sua teoria das crises de superprodução a partir de uma abordagem histórica do capitalismo. Ao final, procede-se a uma breve avaliação da herança ricardiana à economia política em vista da controvérsia examinada.<br>This paper deals with the debate which opposed Sismondi and the Ricardian economists, in the first half of the nineteenth century, on the equilibrium of markets, the role of competition and the effects of machinery in industrial societies. At the initial section, the main content of Sismondi's critical rhetoric toward the classical orthodoxy is reconstituted. After that, the replies of McCulloch and Colonel Torrens are detailed, specially their defense of free competition and the unlimited character of demand, as well as of the inroads of machinery in the productive process. The third part considers Sismondi's rejoinder when he reinforces his theory of a general glut from a historical perspective of capitalism. In the end, and having in sight this particular controversy, a brief assessment of Ricardo's legacy to political economy is made