The Contemporary Effects

The Contemporary Effects

Nildo Viana *

The concept of contemporary is widely used but poorly defined. Its use is usually descriptive, chronological, without having a theoretical basis. Such use is marked by a weakness typical of arbitrary classifications and superficial periodization, which can only be overcome through a theoretical foundation. To overcome this a theoretical basis is necessary. The objective of this paper is precisely to contribute to the constitution of this theoretical base and from there to reconsider the concept of contemporaneity.

Before that, however, it must clarify the difference between the concepts of modern and contemporary. Modernity is a broad concept, which refers to the historical period of validity of modern society. Thus, modern society is the same as capitalist society and modernity the same as capitalism. The contemporary term, in turn, refers, in the ordinary sense, it is the same time as talking, expressing the present time. But the problem is that he understands what is the definition of "current time". From this discussion it is possible to point to some of the determinations and characteristics of contemporaneity, including the effects of contemporary, especially presenteeism, a perception of reality that ends up being a mental cage of individuals who have difficulty in seeing the historicity of his time and hegemonic conceptions in this historic moment.

The problem of periodization

In school history, still uses the periodization marked by "ages": Old, Middle, Modern and Contemporary. This periodization, as well as poor language and pre-theoretical, does not explain much, and homogenizing the social and spatial differences taking as a criterion a little grounded temporal boundaries and taking the case of Western Europe. Other periodizations did not go beyond the superficiality and social appear, such as those that are based in the institutional political history to periodize the story of a country.

However, the periodization of historiography deserves a discussion, that not everyone who is concerned with the theoretical and methodological issues of this discipline is occupied or gave due importance. When Van Der Pot stated that "the division of history into periods is the quintessence of the whole conception of history" (quoted. Dujovne, 1959, p. 271), was exaggerating, but at the same time, warning of a necessary discussion and underachieved among historians, precisely those who are dedicated to the study of history. It will occupy in the pre-scientific timeline, preview historiográfica, pre-Marxist, as denoted by the Besselar (1979) as "mythological" and "Bible". We also may not, for reasons of space, a detailed analysis of several other periodization, but only to refute the most common, periodization quatripartite ages. The almost non-existent discussion on the issue of human history periodization in contemporary times is something curious and shows how the historiography is a time of intellectual lethargy.

The distinction made by Van Der Pot, following terminology Wildeband between periodization founded in nomothetic and ideographic divisions, serves for a general observation. The periodization ideographic is not based on a law of history, which is precisely what characterizes the nomothetic periodization (Dujovne, 1959). The first are the basis of arbitrary and empiricists periodizations, while the latter are the basis of the classical positivist periodization. We need to add a third form of periodization that breaks with the ideology of knowledge based on the separation between subject and object, metaphysical separation (VIANA, 2007). Ideology, actually the reality and consciousness really are separate, but it is a separation due to the fact it expresses certain values ​​and class interests that is content to reproduce the social appear. The dominance is reinforced by the illusion. In this sense, the unity between reality and consciousness is possible starting from the proletarian perspective, as does Marxism, which means that from a history of theory it is possible to establish a factual basis for a history of periodization of humanity. Thus, the Marxist theory of history is the basis for a timeline that breaks simultaneously with empiricism and rationalism, or, according to the constructs of the dominant ideology, with subjectivism and objectivism.

Pagès conducted an analysis of the issue of periodization inspired by Marxism. Human history periodization The four ages is considered by Pagès as absurd and it puts two reasons for this: firstly, it is a chronological arbitrariness, the years of beginning and end of an age are not significant to the development of world history ; Secondly, such period is limited to European case (Pages, 1983). In addition to the intrinsic defects of the division by age, there is also the additional problem and not explained the so-called "Contemporary Age" which has no justification. Contemporary Age is an expression, as Spengler said, "ridiculous and desperate" (quoted. RAMA, 1968).

Thus we see that humanity's history of division into "ages" is limited, problematic and without theoretical foundation. This scheme, which was initially tripartite (Ages Old, Middle and Modern) became quadripartite (Ages Old, Middle, Modern and Contemporary). The contemporary addition is as arbitrary and meaningless when the division as a whole.

This simplistic and merely qualifying conception was theoretically overcome by the Marxist theory of history, which through a non-metaphysical theory of reality began to periodize human history from the succession of modes of production. This periodization, whose outline was produced by Marx (Marx and Engels, 2002; Marx, 1983), and developed by some of his followers (PAGÈS, 1983; DHOQUOIS, 1975) and deformed by others, shows based on a theory of history and the real and concrete history, as humans historically produced. So we, in the European case, the simple societies, slave society, feudal society and capitalist society. This characterizes what is referred to as modernity. How capitalism is not over, then nothing after the modern, except on cloudy and fictional world of post-structuralist ideology, ideologically called "postmodern". So what's the point of contemporary expression?

What is contemporary?

We can say that, broadly speaking, contemporary is synonymous with modern, capitalist. Thus, modern society and modern society would be the same. However, strictly speaking, we can put the contemporary as a modern stage, the current era of modernity, capitalism. In this sense, the contemporary is the latest stage of capitalism. Here we enter again to the question of periodization. The periodization of human history is a sticking point and the solution is in the Marxist theory of history. The history of capitalism, in turn, also has a problematic character. It needs to avoid arbitrary and limited periodizations with those that exist in relation to the history of humanity, a theoretical basis for a proper periodization.

The theoretical basis to carry out a periodization of capitalism is the theory of accumulation schemes. This theory of the capitalism of Marx's theory, which demonstrated the dynamic of capitalist accumulation and allowed subsequent developments in other researchers. We will here make an analysis and description of certain periodizations ideological character of capitalism, like Rostow (1965) or others that carry in them the lack of a theoretical foundation. We will also not put the genesis of the concept of accumulation regime and not the works of Benakouche (1980) and the regulation school which will be the first to use more systematically this notion and present their definition.

The refusal of one or another definition points to the need for an alternative. In this sense, we define a regime of accumulation by a certain link between work organization, state form and international relations (VIANA, 2003; VIANA, 2009), ie certain crystallization of power relationships between social classes manifest these social processes, guarantor of a certain form of capital accumulation. The organization of work under capitalism means an established form, hegemonic imposition of the capitalist class over the working class of certain forms of labor relations marked by exploitation and fight the production process. The state forms express the state organization, form taken by capitalist domination at any given historical moment to allow the reproduction of capitalism, is therefore the expression of class struggle in the wide society. International relations, in turn, expressed as the national bourgeoisie enforces its interests in the face of other modes of production or national bourgeoisie, which manifests itself primarily through the exploitation of classes in certain places.

At each stage of capitalist development, a new accumulation regime replaces the old, which means a change in these three elements, forming a new regime of accumulation. The change in the regime of accumulation, in turn, generates changes in other social relations, such as ideologies, institutions, the representations, the culture in general. Capitalist society, after the period of primitive accumulation of capital, now, in the imperialist capitalist countries, the following regimes of accumulation: extensive (18th century until the late 19th century), intensive (from the late 19th century until the Second World War ), intensive-extensive or conjugate (the Post-World War II until the late 20th century) and integral (the late 20th century to the present).

From this theory, we define the contemporary present stage of capitalism, marked by the establishment of full accumulation regime. This is established from the 80s and characterized by productive restructuring, neo-liberalism and neo-imperialism, which causes cultural, ideological and political changes and draw up a resistance movement which has a range of policies and organizations trends, and the so-called "movement anti-globalization "was the best-known expression and new demonstrations and riots point to the continuation of the struggle and opposition to the existing concentration camp world.

The Contemporary Effects

Thus, the social changes generate discursive these changes and reinforce those. Productive restructuring and expansion of Toyotism as a form of work organization, neo-liberalism and neo-imperialism mark the formation of new ideologies and constructs, such as "flexibility", "flexibility", "minimal state", "zero tolerance"; "Globalization," "multiculturalism," "identity," "gender", etc. A newspeak is incorporated and begins to circulate and reproduce, and behind the new language, especially when it can be generalized (which usually occurs thanks to support from governments, foundations, etc.), end up imposing a certain way of conceiving the reality.

New ideologies emerge as the ideology of globalization, immaterial labor, the end of history, the end of the nation-state, post-structuralism. These ideologies take different perspectives and ways for representing countries, sectors, classes, class fractions and social groups, which are different. The dominant political ideology is neoliberalism and old ideologues raised as J. Rawls, F. Hayek, among others, live with the newly converted, as Norberto Bobbio and others.

The poststructuralist ideology turned academic fashion and is divided into different currents, some so-called "left", others more conservative, and brings together thinkers like Foucault, Derrida, Baudrillard, Deleuze, Guatari, Negri, Lyotard and many others. Such ideology ends up having resonance in the academic world and promotes various fads and fashions that become hegemonic, including creating academic consumer market niches, linked in turn to other niche markets. This is the case of gender ideology, derived from post-structuralist ideology (VIANA, 2006), which is linked to consumer sectors linked to the feminist movement and the academic world, as cultural consumption and many other examples could be cited.

This process creates the effects of the contemporary, that is, the pressure of ideologies and concepts that become hegemonic and dominant at this time, as the ideology of globalization and post-structuralism. Thus, the individual is caught in contemporary times, children who are born or younger who are involved with the school world will now be submitted to this cultural and suffocating world. Just as the individual in modern society does not realize the historicity of social relations under which he lives, judging normal, natural, universal and eternal, the individual in contemporary capitalism given that this is the last stage of capitalist development, which now on only developments and progress occur.

The language and ideas become contemporary. Social relations seem to confirm the ideologies and misleading representations created at this time and so there is a mutual reinforcement of social relationships seen in their appearance and ideologies and misleading representations. Sociability and mentality reproduce and reinforce each other, both in its essential elements (VIANA, 2008A), as derived from the changes of regimes of accumulation. New everyday representations emerge (the political correctness, relativism, culturalism, etc.) and new ideologies from them are systematized, turning them into science, philosophy, theology. The return movement also occurs because the produced ideologies end up influencing the daily representations. The main effect of the contemporary is imprisoning the individual at a time and blind you to its historicity and the weakness of ideologies and misleading representations that become suffocating culture.

As a result, criticism and utopia are marginalized or assimilated. The critique of capitalist society and its contemporary manifestation is difficult because many leave the critical perspective to ally to fads, either opportunism or personal interest, either by the difficulty of realizing the historical movement and the ideological and illusory character of the new fads . The marginalization of criticism, in turn, facilitates the marginalization of utopia, that is, the radical critique accompanied by a project of social transformation. Since the end of ideologies (the history of socialism, etc.), which are the most direct, to the pseudocríticas who say that capitalism has been overcome and now it is only necessary reforms or adjustments, as in negrista ideology (and Lazzarato NEGRI, 2001), the key idea is that utopia should be abandoned.

There is also a critical deformation, in which it produces isolation social issues and groups and interests and is a true workhorse around it without questioning its roots, the whole, and without an alternative project, and only manifestation of opportunism and group interests that supposedly themselves as oppressed and take on authoritarian practices and achievement of competitive advantage in capitalism.

But there is another effect of the contemporary. This is the effect generated by the difficulty of perceiving specificity and historicity of the era in which we live. The perception of the characteristics of ideologies, the illusory everyday representations and character of a particular era is facilitated after the events occurred. But the contemporary event is always more difficult to detect than the events of the previous season. Thus, understanding the illusory representations of feudal society, especially the illusory character of their representations, it is facilitated in the later historical period, but difficult for his contemporaries. Understand capitalism in the era of conjugate accumulation regime and all ideologies, representations, etc. (social democracy, Keynesian, etc.), accompanying him is relatively easy at the present time, but not during the term of that period. This creates the presenteeism, both in everyday representations as in the elaborate cultural productions (ideologies and ends up influencing even the revolutionary conceptions).

This perception, in the case of researchers, either retrospectively or simultaneously, can be facilitated or hindered depending on which class outlook and theoretical-methodological base breaks to analyze it. Thus, starting from autoilusões the season, one can hardly realize its meaning, its features, its trends. In contemporary times, would, for example, try to understand contemporary capitalism through the ideology of globalization or "postmodernism", two autoilusões (VIANA, 2009) that explain nothing and obscure the understanding of the current reality and of themselves as ideological expressions of historical moment of capitalism. Or the post-structuralist ideologies that isolate phenomena, oppression, social, fights. This is noticeable even by those not part of a Marxist perspective:

One of the most disturbing consequences and less detached from the particularism that pervades public life in Spain - and elsewhere too - is that it proves contagious. It means an extraordinary narrowing of vision, reducing the confined space, the artificial portions of reality, sometimes extraordinary smallness, isolated from their actual context. This leads to a dangerous myopia, to a narrow perception, which in extreme cases can be limited to the navel. Such a view has no future and deletes the entire project; concentrated in a small range of questions, which may be insignificant, about which is discussed in endless mode. It would be interesting to evaluate their place in the media sensitive issues that could be resolved in a few lines or a few minutes of radio and television (Marias, 2003, p. 58).

However, each accumulation system which replaces the other hand, the accumulation of difficulties become greater. In this context, social conflicts also become stronger, even if sporadic, and there is the strengthening of resistance and right-wing reaction. The rebirth of fascism, neo-Nazism, mysticism ally rightsism and racism, are strengthened, increasing the possibility at the time of the current accumulation regime crisis, the return of barbarism. Including even some endurance events (such as sectors of feminism and other social movements) end up playing semifascistas aspects. This is reinforced by the emergence and activism of a new type of right-wing intellectual, the semi-fascist, defending capitalism at every opportunity and with every possible cruelty. Beside that, however, also open loopholes for the resurgence of criticism and utopia, as seen in the popular uprisings in Argentina, Mexico, France and new groupings, movements, trends (anti-globalization movement, anarchism, libertarian Marxism, etc. .) and in the riots and more recent demonstrations in several countries.

The re-emergence of anarchism and the resumption of marginalized thinkers as representatives of the Situationist International (despite its limitations), the council communism (Anton Pannekoek, Otto Rühle, Paul Mattick, Karl Korsch and others) show that the historical needs They do recover thinkers who have actually been on the side of truth, that is, criticism and utopia, which helps to avoid mistakes of the past. However, the influence of post-structuralism is strong and ends up producing a deformation of that libertarian thought and the transformation of these concepts, expressions of past struggles in specific contexts, in dogmas end up being one split element and difficulty in advance of struggles.

Thus, eclecticism, on the one hand, and dogmatism on the other, are the forms of invasion of revolutionary consciousness by pseudorrevolucionárias concepts that end up generating many unnecessary conflicts and controversies and that help divide the revolutionary bloc rather than contributing to its unification . It also ends up having strong effects on social movements and the labor movement, because besides the direct influence of ideologies and bourgeois and bureaucratic conceptions, there are still within the revolutionary movement itself, ambiguities that end up hurting the advance of proletarian and revolutionary struggle in general and facilitating reproduction of ideology such influence.

The root of eclecticism is the social influence of ideologies and everyday misleading representations, created by capital and its world and national power (communicational capital, capital editorial, universities, international foundations, etc.) and reproduced by the auxiliary class of bourgeoisie (especially bureaucracy and intelligentsia), and the pseudestesia of "novelty", "youth", "modern" or "contemporary" of such views, reinforced by the criticism, but still hegemonic, an evolutionary conception of knowledge, according to which the latter idea, for being the last, would be "true" or better than the others. This weakens the strength of the revolutionary theory and existing oppositional culture. Social mobility and academic career interests are also strong in this process because the eclecticism lets say revolutionary at the same time please the conservative academic peers, that is, seeking to please Greeks and Trojans.

The root of the dogma is more varied, going from one reaction to the eclectic, passing people with psychological imbalance (which is not missing in the previous case and in all cases, but here is a certain stiffness and the need for attachment to a belief generates dogmatic position and its origin has to do with the psychic universe of certain individuals), little research-reading-reflection, to the process of identification with thinkers rigidly (and generally taking on more rigidity than the authors themselves), as well as sense of belonging to certain traditions of thought believed to be pure and above reproach. This generates a "situationism", "councilism" and dogmatic anarchism.

The presenteeism is so strong that imposes itself not only for the privileged classes and conservatives in general, but spreads throughout society and influences even the oppositional culture, which obviously lives with exceptions, but are not quantitatively significant, although radicalization and the rise of struggles allow a breakthrough in this regard. Hence it is important to understand that contemporary capitalism creates a world of ideologies and illusory everyday representations that seeks to describe, explain, and even challenge the contemporary social relations, but, deep down, is a set of illusory forms of perception of this historical moment and so obscurante creates a layer between individuals and the concrete reality.

Individuals end up getting stuck in the contemporary, both by concrete social relations (and derivatives of these interests), as the suffocating cultural world generated by it. It is therefore necessary to overcome presenteeism, understand that this is not the best, the correct, the end of history, progress, etc., and, similarly, that its cultural manifestations are not the truth, the final the correct, fair. The contemporary effects are the hallmarks of this in our minds and actions, both of which can be removed. The presenteeism reveals "falsehood winds" (Marías, 2003) and is required to overcome it, so that it becomes more likely to overcome the society that creates illusions and dehumanization.

Final considerations

Overcoming presenteeism depends on the class struggle and especially of the proletarian struggle. However, we are involved in the class struggles in general and in particular proletarian struggle (whether or not workers), because each decision, position and action, as well as cultural production reinforces either existing trend. Korsch (1973) was insightful to say that the class struggle occurs everywhere. The full regime of accumulation means the capital of the imposition of certain social relations and the common struggles, everyday, get along in this process, and the extraordinary struggles point to questioning these social relations. The common struggles have only sense if articulated and boosters of extraordinary struggles.

So it is important to understand the contemporary, full accumulation regime, and at the same time overcome the ideologies and everyday misleading representations to him. Understanding the full regime of accumulation takes theoretical importance, generating a fundamental tool for understanding contemporary society and providing elements to overcome the abstract and ideological conceptions of others as well as descriptivism.

No doubt, you can not disregard the importance of the history of capitalism periodization and critical reflection on the contemporary as well as recognition of the difficulty of overcoming the naturalization and the illusions of the time. Understanding the history of mankind and capitalism are important elements to overcome presenteeism, to think about a future society project. In this context, understanding the opposition as a product of today's world, with its spectacular fights (Debord, 1997), which become, simultaneously, commercial fights.

One should also point out that the lack of understanding of contemporary capitalism is an obstacle to understanding the historicity of capitalism and contemporary with their struggles and social processes. This reinforces the importance of the analytical process of capitalism not develop tragic actions, namely those aimed at a goal and end up with a result not, as in the famous Greek tragedy "Oedipus Rex". The case of Oedipus is an example of what it means a partial awareness of reality. To learn through an oracle that his fate would kill his father and marry his mother, Oedipus flees his hometown and move away from their parents to avoid such a future. The oracle did not reveal the whole truth, only part of it because it did not inform Oedipus that he was adopted and that the prophecy was in relation to his real parents, he did not even know. This partial consciousness, or half-truth, and it caused his flight he is faced with his real father, without knowing it, and ends up killing him and then to get to another city marries her real mother. Their action was to prevent an event that, deep down, was achieved thanks to this same action to refuse partial consciousness. If it had a broader consciousness, not flee the city and would not have realized his tragic action. That's what thousands held today, because they have a partial awareness of reality, end up thinking that they are fighting for a new society and end up hindering it is, among other possibilities.

In short, a historical perception of reality is needed, combined with a revolutionary critique, as presented by Marx and his authentic followers, and overcoming of presenteeism and its effects on intellectual production. This is to realize that the historical consciousness of capitalism and the historical consciousness of the regimes of accumulation is an important element in the struggle of the proletariat and social transformation. In each accumulation regime, although it is difficult to perceive it critically, the theoretical representatives of the revolutionary class advance in the understanding of time, as it did in extensive regime of accumulation (Marx and to a lesser degree and without theoretical rigor few others); the intensive regime of accumulation (Pannekoek, Korsch, etc.); in conjunction accumulation regime (Guillerm and Bourdet, etc.). The same needs to be done in the contemporary world, which means that it is necessary to overcome dogmatism and the mechanical reproductions of thinkers of the past (because besides the context in producing and bringing specific elements that are no longer the same, there is also the need to perception of its limitations and problems, if any, in their intellectual production). What usually occurs is specific advances in aspects of the new regime of accumulation (state analysis, culture, etc.) because the overall design is more difficult. Not to mention the obstacles represented by pseudomarxismo, as in the example in Mandel's analysis (1978) on the "late capitalism" to explain the conjugate accumulation regime.

One must keep in mind that the historical consciousness of a regime of accumulation is obliterated by the hegemony of the dominant conceptions and also mixtures of revolutionary concepts and dominant ideologies (anarchism and post-structuralism, for example, an example of what previously termed "eclecticism" ). That amounts, in different forms, to all intellectuals. Even some ideologues perceive and stating it.

References

BAUER, Wilhelm. Introducción al Estudio de la Historia. Barcelona: Bosch, 1957.

BAUMAN, Zygmunt. Modernidade Líquida. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2001.

BAUMAN, Zygmunt. Legisladores e Intérpretes. Sobre Modernidade, Pós-Modernidade e Intelectuais. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 2010.

BENAKOUCHE, Rabah. Acumulação Mundial e Dependência. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1980.

BESSELAR, J. V. D. Introdução aos Estudos Históricos. São Paulo: EPU, 1979.

DEBORD, Guy. A Sociedade do Espetáculo. Rio de Janeiro: Contraponto, 1997.

DEBRITO, Carlos. Marx, Um Elogio Crítico. Lisboa: Antígona, 1985.

DHOQUOIS, Guy. En Favor de La Historia. Barcelona: Anagrama, 1977.

DUJOVNE, Leon. Teoría de los Valores y Filosofía de la Historia. Buenos Aires: Paidós, 1959.

HARVEY, David. Condição Pós-Moderna. São Paulo: Edições Loyola, 1992.

JACOBY, Russell. Os Últimos Intelectuais: a Cultura Americana na Era da Academia. São Paulo: Trajetória Cultural: Edusp, 1990.

JAMESON, F. Pós-Modernismo: A Lógica Cultura do Capitalismo Tardio. São Paulo: Ática, 2002.

KORSCH, K. El Joven Marx como Filósofo Activista. In: SUBIRATS, E. (org.). Karl Korsch o el Nacimiento de uma Nueva Época. Barcelona: Anagrama, 1973.

KURZ, Robert. O Colapso da Modernização. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 1993.

LAZZARATO, M. e NEGRI, A. Trabalho Imaterial, Formas de Vida e Produção de Subjetividade. Rio de Janeiro: DP&A, 2001.

LIPIETZ, Alan. Audácia: Uma Alternativa para o Século 21. São Paulo: Nobel, 1991.

MANDEL, Ernest. O Capitalismo Tardio. São Paulo: Nova Cultural, 1978.

MARÍAS, Julian. Tratado Sobre a Convivência. Concórdia sem Acordo. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2003.

MARX, Karl. Contribuição à Crítica da Economia Política. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 1983.

MARX, Karl e ENGELS, Friedrich. A Ideologia Alemã. São Paulo, Hucitec, 2002.

MARX, Karl. Critica de la Filosofia del Derecho de Hegel. Notas Aclaratorias de Rodolfo Mondolfo. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nuevas, 1968.

PAGÈS, Pelai. Introducción a la Historia. Epistemología, Teoría y Problemas de Método en los Estudios Históricos. Barcelona: Barcanova, 1983.

RAMA, Carlos. Teoría de la Historia. Introducción a los Estudios Históricos. Madrid: Tecnos, 1968.

ROSTOW, W. As Etapas do Desenvolvimento Econômico. Um Manifesto Não-Comunista. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 1965.

VIANA, Nildo. A Consciência da História. Rio de Janeiro: Achiamé, 2007.

VIANA, Nildo. Da Impossibilidade do Relativismo. In: A Filosofia e Sua Sombra. Goiânia, Edições Germinal, 2000.

VIANA, Nildo. Debord: Espetáculo, Fetichismo e Abstratificação. Revista Panorama, núm. 01, Agosto de 2011. Disponível em: http://revistas.ucg.br/index.php/panorama/article/viewFile/1601/1008 acessado em: 20/09/2014.

VIANA, Nildo. Estado, Democracia e Cidadania. Rio de Janeiro, Achiamé, 2003.

VIANA, Nildo. Gênero e Ideologia. In: VIANA, Nildo (org.). A Questão da Mulher. Opressão, Trabalho e Violência. Rio de Janeiro, Ciência Moderna, 2006.

VIANA, Nildo. O Capitalismo na Era da Acumulação Integral. São Paulo, Ideias e Letras, 2009.

VIANA, Nildo. Senso Comum, Representações Sociais, Representações Cotidianas. São Paulo: Edusc, 2008b.

VIANA, Nildo. Universo Psíquico e Reprodução do Capital. São Paulo: Escuta, 2008a.