This paper explores the relevance of Karl Marx's philosophy to contemporary research on religious organizations. Despite Marx's primary association with political economy, his insights offer valuable perspectives for understanding the structure and function of religious institutions today. Marx's analysis of societal structures highlights the entrepreneurial nature of modern society, which is also reflected in the dynamics of religious organizations. This study revisits Marx's core philosophical and historical hypotheses, particularly his critique of political economy, and applies them to the analysis of (...) religious institutions. By distinguishing between Marxist and non-Marxist methodologies, this paper demonstrates how Marxist theory provides both critical and hopeful interpretations of the organizational structures within religious contexts. The goal is to show how Marxist philosophy can contribute to a deeper understanding of the socio-economic dimensions of religious institutions, thereby enriching the field of philosophy of religion. (shrink)

Marxism as an intellectual movement has been one of the most important and fertile contributions to twentieth-century thought. No social theory or political philosophy today can be taken seriously unless it enters a dialogue, not just with the legacy of Marx, but also with the innovations and questions that spring from the movement that his work sparked, Marxism. Marx provided a revolutionary set of ideas about freedom, politics and society. As social and political conditions changed and new intellectual (...) challenges to Marx's social philosophy arose, the Marxist theorists sought to update his social theory, rectify the sociological positions of historical materialism and respond to philosophical challenges with a Marxist reply. This book provides an accessible introduction to Marxism by explaining each of the key concepts of Marxist politics and social theory. The book is organized into three parts, which explore the successive waves of change within Marxist theory and places these in historical context, while the whole provides a clear and comprehensive account of Marxism as an intellectual system. (shrink)

On peut distinguer, dans l'histoire du marxisme contemporain, deux tendances qui n'ont cessé de se confronter sous des formes plus ou moins radicales et qui tiennent à deux lectures apparemment inconciliables de l'oeuvre de Marx. La première, selon laquelle le marxisme se résorbe essentiellement en une théorie scientifique , en une sociologie . Cette tendance trouve son expression culminante dans l'althussérisme, dans le primat des relations constitutives de la structure sociale sur les individus-sujets. La seconde, qui veut que le marxisme (...) soit d'abord et avant tout un humanisme et/ou une philosophie de la praxis, tout travail théorique se trouvant subordonné à sa visée historico-pratique : celle de l'instauration de rapports sociaux dans lesquels seraient abolis les rapports d'exploitation de l'homme par l'homme. Poser la question de l'existence d'une éthique marxiste, c'est tenter de résoudre théoriquement cette épineuse dichotomie entre l'objectivisme des « déterminations » sociales des représentations de conscience morales et la capacité des individus-sujets de produire un ordre social, d'orienter le développement historique conformément à ces représentations . Pour un matérialiste, n'y a-t-il pas là une contradiction interne au marxisme? L'auteur de l'article a tenté de faire voir, à travers quelques propositions sommaires, comment une telle contradiction peut être dépassée.In the history of contemporary Marxism one can distinguish two conflicting tendencies which continue to confront each other in a more or less radical manner, and which give rise to two apparently irreconcilable readings of Marx's work. The first is that by which Marxism is essentially absorbed into a scientific theory , into a sociology. This tendency finds its ultimate expression in 'althussérisme', in the primacy of the constituent relations of the social structure involving individual subjects. In the second, which sees Marxism as essentially humanist and/or a philosophy of praxis, all theoretical work is subordinated to the practical-historical aim, that of establishing social relations in which the exploitation of persons by persons will be done away with. To ask whether a Marxist ethic exists is an attempt to resolve theoretically this thorny dichotomy between the objectivism of the social determinants of the prescriptions of moral conscience, and the capacity of individual subjects to produce a social order to orient historical development in accordance with these prescriptions. For a materialist, is there not here an apparent contradiction within Marxism? The author has attempted to clarify, by means of a few succinct propositions, how such a contradiction may be resolved. (shrink)

In tackling emergentist Marxism in depth, this well-written volume demonstrates that critical realism and materialist dialectics are indispensable to theorizing the functioning of complex social and physical systems. Author Sean Creaven investigates Marxâes dialectics of being and consciousness, forces and relations of production, base and superstructure, class structure and class conflict, and demonstrates how they allow the social analyst to conceptualize geo-history as embodying a tendential evolutionary directionality, rather than as simply random or indeterminate in terms of its outcomes. (...) For those interested in social and political theory, Marxism and communism and contemporary social theory, this outstanding volume is an in important read and a valuable resource. (shrink)

This article investigates the categories of variegated social formations and structural historical heterogeneity, which have been developed from Latin American Marxism as a theoretical attempt that aims to account for the complexity of the debates around historical time. For this, the work of René Zavaleta Mercado (Bolivia) and Aníbal Quijano (Peru) is analyzed, revealing their connections and divergences. It is concluded that there are important meeting points, but also disagreements.

A masterful survey of the history of Marxist philosophy of science. Now with a new afterword. Skillfully deploying a large cast of characters, Sheehan retraces the development of Marxist philosophy of science through detailed and highly readable accounts of the debates that have characterized it. Approaching Marxism from the perspective of the philosophy of science, Sheehan shows how Marx's and Engel's ideas on the development and structure of natural science had a crucial impact on the work of early twentieth-century (...) natural philosophers, historians of science, and natural scientists. From the ideas of Marx and Engels, those of the Marxist theoreticians of the Second International to the debates within Russian Marxism up to World War II, Sheehan masterfully surveys the history of marxist philosophy of science, concluding with a close analysis of the development of the debate among non-Soviet Marxists, placing particular emphasis on the contributions of leading British Marxists in the 1930s. (shrink)

Marxist historiography has always claimed to be "conceptually" rooted in the natural sciences and has therefore been concerned with the function of laws, the structure of theories, and the logical relations between hypotheses and empirical data. Minimal criteria for the identification of a scientific research program as developed by Lakatos and Laudan include: a negative heuristic; explanatory or predictable scientific theories; a central model or paradigm; identification and solution of internal problems; self-conscious awareness by researchers of a common tradition; and (...) the internal dynamics of conflict and convergence. Less than a generation ago, Marxist scholarship seemed to offer the most innovative methodologies in history. More recently, however, Marxist scholarship seems to be reliving old glories while other approaches have advanced more innovative research programs. (shrink)

Marxism has often been associated with two different legacies. The first rests on a strong exposition and critique of the logic of capitalism, grounded in a systematic analysis of the laws of motion of capitalism as a system. The second legacy refers to a strong historicist perspective grounded in a conception of social relations that emphasises the centrality of power and social conflict to the analysis of history. This article challenges the prominence of structural accounts of capitalism by (...) showing how the tension between these legacies has played out within Political Marxism, both orientations already having co-existed, somewhat uneasily, within Robert Brenner’s original contributions to the Transition Debate. Through this internal critique and re-formulation of Political Marxism, we wish to open a broader debate within Marxism on the need for a more agency-based account of capitalism, which builds more explicitly on the concept of social relations, to recover the historicist legacy of Marxism. (shrink)

In the 1980s, leading philosophers at Oxford, Chicago and UCLA undertook a controversial reassessment of Marxism using the techniques of analytical philosophy. The aim of these so-called "Non-Bullshit" Marxists was no less than the complete reconstruction of Marxist theory, recasting it on a logical and rigorous basis, free from all metaphysical jargon and sentimentality. Marcus Roberts's study serves as a lucid survey of the Analytical Marxists' contributions to the understanding of historical materialism, exploitation, class structure, method, politics and ethics—a (...) panoramic tour de force which he brings up to date with considerations on John Roemer's recent work on models of socialism. Roberts charts the sinuous progress of the growth, development and ultimate dilution or disintegration of the bold theses originally put forward by such figures as Gerry Cohen, Jon Elster and John Roemer. For Roberts, the Analytical Marxist project, for all its elegance and richness, failed on its own terms, and in terms of Marxism more generally. However, as this book so persuasively demonstrates, along its winding route, the project raised questions of fundamental importance for social and political theory—questions that anyone interested in emancipation cannot avoid taking seriously. (shrink)

After Marxism calls for a new radical coalition centered around morality and utopian sensibility. The book explores the kinds of commitments, values, and approaches to social realities that may still be described as radical today. These include the determination to end every form of oppression; a freedom to combine many different theories and kinds of analysis; an open and experimental attitude; an appreciation of modernity's great promise of being on our own; an understanding that radical social change encompasses attitudes (...) and behaviors, as well as structures and systems; and a commitment to uniting the various potential radical groups, strands, and energies into a new radical coalition, a heterogeneous "we" founded on a deep sense of solidarity. (shrink)

This paper provides a comprehensive survey of the literature on Analytical Marxism (AM) and analyses its relevance for social theory. AM is precisely defined and distinguished from Rational Choice Marxism (RCM). The different substantive implications of the two approaches are discussed: according to RCM, the role of Marxism in the social sciences is exhausted, whereas AM has reconstructed a set of propositions that aim to provide the foundations of a distinctive approach in social theory. The methodological debate (...) around and within AM is analysed and the shortcomings of methodological individualism and rational choice theory are stressed, raising doubts on the claim that RCM is the only scientific approach to Marx's theory. Yet, wholesale rejections on a priori methodological or exegetical grounds are questioned. A focused, immanent critique of RCM is developed, which emphasizes the lack of an adequate analysis of structural constraints and endogenous preferences in RCM models. It is argued that the analysis of endogenous preferences and structural constraints is consistent with an anti-reductionist AM approach and it may provide the outline of a fertile, distinctive research programme in explanatory social theory that builds on the core of Marxism identified by AM. (shrink)

This paper will open with a focus on alienated and unfree activity as it is presented by Marx in his famous Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. My concern will be to bring out the most central dimensions of his view of such activity including: the alienated relation in such activity to other people, to one’s own activity, to the products of one’s activity, to the natural world, etc. Moreover, I will be especially concerned to bring out the mode of (...) reason that is embedded within alienated activity, as well as the kind of relation between cognition, conation, sensory experience, feeling, (etc.) that Marx projects as obtaining in such activity. Following this I will make a dialectical extrapolation from the analysis of alienated activity that Marx gives us, and go on to present a sketch of a humanistic-Marxist interpretation of unalienated and free activity. This will be seen to involve not only a very different structural relation to other people, to one’s own activity, and to the natural world than the one that obtains in alienated activity—but also a very different structural relation between cognition, conation, sensoryexperience, feeling, (etc.). Then I will give a sketch of a praxis-oriented interpretation of historical materialism, which will serve to bring out the historicity of reason, and the historicity of the modes of rationality that prevail at various stages in world history. The last section of this paper will argue: (1) that a transformation of reason is a real possibility; (2) that a transformation of reason in the direction of the kind of unalienated and free activity I have delineated earlier offers the best hope for a human future and a sustainable relation to the natural world; and also (3) that at this juncture in human history it has now become a practical necessity, if humankind is to lift itself out of the mounting world crisis—spiritual and otherwise—in which we are all enmeshed. (shrink)

"E. B. Pashukanis was the most significant contemporary to develop a fresh, new Marxist perspective in post-revolutionary Russia. In 1924 he wrote what is probably his most influential work, The General Theory of Law and Marxism. In the second edition, 1926, he stated that this work was not to be seen as a final product but more for ""self-clarification"" in hopes of adding ""stimulus and material for further discussion."" A third edition was printed in 1927. Pashukanis's ""commodity-exchange"" theory of (...) law spearheaded a perspective that traced the form of law, not to class interests, but to capital logic itself. Until his death, he continued to argue for the ideal of the withering away of the state, law, and the juridic subject. He eventually arrived at a position contrary to Stalin's who, at that time, was attempting to consolidate and strengthen the state apparatus under the name of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Inevitably, Pashukanis was branded an enemy of the revolution in January 1937. His works were subsequently removed from soviet libraries. In 1954, Pashukanis was ""rehabilitated"" by the Soviets and restored to an acceptable position in the historical development of marxist law. In Europe and North America, a number of legal theorists only rediscovered Pashukanis's work in the late 1970s. They subjected it to careful critical analysis, and realized that he offered an alternative to the traditional Marxist interpretations, which saw law simply and purely as tied to class interests of domination. By the mid-1980s the instrumental Marxist perspective in vogue in Marxist sociology, criminology, politics, and economics gave way, to a significant extent due to Pashukanis's insights, to a more structural Marxist accounting of the relationship of law to economics and other social spheres." --Descripción del editor. (shrink)

Marxists often make claims about the content, causes, and social functions of ideologies. Perhaps the most iconoclastic of these is the thesis that mortality is ideological . But given certain other commitments of Marxism, it is difficult to make sense of this thesis, let alone assess its truth. For while clearly the moral ideology thesis is meant as a severe criticism of morality, one that seems to preclude Marxism from consistently offering a moral critique of class societies, Marxists (...) seem to be employing a form of moral critique when they claim that class societies are exploitative. This is, of course, one version of the familiar "paradox" of Marxism's attitude toward morality. ;There are roughly three ways to dissolve this "paradox" within Marxism: Reject, or weaken, the moral ideology thesis so that Marxism can consistently offer a moral critique of class-structured societies; accept the moral ideology thesis and treat Marxism as a non-evaluative "science," rejecting the critical enterprise of Marxism altogether; or accept the moral ideology thesis, along with its implication that the moral critique of class societies is incompatible with certain basic commitments of Marxism, but show that this does not undermine the Marxist critical project. In this dissertation, I defend the moral ideology thesis in accordance with strategy . ;I argue that ideologies are illusory forms of social consciousness that function to stabilized relations of domination and exploitation and that tend to be accepted by agents because of the unconscious influence of their class interests or class position on their beliefs. I defend the moral ideology thesis by showing that morality exhibits these ideological characteristics. To resolve the tension between the moral ideology thesis, the thesis that class societies are exploitative, and the Marxist critique of class society, I explain how the Marxist theory of exploitation forms the basis of a nonmoral critique of class societies. And I argue that the critique of moral ideology in fact supports, rather than undermines, the thesis that class societies are exploitative. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: The Object of Marxist Theory of Law Outline of a Marxist Theory of Law Alternative Marxist Approaches to Law Ideology as Law and Law as Ideology Law and State Economic Relations and the Law Legal Relations and Class Relations Conclusions References.

Media and computer technologies are creating dramatic changes that are producing an explosion of rhetoric and hype touting the benefits of the new information superhighway where individuals will supposedly get data and entertainment on demand, hook up into new virtual communities, and even create new identities. Such ideological hyperbole has accompanied the introduction of all new technologies, but this time the structures of contemporary capitalist economies, politics, society, culture, and everyday life are dramatically changing, requiring radical social theory to rethink (...) its assumptions, models of society, and politics. In this article, I wish to argue that if Marxism is to have a future it must theorize the new media and computer technologies and revise its analyses of contemporary capitalist societies and socialist politics accordingly. I will also argue that the Marxian theory provides powerful perspectives to make sense of the momentous changes currently transforming every dimension of social reality, but that it needs to be reconstructed and updated as well. (shrink)

All theory makes assumptions about the nature of reality (either implicitly or explicitly) and such ontological assumptions necessarily regulate how one studies the things and events under investigation. Successful study is inex- tricably dependent upon an adequate ontology. As Bryant neatly puts it, "Effective application, in turn, is connected with adequate working assumptions about the constitution of society. Argument about the constitution of society is thus not a recondite activity which most sociologists [and organi- sation theorists] can safely ignore" (1995: (...) 58, interpolation added). The central concern in this paper is with the ontological underpinnings of much of the current literature in organisation studies in respect of struc- ture and culture. It will be argued that conflation of irreducible and causally-efficacious strata of social reality in the shape of social structure and culture permeates much of the current literature, thus rendering analysis of the interplay between them and their relationship with human agency diffi- cult to elucidate. The ontological underpinnings of organisational analysis have arguably turned full circle from the depth of social reality acknowl- edged by functionalism, structural Marxism and systems theory to the generic endorsement of Giddens’ structuration theory. As will be argued, Giddens’ theory entails a depthless ontology, which necessarily precludes methodological prescription. (shrink)

If Third World women form ‘the bedrock of a certain kind of global exploitation of labour,’ as Chandra Mohanty argues, how can our theoretical definitions of exploitation account for this? This paper argues that liberal theories of exploitation are insufficiently structural and that Marxian accounts are structural but are insufficiently intersectional. What we need is a structural and intersectional definition of exploitation in order to correctly identify global structural exploitation. Drawing on feminist, critical race/post-colonial and post-Fordist (...) critiques of the Marxist definition and the intersectional accounts of Maria Mies and Iris Marion Young, this paper offers the following definition of structural exploitation: structural exploitation refers to the forced transfer of the productive powers of groups positioned as socially inferior to the advantage of groups positioned as socially superior. Global structural exploitation is a form of global injustice because it is a form of oppression. (shrink)

Jean-Paul Sartre pointed to the ‘gap’ in Marxism where a theory of the individual should be. Three attempts to fill it vied in the context of an intense ideological debate within the Parti Communiste Français (PCF) which still resonates today. On the one hand, Louis Althusser’s denial of individual agency as traditionally understood, structuralist theory which proved difficult to apprehend, let alone apply, in a capitalist world. On the other, Roger Garaudy’s Marxist humanist explanation of personality, most likely unsatisfactory (...) for many Marxists on account of its spiritualistic leanings. Finally, Lucien Sève’s approach: very preliminary, often awkwardly formulated, and diluted over time, but a real alternative to structural Marxism and perhaps, in its final diluted form, not incompatible with a humanist approach after all. If the debate could be settled in his favour, the detailed practical work of applying the theory to psychology and other social sciences should take over with some urgency from here. (shrink)

In How to Be a Marxist in Philosophy one of the most famous Marxist philosophers of the 20th century shares his concept of what it means to function fruitfully as a political thinker within the discipline and environs of philosophy. This is the first English translation to Althusser's provocative and, often, controversial guide to being a true Marxist philosopher. Althusser argues that philosophy needs Marxism. It can't exist fully without it. Similarly, Marxism requires the rigour and structures of (...) philosophy to give it form and focus. He calls all thinking people to, 'Remember: a philosopher is a man who fights in theory, and when he understands the reasons for this fight, he joined the ranks of the struggle of workers and popular classes.' In short, this book comprises Althusser's elucidation of what praxis means and why it continues to matter. With a superb introduction from translator and Althusser archivist G.M. Goshgarian, this is a book that will re-inspire contemporary Marxist thought and reinvigorate our notions of what political activism can be. (shrink)

What does the development of a truly robust contemporary theory of domination require? Ashley J. Bohrer argues that it is only by considering all of the dimensions of race, gender, sexuality, and class within the structures of capitalism and imperialism that we can understand power relations as we find them nowadays. Bohrer explains how many of the purported incompatibilities between Marxism and intersectionality arise more from miscommunication rather than a fundamental conceptual antagonism. As the first monograph entirely devoted to (...) this issue, »Marxism and Intersectionality« serves as a tool to activists and academics working against multiple systems of domination, exploitation, and oppression. (shrink)

This book provides a critical overview of the entirety of Marcuse's work and discusses his enduring importance. Kellner had extensive interviews with Marcuse and provides hitherto unknown information about his road to Marxism, his relations with Heidegger and Existentialism, his involvement with the Frankfurt School, and his reasons for appropriating Freud in the 1950s. In addition Kellner provides a novel interpretation of the genesis and structure of Marcuse's theory of one-dimensional society, of the development of his political theory, and (...) of the role of aesthetics in his critical theory. (shrink)

Abstract:Curiously, Marxist literary and art criticism often historicizes everything but the artist's labor. This essay articulates "techne-Marxism" as a critical standpoint that locates the ontological core of the artwork in conceptual and technical labor. It posits techne as the materialist substrate of art forms often explained away as part of an ideology of bourgeois taste rather than the proper bedrock of a Marxism that avoids alienating labor in a symptomology of historical structure. Ultimately, the value of techne-Marxism (...) is its ability to synthesize socially objective knowledge about art and the critic's ability to build labor-oriented evaluative judgments out of that knowledge. (shrink)

The writings of the French Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser and his associates have figured prominently in the development of contemporary social theory. The Althusserian school of Structural Marxism is a startlingly original synthesis of Marxism and Modernism, which has produced a large body of work that extends across the human sciences and the humanities to engage a wide variety of cultures, theoretical problems, and political issues. Despite the fact that Althusser himself is widely recognized as a major (...) figure, the breadth, coherence, and achievements of Structural Marxism as a whole have gone largely unrecognized. In this, the most systematic and wide-ranging assessment of Structural Marxism in any language, Resch provides a comprehensive and thematic introduction to the work of Althusser, Nicos Poulantzas, Pierre Macherey, Etienne Balibar, Emmanuel Terray, Terry Eagleton, Göran Therborn, Renée Balibar, Perry Anderson, Pierre-Philippe Rey, Michel Pêchaux, Guy Bois, and others. Resch's sympathetic and critical study demonstrates the enormous significance of Althusser's modernist renewal of Marxist social theory and its ongoing challenge to post-Marxist movements such as postmodernism and neo-liberalism. (shrink)

This article seeks to develop the Marxist conception of social structure by incorporating developments within critical realist philosophy. It rejects forms of economic determinism such as the base-superstructure model and those reconstructions—like Cohen’s—that attribute primacy to productive forces in explaining history and society. It argues instead that society is the product of complex, often contradictory combinations of many different structures and mechanisms. They form a structural ensemble, hierarchically arranged, but where each element has its own dynamics and emergent powers. (...) It concludes that society is best understood through critical realist conceptions of stratification, emergence, transformation, and overdetermination. (shrink)

The Marxist Theory of the Party This paper examines the conceptions of the revolutionary party among some of the most importantMarxist thinkers of the XXth century, through three interrelated essential issues : 1) the levels of classconsciousness ; 2) the relationship of the party to the masses, in particular during a revolution ; 3) theinternal structure of the party. In our view, the chosen authors – Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, Gramsci,Lukacs, Trotsky – belong to the same « current » in (...) class='Hi'>Marxism, a current which tries to develop, considering the conditions of the XXth century, Marx’s theses on the communist revolution and theproletarian self-emancipation ; a current which is contradictory and diverse, inside of which Leninand Luxemburg represent two partially opposed and partially complementary poles. (shrink)

The principal theme of the book is the fundamental problem of Marxist studies: the development of a theory of history that is an "epistemological reflection of materialist historical thought" and from which a rigorous methodology can evolve. In particular, Schmidt advances a view of history that reaffirms the reality and value of the actual content of historical experience. In the first half of the book, Schmidt returns to the historical texts of Hegel and Marx, and presents an original and suggestive (...) account of Marx's appropriation of Hegel, and most importantly, of the concept of "dialectical mediation" of logic and history. These sections focus on the perennial opposition of "logic," "theory," "system", and "structure," on the one hand, and "history-as-narrative" on the other, and argue that holding with only one side of this opposition—either structure without history or history without structure—is unfaithful to Marx and also makes for inadequate history. The final half of the book presents the opposing sides of the current debate between the two most influential streams of Marxist theory—structuralism vs. critical theory—and enters the debate by outlining the critical-theoretic arguments against the structuralists and what Schmidt sees as the modern loss of the sense of history and historical consciousness, as well as by appropriating for Marxist historiography what is of value in structuralism. This debate is given concrete form through the discussion of the writings of the French structuralist Louis Althusser and of the dialectically contradictory outlook of Antonio Gramsci. (shrink)

This paper argues that the recent 'mini-renaissance' in Marxist educational sociology as propounded in particular by Rikowski (1996, 1997) is fatally flawed, not only denying the sui generis (autonomous) properties of the educational system but also precluding practical social theorising per se . The reason for this centres on the adoption of a universal internal relations social ontology, which results in the reduction of concrete social reality to the narrow abstraction of the omnipresent 'Capital Relation'. At the same time, such (...) theorising remains conspicuously silent on the issue of the feasible alternatives to capitalism implied by the (albeit flawed) explanatory critiques of such recent Marxist theorising within the sociology of education. (shrink)

This article analyzes the compatibility of the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism and Orthodox Christianity in relation to the class division of society and class struggle. The significance of the study is due to the controversy (often acute) on this issue, which is directly related to the social structure. The article provides a historical and theological analysis of the topic under study on the basis of a critical study of the works of the founders of Marxism-Leninism, their closest (...) associates, historical documents on this issue, as well as historical and theological works. This article attempts to present a systematic analysis of the subject under study. It examines the relationship between the teachings of Orthodox Christianity and Marxism-Leninism about classes and class struggle, as well as their application in practice, and appeals to opponents. The novelty of the study lies in the fact that some documents are analyzed for the first time in connection with the issue under study. Also, in more detail and systematically, in relation to the available works, the analysis of the relationship between the teachings of Orthodox Christianity and Marxism-Leninism is carried out. The purpose of the work is to study historical documents, as well as historical and philosophical works on this topic. The article concludes that Marxism-Leninism is directly opposed to Christianity in the issue of attitude to the classes of society and the class struggle. In the course of historical development, the intensity of the class struggle changed, but not according to Marxism-Leninism, but depended on the state of morality, religiosity, the development of new trends in the social, scientific and technological development of mankind. A Christian understanding of the essence of the state can provide the basis for the national idea of Russia. (shrink)

Lucien Sève (1926–2020) was one of the foremost Marxist theoreticians of the Parti Communiste Français. An indomitable opponent of both structural and humanist Marxism, his 1973 article reprinted below represents the core of his conception of alienation. For Sève, whilst the mature Marxism of Das Kapital is fundamentally distinct from the speculative humanism of the 1844 Manuscripts in placing capital, not abstract labour, at the heart of alienation, this reinforces, rather than replaces, the role of alienation at (...) the centre of Marx’s mature thought, and hence of Marxism itself. (shrink)

This is the final work of one of the most influential American philosophers of the twentieth century. After many years of investigation throughout a long and distinguished career, this book represents Marvin Farber's definitive answer to the question of the nature and function of philosophy. Originally a follower of Husserl, Farber can be credited with bringing phenomenology to the attention of American philosophy. In his later years, he abandoned phenomenology for a kind of naturalism and subsequently called himself a Marxist. (...) This volume, which he had been working on since his retirement from active teaching, is the culmination of Farber's analytical abilities. His earlier career was highlighted with many milestones as well. Along with publishing Phenomenology as a Method and as a Philosophical Discipline in 1928 (his first book which served to introduce phenomenology to the United States), Farber organized the International Phenomenological Society. He became its first president in 1931 and began publishing the journal Philosophy and Phenomenological Research the next year. In 1940 he published Philosophical Essays in Memory of Edmund Husserl, a collection of essays by a number of Husserl's more distinguished followers, many of whom had emigrated to the United States. Farber's other books include: Foundation of Phenomenology; Naturalism and Subjectivism; he coauthored Philosophy for the Future: The Quest of Modern Materialism. The Search for an Alternative considers the nature of philosophy, discussing Husserl, Marx, Lenin, and Farber's own ideas on phenomenology. Primarily concerned with the philosophy of philosophy, and the analysis of contemporary versions of phenomenology and Marxism, the author contributes penetrating and profound insights on other fundamental philosophical topics such as the nature of value, of essences, of structure, and of possibility and potentiality. (shrink)

Can Marxism still serve the American left? "History and Subjectivity" answers this question by synthesizing the conflict perspectives of traditional Marxism, Western and neo-Marxism, socialist-feminism, and various minority political movements into a comprehensive and original social theory. Roger Gottlieb argues convincingly that a properly transformed Marxism must understand how socialisation processes and political structures and experiences have joined the mode of production as socially primary. Drawing on resources from Marxist philosophy, political economy, feminism, Western Marxism, (...) and from detailed historical studies of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and the American left, Gottlieb has produced a sweeping synthesis of existing Marxist thought and an original and compelling social theory. In this edition, Roger Gottlieb has added a new introduction addressing the central questions that have emerged since the book's first publication. These include the effect on Marxist theory of the fall of communism, the theoretical challenge of postmodernism, the environmental crisis, and the rise of modern spiritual movements. The book is challenging and complex, yet clearly written and accessible to advanced undergraduate and graduate students. It will provoke a strong response from any scholar concerned with the present status and future possibilities of Marxist theory. (shrink)

The implications of Marxist state theories developed by Nicos Poulantzas and Ralph Miliband are useful for framing issues related to leftist strategy in twenty-first-century Venezuela. A relationship exists between each of the theories and three issues facing the Chavista movement: whether the bourgeoisie displays a sense of ‘class-consciousness’; the viability of tactical and strategic alliances between the left and groups linked to the capitalist structure; and whether socialism is to be achieved through stages, abrupt revolutionary changes, or ongoing state radicalisation (...) over a period of time. During Poulantzas’s lifetime, his concept of the state as a ‘strategic battlefield’ lent itself to the left’s promotion of ‘strategic alliances’ with parties to its right. The same concept is compatible with the ‘process of change’ in Venezuela, in which autonomous movements play a fundamental role in transforming the old state and the construction of new state structures. (shrink)

The first part of the paper expands and strengthens the criticism of appeals to human or natural rights in After Virtue. It is argued that Gewirth’s responses to various objections are inadequate and that Flathman’s historical analysis is incompatible with the evidence. Baier’s charge that the treatment of Hume in After Virtue is inadequate is acknowledged to be true. A comparison of an Aristotelian account of rational cooperation with a Humean account is made the basis for a rejection both of (...) Baier’s assimilation of the two standpoints and of the treatment of the concept of a practice by both Miller and Doppelt. Doppelt’s rival account of the moral structures of modernity is held to be undermined both by facts which he himself recognizes and by the Marxist critique of liberal individualism. Marxism’s positive moral stance, as defended by Nielsen, is too impoverished to achieve what Nielsen claims for it. (shrink)

It is very tempting to reduce Soviet economic decisions and structures to pragmatic factors and to discount the influence of ideology. Without overemphasizing the influence of the latter, it seems clear that what happens in the Soviet economy is influenced by Marxism-Leninism, even though there is no question of making concrete predictions.

John Roemer's comment succinctly summarizes the logical structure of his own theory of capitalist exploitation, but misunderstands the main points of our critique. He reduces his argument to two propositions. The first is an “empirical proposition”about the “root causes of exploitation”: X + Y → Z, where X is the existence of differential ownership of means of production, Y is coercion in the labor process, and Z is the capitalist class structure and exploitation. The second is the strictly theoretical proposition (...) X + not- Y -” Z, the truth of which he demonstrates, given most of the assumptions of a Walrasian economic model. He concludes that these two propositions, taken together, demonstrate the primacy of DOPA in explaining capitalist class relations. This much is true – subject to the various limitations we have indicated in our article – but only within the restricted confines of a Walrasian framework. This purely theoretical conclusion has no force as an empirical conclusion: this is the point at which Roemer's interpretation goes awry. For obviously, DOPA is a crucial element of empirical reality. But because Roemer's Walrasian framework precludes other equally crucial elements of empirical reality, an irreducible distance remains therein between the theoretical and the empirical. (shrink)

This book re-evaluates New Left and Marxist texts from the 1980s, in order to explore problems facing the study of 'class' which have emerged within Australian and international theories. The author contrasts the popular ideas of Connell, Bourdieu and the 'Death of Class' thesis, with those of lesser known texts, concluding that no single definition can account for the various historical meanings of class. Instead, loosely following Castoriadis, the concept of class can best be understood as creatively imagined and institutionalised. (...) Paternoster proposes that class is best studied through historical phenomenology, which can be used to link political economy, cultural sociology and anthropological ethnographies. This approach allows the contributions of Marxist and New Left authors to be reintegrated with contemporary theories. Doing so highlights the significance of labour populism, while cautioning against the ahistorical applications of texts such as Boudieu's Distinction. Reimagining Class in Australia will be of interest to students and scholars across a range of disciplines, including sociology, history, political economy and anthropology. (shrink)