To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Marxist criticism.
Journal articles on the topic 'Marxist criticism'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Marxist criticism.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Na, Xinyue. "Re-examine Poppers critique of Marxist Historicism." Communications in Humanities Research 10, no. 1 (October 31, 2023): 151–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.54254/2753-7064/10/20231289.
Full textAbstract:
The challenge of Poppers critique to Marxist philosophy has been the subject of academic research and discussion. However, in recent years, most of the academic rebuttals to Popper are still in opposition to Marxism, and they have not listened reasonably to its academic nature. This paper discusses Poppers criticism of Marxist historicism through comparative analysis, aiming to find the rationality of his criticism, so as to perfect the path of Marxian historical materialism. Through analysis, the article clarifies Poppers stance on Marxist historicism, and objectively excavates the rationality of Poppers criticism, which provides a new thinking about the construction of the cause of human happiness.
2
Shirokorad, L. D. "Nikolay Sieber in the history of prerevolutionary Russian economic thought." Voprosy Ekonomiki, no. 4 (April 28, 2018): 95–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2018-4-95-110.
Full textAbstract:
This article shows how representatives of various theoretical currents in economics at different times in history interpreted the efforts of Nikolay Sieber in defending and developing Marxian economic theory and assessed his legacy and role in forming the Marxist school in Russian political economy. The article defines three stages in this process: publication of Sieber’s work dedicated to the analysis of the first volume of Marx’s Das Kapital and criticism of it by Russian opponents of Marxian economic theory; assessment of Sieber’s work by the narodniks, “Legal Marxists”, Georgiy Plekhanov, and Vladimir Lenin; the decline in interest in Sieber in light of the growing tendency towards an “organic synthesis” of the theory of marginal utility and the Marxist social viewpoint.
3
Fraser, Ian. "Hegel, Marxism and Mysticism." Hegel Bulletin 21, no. 1-2 (2000): 18–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0263523200007382.
Full textAbstract:
Marx's comments on Hegel's philosophy have left an ambiguous legacy for Marxism. One pervasive theme, though, is the interpretation of Hegel's idealist philosophy as being shrouded in mysticism. Marx's main contribution, according to this view, was to demystify Hegel's thought through a more materialist dialectical approach. At the same time, however, there have been those who have sought to rupture this Hegel-Marx connection and purge Hegelianism from Marxism altogether. Appropriate and expunge have therefore been the two main responses to Hegel's influence on Marxism. I will argue against these traditions, however, to assert a more direct relationship between Hegel's and Marx's dialectic. To do so, I want to identify some of the main Marxist thinkers that can be linked with the two main schools above. I will term these the Hegelian-Marxist Materialist Appropriators and the Idealist Expungers. In contrast I put forward the Hegelian-Marxist Materialist school which states that ultimately the dialectic of Hegel is the dialectic of Marx. Before this, I begin by considering some examples of Marx's critique of Hegel. The leitmotif of this critique is a depiction of Hegel's dialectic as mystical or idealistic in contrast to Marx's more materialist dialectic. As we shall see, such a criticism was begun by Marx, perpetuated by Engels as ‘orthodox’ Marxism and ultimately accepted even by those who sought to place themselves within an Hegelian-Marxist tradition.
4
Flores Sierra, Ernesto. "CRÍTICA NEGATIVA DEL SUJETO MODERNO." Revista Cognosis. ISSN 2588-0578 3, no. 2 (July 27, 2018): 15. http://dx.doi.org/10.33936/cognosis.v3i2.1245.
Full textAbstract:
El artículo realiza un análisis del desarrollo del pensamiento crítico marxista, psicoanalítico y existencialista desde la perspectiva de la filosofía de la sospecha, describiendo la dialéctica entre la crítica que las tres escuelas de pensamiento establecen con la modernidad y las consecuencias de sus descubrimientos, que en el caso del marxismo conllevan el desarrollo de una profundización crítica que desencadena en una práctica concreta transformadora, mientras que en el caso del psicoanálisis llevan a una profundización crítica y un repliegue conservador, y en el existencialismo a un proceso de crítica y escape esquizoide de la realidad criticada, articulando en estos movimientos importantes procesos de crítica ideológica al mismo tiempo que procesos de desarrollo de movimientos de pensamiento conservador.
PALABRAS CLAVE: Marxismo; Psicoanálisis; Existencialismo; Pensamiento Crítico; Modernidad.
NEGATIVE CRITICISM OF THE MODERN SUBJECT
ABSTRACT
The paper analyzes the critical philosophy development. The Marxist, psychoanalytic and existentialist theories are analyzed from the philosophy of suspicion. The paper describes the dialectic between the criticism established by the three schools of thought and the consequences of the modernity discoveries, that in the Marxism entails a development of the criticism deepening and a concrete transforming practice, while in the Psychoanalysis lead a criticism deepening and a conservative retreat, and in the Existentialism makes a process criticism and a schizoid escape from the reality criticized, articulating in these movements an important processes of ideological criticism at the same time as a development processes of the conservative thought movement.
KEYWORDS: Marxism; Psychoanalysis; Existentialism; Critical Philosophy; Modernity.
5
Kapeliushnikov, R. I. "Marginalism and Marxism: The first encounter." Voprosy Ekonomiki, no. 2 (February 7, 2021): 102–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2021-2-102-132.
Full textAbstract:
The paper discusses a critical episode in the history of economic thought of the 19th century — the first encounter between marginalism and Marxism. It happened in 1884, when Philip Wickstead published a short twenty-page text in the magazine of “scientific” socialism “To-Day” under the laconic title “Das Kapital: a Сriticism”. The paper briefly traces the creative path of Wickstead; considers the reasons that prompted him to make a stand against Marxism; analyzes his main criticisms; describes the reaction to them by his contemporaries (both professional economists and adherents of socialism) and evaluates the place of his work in the history of ideas. It is noted that Wicksteed’s article was not only the first encounter of marginalism with Marxism, but also the first popular exposituion of the theory of marginal utility (in the version of S. Jevons), which was completely new for that time. His criticism was radical in nature, since it was aimed not at revealing partial shortcomings, but at the complete collapse of the Marxist construction and its replacement with an alternative theoretical scheme. Amazingly, none of Marx’s supporters dared to accept Wickstead’s challenge and his criticism was never publicly contested by them. This seemingly inconspicuous event turned out to be of crucial historical significance. Under the influence of Wickstead, the Fabians rejected the labor theory of value and British socialism (in its main part) ceased to be Marxist forever.
6
Zhang, Wei. "The Development of Marxist Shakespearean Criticism in China." Multicultural Shakespeare: Translation, Appropriation and Performance 20, no. 35 (December 30, 2019): 99–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.18778/2083-8530.20.08.
Full textAbstract:
Chinese Shakespearean criticism from Marxist perspectives is highly original in Chinese Shakespeare studies. Scholars such as Mao Dun, Yang Hui, Zhao Li, Fang Ping, Yang Zhouhan, Bian Zhilin, Meng Xianqiang, Sun Jiaxiu, Zhang Siyang and Wang Yuanhua adopt the basic principles and methods of Marxism to elaborate on Shakespeare’s works and have made great achievements. With ideas changed in different political climates, they have engaged in Shakespeare studies for over eight decades since the 1930s. At the beginning of the revolutionary age, they advocated revolutionary literature, followed Russian Shakespearean criticism from the Marxist perspective, and established the mode of class analysis and highlighted realism. Before and after the Cultural Revolution, they were concerned about class, reality and people. They also showed the “left-wing” inclination, taking literature as a tool to serve politics. Since the 1980s, they have been free from politics and entered the pure academic realm, analysing Shakespearean dramas with Marxist aesthetic theories and transforming from sociological criticism to literary criticism.
7
Hrabovska, Iryna, and Serhii Hrabovskyi. "The Phenomenon of Criticism in Authentic Marxism and its Reincarnation in Ukrainian Philosophy of the Second Half of the 1950s–Late 1980s." Ukrainian Studies, no. 1(78) (May 20, 2021): 188–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.30840/2413-7065.1(78).2021.228309.
Full textAbstract:
The article is devoted to the study of the phenomenon of criticism in the authentic Marxist work and the revival of the principles of such criticism in philosophy that existed in the USSR in the period from the second half of the 1950s to the late 1980s. The relevance of the study is determined by the need to reconsider the experience of domestic philosophy of the Soviet period, particularly in the field of criticism of Western non-Marxist and neo-Marxist philosophical theories and their impact on the ideological foundations of mass consciousness and philosophy in the USSR.V. Bilodid, A. Bychko, P. Yolon, V. Kebuladze, O. Pohorilyi, M. Popovych, V. Skurativskyi, V. Tabachkovskyi, and others were engaged in research of the specified problems. The authors of this investigation also paid attention to the issue of the so-called “Critique of Bourgeois Theories” in the context of studying the phenomenon of the Ukrainian philosophy / philosophy in the Soviet Ukraine.The purpose of this investigation is to analyze the transformation of Marxist criticism in the USSR and the influence of Western European discourses on this process, especially in the second half of the 1950s and late 1980s, as it was then that the revival of the Ukrainian philosophy occurred. This happened after the “half-decay” of Stalinism; further development of this philosophy took place on its own basis.One of the important directions of analysis is the phenomenon of criticism, in particular, of “bourgeois theories”, due to which the topical ideas of Western philosophy penetrated the humanitarian national discourse. This, in turn, allowed Ukrainian researchers to stay at least partially in the context of pan-European philosophical research, as well as to use the critical potential of the authentic Marxism to latently criticize Soviet ideology and the system as a whole.
8
Mikhailouski, Vadzim S. "Three problems of neo-Marxism, or What you need to know before using a neo-Marxist approach." Journal of the Belarusian State University. Sociology, no. 3 (October 8, 2021): 38–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.33581/2521-6821-2021-3-38-46.
Full textAbstract:
The maturity of the neo-Marxist approach in cognition is determined not only by the heuristics of its theoretical and methodological foundations, but also by self-critical reflection. Three initial problems of the neo-Marxist approach are identified, which are useful to take into account when using it in scientific research: excessive criticism of neo-Marxist cognition, ideological bias of the neo-Marxist approach, conceptual uncertainty of capitalism as an object of neo-Marxism. It is proved that the ideological component is falsely identified with all neo-Marxism, and the critical component is treated trivially. The problem of the neo-Marxist approach lies not in the fact of a negative judgment about the reality under study, but in the level of theoretical and methodological support for the critical approach. It is necessary to distinguish criticism as a negative judgment and criticism as a dialectical logic of negation. The researcher can avoid the critical and ideological component of neo-Marxist research within the framework of the scientific tradition of neo-Marxism. This tradition does not deprive the researcher of the possibility of scientific search for new socio-economic reasons for the transformation of capitalism or new political ones by the subject of anti-capitalist resistance. The difference is that the ideological goal setting orients the researcher to the construction of the revolutionary situation of capitalism, and the scientific one – to the knowledge of the revolutionary factors of the existing «capitalist construct». More complex problem of the neo-Marxist approach is the conceptual uncertainty of capitalism. This problem requires a solution at the level of the community of neo-Marxist theorists. The unresolved nature of this problem affects the initial positions of new neo-Marxist studies. It does not allow us to define capitalism as an object of neo-Marxist research of any subject orientation. There are two options for a research strategy in this situation. First, it is possible, based on the conventional concept of truth, to join some neo-Marxist definition of modern capitalism and implement one’s subject research within the framework of the tradition of a particular neo-Marxist theorist. Secondly, it is possible to use the hypothetical-deductive method and proceed from the chosen understanding of capitalism as a hypothetical position, where the author’s subject of research is constituted as a consequence of this hypothesis and requires a verification check for truth. The solvability of general neo-Marxist epistemological problems means that there are no obstacles to the widespread application of neo-Marxism in social cognition.
9
Imbert, Yannick. "Criticism and Legitimacy of “Cultural Marxism”: Implications for Christian Witness in the Postmodern World." Unio Cum Christo 7, no. 1 (April 1, 2021): 59. http://dx.doi.org/10.35285/ucc7.1.2021.art4.
Full textAbstract:
Recently, there has been a good deal of controversy regarding the use and definition of the expression “cultural Marxism.” Some consider it to be simply conspiracy theorists’ term for their fantasies; others consider it the best descriptor of the confusion of our current social discourse. This article critically evaluates the construction of “cultural Marxism,” especially its Marxist-postmodern connection. It concludes that while the expression is relatively improper, it is difficult to deny the existence of a Marxist cultural turn and its impact on the historical development of our society. KEYWORDS: Marxism, postmodernism, cultural Marxism, apologetics, Jordan Peterson, cultural turn
10
Parry, Benita. "A Retrospect on the Limits of Postcolonial Studies." CounterText 1, no. 1 (April 2015): 59–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/count.2015.0006.
Full textAbstract:
Benita Parry here examines the political horizons of postcolonial studies, arguing for the crucial role of Marxism in sustaining the revolutionary impetus of postcolonialist thought. Addressing the career of the late Edward W. Said, Parry points out that while Said's approach to criticism may initially have been philological, political purpose and direction were ‘thrust upon him’ through the situation of his native Palestine in the 1970s, together with the retreat from radicalism within academia. The Said of this period thus urged upon intellectuals the need to engage with injustice and oppression. Parry writes of Said's ‘circuitous journey’ that returned him, in his later works, to a critical approach that eschewed the political, and aimed to contain conflict through his notion of the ‘contrapuntal.’ While Said, with many postcolonial critics, did not subscribe to Marxism, Parry suggests that his work retained a thoughtful and complex respect for Marxists such as Lukács, Goldmann, Raymond Williams, and Adorno. For Parry, Said's repudiation of Marxism is ‘of a different order’ from that of other postcolonial critics who drag revolutionary figures such as Fanon and Gramsci into their own agenda by attempting to stabilise and attune their thought to the ‘centre-left’. Parry goes on to criticise the editors of The Postcolonial Gramsci, for positing Marxist thinking as a restricting framework from which the editors aim to liberate Gramsci's writing. For Parry, these reappraisals of revolutionary thinkers constitute a new form of recuperative criticism that she terms ‘the rights of misprision’. If this is a strategy for ‘draining Marxist and indeed all left thought of its revolutionary impulses and energies’, Parry insists, ‘it is one to be resisted and countered, not in the interests of a sterile rigour, but – in Benjamin's words – to rescue the past and the dead, and a tradition and its receivers, from being overpowered by conformism’.
11
Jameson, Fredric. "Marxist Criticism and Hegel." Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 131, no. 2 (March 2016): 430–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2016.131.2.430.
Full textAbstract:
The interesting question is in fact a two-way street. Familiar enough, with its accusatory hint of idealism and intellectualizing elitism, is the query, In what sense was Marx a Hegelian? But more tantalizing, more science fictional and counterfactual, is its echoing alternative: In what sense was Hegel a Marxist? The sharing of the dialectic is of course the easy way out, in a speculative dilemma calculated to open up fresh answers and unexpected new problems. I will only take on one of them here—namely, what Hegel might have to tell us about the possibilities, and also the limits, of Marxist literary criticism, an issue that may seem as remote today as literature itself (and the theorizing criticism of it).
12
Ellis, John M. "Fredric Jameson’s marxist criticism." Academic Questions 7, no. 2 (June 1994): 30–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02683154.
Full text
13
Boer, Roland. "Twenty-five Years of Marxist Biblical Criticism." Currents in Biblical Research 5, no. 3 (June 2007): 298–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1476993x07077963.
Full textAbstract:
In the context of a renewed interest in Marxism outside biblical studies, this article surveys and critiques the background and current status of a similar renewal in biblical studies. It begins with a consideration of the background of current studies in liberation, materialist and political theologies, and moves on to note the division between literary and social scientific uses of Marxist theories. While those who used Marxist literary methods were initially inspired by Terry Eagleton and Fredric Jameson, more recent work has begun to make use of a whole tradition of Marxist literary criticism largely ignored in biblical studies. More consistent work, however, has taken place in the social sciences in both Hebrew Bible and New Testament studies. In Hebrew Bible studies, debates focus on the question of mode of production, especially the domestic or household mode of production, while in New Testament studies, the concerns have been with reconstructing the context of the Jesus movement and, more recently, the Pauline correspondence. I close with a number of questions concerning the division into different areas of what is really a holistic approach to texts and history.
14
Turenko, Vitalii. "SPECIFICS OF DEVELOPMENT OF AESTHETICS STUDIES: BETWEEN SOVIET AND CHINESE MARXISM." Bulletin of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Philosophy, no. 7 (2022): 56–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.17721/2523-4064.2022/7-10/11.
Full textAbstract:
The article reveals the features of the formation and functioning of aesthetic research in such two areas of Marxism as Soviet and Chinese. The study identified three key stages in the development of aesthetics in Soviet Marxism – the pre-war (the 1920s and 1930s), late Stalinism and the Khrushchev thaw, and the late period (1970-1980s). It should be noted that in the context of Soviet Marxism, the key tasks were that aesthetics becomes influential and in-demand science, included in the program of "technical progress" and "education of the builder of communism", important ideological, aesthetic, and applied field of philosophy. Therefore, in addition to the fact that purely ideological works were developed within the framework of aesthetic discourse, aesthetics itself in Soviet Marxism was able to develop thanks to contacts with semiotics, psychology, anthropology, cultural history, and sociology. Relying on a selective stream of translations of Western philosophies of art, Soviet aesthetics is beginning to resonate with global trends, which is facilitated by the unspoken consensus of the idea of aesthetics as a part of philosophical and humanitarian knowledge that has its own autonomy. Proved that in China culture and the cultural revolution are inextricably linked with the Marxist projects of critiquing capitalist modernity and building alternative modernity. Aesthetics and culture also were at the center of attention in Chinese Marxist circles. In this respect, the diverse practices and designs of Chinese Marxism are similar to those of Western Marxism or an equally distinct variety of Euro-American Marxist intellectual enterprises. Aesthetic Marxism in China had a dual mission – to criticize the internal contradictions of revolutionary hegemony and to offer a constructive vision of culture in a post-revolutionary society. This is the value of Chinese aesthetic Marxism, the implications of which go beyond China proper in the world of global cultural criticism. Moreover, being non-Western, Chinese aesthetic Marxism deliberately questioned the inherent Eurocentrism of Marxism. If this Eurocentrism is to be challenged and problematized, the questions posed by Chinese aesthetic Marxists cannot be ignored.
15
Markov, Alexander V. "FROM IDEALISM TO NEW MARXISM. PART 1. LEV PUMPYANSKY." Articult, no. 2 (2021): 83–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.28995/2227-6165-2021-2-83-90.
Full textAbstract:
Lev Pumpyansky's turn at the end of the 1920s from criticism of Marxism to the full acceptance of Marxist sociology as the main working tool of the literary historian can be viewed as a capitulation, but it could also be a disclosure of the potential of previous criticism. I prove that the criticism of Marxism by Pumpyansky fully fit into the dispute of neo-Kantianism against Hegelianism, while his sociology of literature was based on neo-Kantian foundations and the acceptance of Hegel's dialectics, but not Hegelian philosophy. I reconstruct a common source for Pumpyansky and Bakhtin’s view from the outside to both the neo-Kantian and neo-Hegelian traditionsm, an episode from Plato's Phaedo. The difference in the understanding of the novel genre led Pumpyansky and Bakhtin to opposite conclusions. Pumpyansky's interpretation of the difference between the novel and the novella allowed him to accept Marxism as a metacritic of Neo-Hegelianism and Neo-Kantianism, preserving the position of the hero, which was unacceptable for Bakhtin. For Pumpyansky, Marxist sociology just realizes the intentions of neo-Kantianism as soon as it is applied not to the field of science, but to the field of literature and art. Disagreeing with the convergence of ethics and creativity, promoted by Bakhtin, Pumpyansky coined a consistent Marxist sociology of literature, claiming to be philosophical and relevant for today.
16
Golovin, Y. B. "P.B. Struve and G.V. Plekhanov: history of a certain polemics." Izvestiya MGTU MAMI 7, no. 4-2 (April 20, 2013): 19–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.17816/2074-0530-67948.
Full textAbstract:
The article is dedicated to a controversy between P.B. Struve and G.V. Plekhanov (the late XIX, early XX centuries) on the major problems of Marxist theory: the possibility and necessity of socialism, the theory of impoverishment of the proletariat, Marxist formula of controversy, the theory of social revolution, the laws of dialectics. The authors prove the validity of the Struve’s arguments in his criticism of the foundations of Marxism.
17
Kristjanson-Gural, David. "Postmodern Contributions to Marxian Economics: Theoretical Innovations and their Implications for Class Politics." Historical Materialism 16, no. 2 (2008): 85–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156920608x296088.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractIn this paper I seek to establish that a widely held criticism of postmodern Marxism – that it is morally relativist and does not offer a basis for a systematic analysis of capitalism – is not warranted. I provide a systematic review of the postmodern Marxist literature in three distinct areas – value theory, class analysis of the household and state, and class justice – and I draw on these contributions to show that postmodern Marxism offers new insights into problems of concern to Marxian theorists. I argue, further, that it provides the normative grounds for a class politics that is open to new alliances and new strategies for engaging in class struggle.
18
el-Ojeili, Chamsy. "Post-Marxism with substance: Beilharz circles Marx." Thesis Eleven 167, no. 1 (December 2021): 119–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/07255136211061613.
Full textAbstract:
Circling Marx is both a window on to the forces and concerns that have shaped Thesis Eleven over four decades and an intellectual portrait of the singular post-Marxism of one of its leading thinkers. Beilharz emphasises the existence of multiple Marxes but leans towards a Marx who suggests an expanded materialism, a non-Bolshevik Marx, and a Marx of motion, rather than laws. Addressing Marxism and socialism more widely, Beilharz again underscores multiplicity, favouring those thinkers and currents that acknowledged complexity and limits, that staged something of a conversation between Marx and Weber, and that took distance from the teleology, vanguardism, and hubris that has marked parts of the Marxist tradition. Moving into more clearly post-Marxist territory, through important encounters with Heller and Feher, Bauman, Smith, and Castoriadis, Beilharz’s optic prioritises place, cultural traffic, and ambivalence, combining categories of ambitious scope with epistemological and normative circumspection, criticism with world affirmation.
19
Roasto, Margo. "Marksismi retseptsioon ja dogmaatilise marksismi kriitika Eesti alal aastatel 1905–16." Ajalooline Ajakiri. The Estonian Historical Journal 177, no. 3/4 (June 20, 2022): 169–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.12697/aa.2021.3-4.02.
Full textAbstract:
In Estonian historiography, the revolutionary year of 1905 has been described as a starting point for subsequent political changes in 1917 and 1918. Hence many authors have highlighted the importance of political development that led to the foundation of the first Estonian political parties in 1905. However, the ideological differentiation of Estonian political thought between the revolutionary years of 1905 and 1917 has been studied less. The aim of this article is to analyse the political debates on Marxist theory that took place in the Estonian area of the Baltic provinces from 1905 to 1916.
The leaders of the Estonian socialist movement first became acquainted with Marxist theory through German and Russian socialist literature. Since 1905, various texts by socialist authors were also available to a wider audience in Estonian. First and foremost, the works of German social democrats were published in Estonian. During 1910–14, the first volume of Karl Marx’s Capital was translated into Estonian. While it had often previously been argued that socialism benefits all oppressed people, Marxist ideology was now presented as a scientific theory that explained economic development and protected the interests of industrial workers in a class society.
The article claims that during the period from 1905 to 1916, recognised experts on Marxist ideology emerged among Estonian socialists. In addition to Marxist tactics, Estonian socialist authors discussed theoretical issues such as the material conception of history. In these discussions, the personal conflicts between Estonian socialists as well as their ideological disagreements became evident. More broadly, these discussions were shaped by earlier ideological debates among European socialists at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century.
The article also argues that during the period considered, several Estonian left-wing thinkers questioned the validity of Marxism. Influenced by Bernstein’s revisionist ideas, these thinkers criticised Marxism as a one-sided and dogmatic ideology. They claimed that Marxism was just another theory with both strengths and weaknesses. However, Estonian social democrats who embraced Marxism as a scientific theory responded to such criticism and defended the materialist view of society.
The debates on Marxist theory considered here provide evidence of the ideological differentiation of Estonian left-wing political thought. From 1905 to 1916, numerous socialist texts in Estonian presented various approaches for understanding Marxist ideology. Thus, one can witness an intensified reception of Marxism in the Estonian area during that period. More specifically, these ideological debates reveal new facets of the political views of Estonian socialists who later affected the course of Estonian history as communist revolutionaries or as members of the Estonian Constituent Assembly.
20
Ghosh, Ritwik. "Marxism and Latin American Literature." SMART MOVES JOURNAL IJELLH 8, no. 4 (April 28, 2020): 208. http://dx.doi.org/10.24113/ijellh.v8i4.10539.
Full textAbstract:
In the aftermath of the collapse of the U.S.S.R Marxism remains a viable and flourishing tradition of literary and cultural criticism. Marx believed economic and social forces shape human consciousness, and that the internal contradictions in capitalism would lead to its demise.[i] Marxist analyses can show how class interests operate through cultural forms.[ii] Marxist interpretations of cultural life have been done by critics such as C.L.R James and Raymond Williams.[iii]
21
Kelsall, Malcolm. "The Worker in the Landscape: Constable, Marx, Poetry." Romanticism 26, no. 3 (October 2020): 255–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/rom.2020.0476.
Full textAbstract:
Since John Berger's Ways of Seeing (1972) Marxist criticism of John Constable has criticised his landscapes as ‘Tory’ mystifications of the condition of the agricultural worker. This essay challenges this Marxist approach by returning to the philosophical basis of the traditional approach to painting to which Constable subscribed: ut pictura poesis. It is argued that his relation of poetry to landscape seeks to emphasize the importance of agricultural labour to all human activity and by uniting the diurnal with the demotic enhances the status of the common worker. In this respect Marxist criticism, properly applied, should read Constable positively. By altering perception of the importance of labour Constable, like early Wordsworth, or Blake and Shelley, is a potentially revolutionary artist.
22
李, 鑫鑫. "Marxist Criticism of Ecological Socialism." Advances in Social Sciences 10, no. 05 (2021): 1282–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.12677/ass.2021.105175.
Full text
23
Ripstein, Arthur. "Rationality and Alienation." Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume 15 (1989): 449–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1989.10716807.
Full textAbstract:
Two decades ago, problems of alienation and fetishism were the focus of most English speaking studies of Marx’s philosophy. More recent work on Marx and Marxist themes has tended to avoid these questions in favor of discussions of explanation, exploitation, distributive justice and problems of class formation and co-ordination. The latter set of problems seem more readily addressable, if not always more tractable, using contemporary tools drawn from the philosophy of science, as well as methods of decision theory, game theory, and welfare economics. But the change in emphasis has not been without costs; gains in clarity and rigor have come at the price of abandoning Marx's most fundamental criticism of capitalism as a way of life. I shall argue that it is no coincidence that the shift to ‘rational choice’ Marxism has had precisely that cost.
24
Гундорова, Тамара. "MARXISM AND AMOR INTELLECTUALIS: TOWARD A THEORY OF SOCIALIST CULTURE BY VOLODYMYR YURYNETS." Слово і Час, no. 1 (February 28, 2024): 3–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.33608/0236-1477.2024.01.3-20.
Full textAbstract:
The paper analyzes the methodological framework of the philosophy of culture and new literary criticism of the Ukrainian philosopher and literary critic Volodymyr Yurynets (1891—1937) within his article “To the Problem of Socialist Culture (Introduction to the book ‘Mykola Bazhan’).” His ideas testify to the powerful methodological searches in the field of Marxist criticism of the 1920s aimed at substantiating the nature of post-revolutionary culture. Balancing between Marxism and Western idealist philosophy, Yurynets brings elements of the latter into his philosophical Marxist criticism.
While elaborating a model of new criticism, Yurynets substantiates perception based on a “fluxion of intellectual sympathy.” In this process, the recipient becomes an organ of “amor intellectualis, indifferent amazement.” Yurynets considers his philosophical criticism of culture to be a Marxist form of cultural philosophy. He asserts that literature is a form of philosophical thinking and argues that literary criticism armed with philosophy is a phenomenon completely different from academic literary criticism. Justifying philosophical criticism as an active and modeling force of the modern time, Yurynets appeals to the ideas of the literary critic Leonid Grossman, the literary theorist Pavel Medvedev, and the linguist Nikolai Marr. Yurynets’s concept comes down to the search for the meaning of art in relation to the “life world” of a man. At the same time, he interprets the discovery of the “living forces of the epoch” in the context of historical materialism. In an effort to purify aesthetic perception from subjectivity, psychology, and emotion, Yurynets actually adapts E. Husserl’s ‘phenomenological reduction’ and applies it to the aesthetic reception. The scholar also refers to reflexology and Freudian psychoanalysis as sources of artistic inspiration and interpretive ideas for contemporary philosophical criticism.
25
Zhang, Jingwen. "A study of Marx's religious views from the perspective of realistic man." BCP Education & Psychology 9 (March 29, 2023): 435–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.54691/bcpep.v9i.4720.
Full textAbstract:
This academic paper explores Marx's view of religion from the perspective of "realistic man". It objectively discusses the historical background and main contents of the formation of Marx's religious view as well as the contents of religious criticism which cannot be ignored in the Marxist theoretical system. In the process of studying Marxism, people always used to combine religion with the words such as ignorance and unwisdom. This paper returns to the original work of Marx, puts forward the realistic value of the existence of religion under the historical background, and holds that religion should be discussed with realistic people based on the real society.
26
Stromback, Dennis. "Is there a Post-Marxist Criticism to the Decolonial Critique?" Journal of Decolonising Disciplines 1, no. 2 (February 20, 2021): 121–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.35293/jdd.v1i2.24.
Full textAbstract:
This article makes explicit a hidden tension between post-Marxism and decolonial studies, which points to a challenge for intercultural dialogue. While post-Marxism seeks to rehabilitate a universal foundation for the construction of truth claims—a universal already formed within Western modernity—the decolonial critique seeks to dismantle all universals connected to the myths of modernity and therefore demands a departure from the standpoint of the cultural periphery. In fact, Alain Badiou and Slavoj Žižek, like other post-Marxists, have been rather critical of the standpoints articulated by decolonialists who strive to include cultural differences and marginalised identities in the process of knowledge production, but the reality is that the decolonial critique, more so than post-Marxism, is well-supported by the historical evidence, thus demonstrating the need for Enrique Dussel calls a ‘transmodern pluriverse’ in the academic world. In pursuit of diffusing this tension between the post-Marxists and the decolonialists, this article calls for further investigation in terms of determining if real dialogue is possible between these two trajectories of thought.
27
Emel'yanov, Andrei Sergeevich. "On humanistic interpretation of Marx: Communism or narcissism?" Философская мысль, no. 10 (October 2021): 33–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.25136/2409-8728.2021.10.36325.
Full textAbstract:
This article analyzes two most widespread approaches towards interpretation of the humanistic content of Marx’s doctrine, which have developed within the framework of Western Marxism in the 19550s – 1970s. The first approach – Marxist humanism – describes humanism as the “initial” form of Marx's doctrine of the early period. The second approach – theoretical antihumanism – views the concept of “humanism” as ideological, unscientific and incompatible with Marxism. The analysis of modern Russian and foreign bibliographies indicates the existing ambiguity in assessment of both, Western Marxism and humanistic content of the original ideas of Marx, which defines relevance of this research. The novelty lies in the proposal to view Marxist humanism and theoretical antihumanism in conjunction with the historical establishment of Marx's theory, rather than in contraposition to each other. The author suggest to forgo the interpretation of Marx’s ideas from the perspective of humanism or antihumanism. Such interpretation not only idealizes and mystifies the content of his works, but also creates a prerequisite for narcissistic view of the surrounding material objects and nature. The latter thought is reflected in undertaken at the margin of “Capital” Marx's criticism of the commodity fetishism as one of the central elements of the capitalist manner of production.
28
Hamadi, Lutfi. "The Concept of Ideology in Marxist Literary Criticism." European Scientific Journal, ESJ 13, no. 20 (July 31, 2017): 154. http://dx.doi.org/10.19044/esj.2017.v13n20p154.
Full textAbstract:
This paper attempts an exploration of the development of the Marxist literary theory in general and the concept of ideology in particular. Showing the significant role this theory plays in the field of literary criticism, the paper focuses on remarkable Marxist figures, explores their most notable works, and sheds light on their contributions to the theory and the field of literary criticism. For this purpose, the paper starts with basic Marxist principles of reading literature set by Marx and Engels and examines the changes that occurred with other critics, mainly Althusser, Jameson, and Eagleton in their attempts to show the importance of ideology in explaining literature and understanding its backgrounds, goals, and methods. Thus, the methodology will include an historical overview, shedding light on early Marxist perspectives, comparing and contrasting the contributions and adjustments added by remarkable Marxist thinkers, and illustrating by examples of literary texts and how they are seen and analyzed by these Marxist scholars.
29
Tolkachev, Petr, and Tsolak Agasovich Davtyan. "Althusser’s turn in Marxism and its meaning for the social theory." Философская мысль, no. 7 (July 2020): 59–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.25136/2409-8728.2020.7.33462.
Full textAbstract:
Rehabilitation of Marxist thought present in Althusser’s compilation of the articles titled by catching appeal “For Marx” is carried out in two directions: general – when theoretical line of understanding of the society and history is derived out of Marxism as political ideology; specific – when revealing the “ rational kernel” of Marxist philosophy of history or society, Althusser extracts dialectical contradiction rooted it his methodology of basis and superstructure. The subject of this research is the hermeneutic project of Althusser aimed at new interpretation of the Marxist philosophy of history, as well as elucidation of the “absence” of dialectical turn in Marx’s continuity of Hegel’s philosophy. The object of this article is the new methodology of social research oriented towards finding additional meanings of the principle of overdetermination, which allows Althusser to reconsider the Marxist method of basis and superstructure in a structuralistic way. The essence of its rehabilitation criticism (criticism of elimination of false understanding of Marxist philosophy) consists in the fact that the latter contributed to neglecting the superstructure and led the research to acknowledgement of its nature as a nonexistent phantom, illusion, behind which lies the only true reality resembled by the determinant of economic formations.
30
Mason, Andrew. "Workers' Unfreedom and Women's Unfreedom: Is There a Significant Analogy?" Political Studies 44, no. 1 (March 1996): 75–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00757.x.
Full textAbstract:
The dialogue between Marxists and feminists has not always been fruitful, but even if Marxist theory and feminist theory are irreconcilable there may still be significant analogies between their doctrines. This paper suggests that there is a significant analogy between the nature and undesirability of the unfreedom from which, according to Marxist theory, workers suffer, and the nature and undesirability of the unfreedom from which, according to feminist theories, women suffer. This analogy suggests the possibility of various responses feminist theory might make to the criticism that women are no longer oppressed.
31
BOOTH, WILLIAM A. "Hegemonic Nationalism, Subordinate Marxism: The Mexican Left, 1945–7." Journal of Latin American Studies 50, no. 1 (January 31, 2017): 31–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0022216x17000013.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe most significant weakness of the Marxist Left in early Cold War Mexico was that it subordinated itself to post-revolutionary nationalism. Both the Mexican Communist Party and followers of Vicente Lombardo Toledano supported the ruling Partido Revolucionario Institucional (Institutional Revolutionary Party, PRI), avoiding significant criticism before late 1947. Some dissident currents of Marxism did exist, but they were sparsely followed. Mexico provides an extreme case of Left subordination to popular-nationalist ideology, yet is indicative of trends visible elsewhere, e.g. among Marxist groups in post-war Cuba and the United States. Rather than promoting notions of communist political practice, the Mexican Marxist Left consistently advocated the elimination of class conflict and support for the ‘national bourgeoisie’. The Marxist Left held the Mexican government to different standards from those to which they held the governments of other countries. A near-consensus on the Mexican Left equated patriotism with progressive politics. The argument is illustrated with an important case study: the 1947 Marxist Round Table.
32
Thomas, Peter. "Modernity as “passive revolution”: Gramsci and the Fundamental Concepts of Historical Materialism." Journal of the Canadian Historical Association 17, no. 2 (October 10, 2007): 61–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/016590ar.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The recent revival of interest in Marxism within and beyond the academy has led to various proposals for contemporary reconstructions of historical materialism. This article proposes that the work of Antonio Gramsci could provide the basis for an historical materialist interdisciplinary research programme today that is capable of engaging productively in dialogue with other traditions of thought, while respecting their (and its own) differences. The article focuses in particular on Gramsci’s development of the concept of “passive revolution,” arguing that his integration of elements from Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach permits him both to break with various “determinist” deformations of Marx's thought while at the same time insisting upon the integrity of Marxist theory, as a tradition of thought capable of renewal through self-criticism. It proposes that Gramsci's thought offers resources for an explanatory historical narrative of modernity focused upon the political moment as the dialectical unity of “structure” and “agency”.
33
Lee, Do-yeon. "The Possibility of Principled Marxist Criticism." Korean Language and Literature 193 (December 31, 2020): 491–514. http://dx.doi.org/10.31889/kll.2020.12.193.491.
Full text
34
Glancy, Jennifer. "Marxist Feminist Criticism of the Bible." Biblical Interpretation 18, no. 4-5 (2010): 426–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156851510x503163.
Full text
35
el-Ojeili, Chamsy. "Post-Marxist Trajectories: Diagnosis, Criticism, Utopia." Sociological Inquiry 80, no. 2 (May 2010): 261–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682x.2010.00330.x.
Full text
36
Drałus, Dorota. "Endemiczność konfliktu, nieuchronność polityki." Wrocławskie Studia Politologiczne 22 (October 17, 2017): 85–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.19195/1643-0328.22.6.
Full textAbstract:
Ubiquity of conflict, unavoidability of politicsThe aim of this paper is to outline an argument in support of a thesis asserting an intimate relationship between a conflict and politics. I begin with a criticism of the claim that a conflict and politics are related to each other in a contingent and incidental way only. My criticism is aimed against the Marxist perspective in understanding politics which may be understood as radically anti-political one. For, despite stressing the unavoidability of social conflicts, Marxists claim that politics is a historical phenomenon and will be abolished together with the abolition of the state. Main weakness of this approach is that it is based on the identification of politics with the interest of the state institutions; in this way Marxism delimits the scope of politics to the level of state institutions onlyI consider this delimitation unfounded and I invoke a pan-political conception of politics, formulated by Adrian Leftwich, who points out to the political nature of micro and macro structures of society.
37
Boer, Roland. "A Titanic Phenomenon: Marxism, History and Biblical Society." Historical Materialism 16, no. 4 (2008): 141–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156920608x357756.
Full textAbstract:
Marxist contributions to biblical criticism are far more sustained and complex than many would expect. This critical survey of the state of play, with a look back at the main currents that have led to that state, deals with Marxist contributions to the reconstructions of biblical societies and the interpretation of the literature produced by those societies. It begins by outlining the major Marxist positions within current biblical criticism and then moves on to consider two possible sources of further insight from outside biblical criticism: Western-Marxist studies of the ancient world (Karl Kautsky, Perry Anderson and G.E.M. de Ste. Croix) and the long and neglected tradition of Soviet-era Russian work on the ancient Near East. I conclude by pointing to a number of lingering problems: the unreliability of the literature for historical purposes; the lack of fit between juridical distinctions in the literature and class distinctions in the ancient world; the question as to whether the state can be a class; and the viability of imposing on the ancient world Marxist categories developed in very different situations.
38
Yazovskaya, O. V. "Japanese Marxism of the 1930s: Criticism of State Ideology." Siberian Journal of Philosophy 17, no. 2 (2019): 50–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2019-17-2-50-62.
Full textAbstract:
The article discusses the Marxist criticism of state ideology in Japan in the 1930s. For this purpose, three author positions of the most prominent thinkers of the time are given. The politician Katayama Sen asserts the idea of the inevitability of Japan’s entry into the war as a way of relieving social tension due to the economic crisis. The leading theorist of Marxism, Tohsaka Jun, criticizes the dominant ideology of Japanism, which he defines as spiritual fascism, based on the doctrine of militarism. And his associate Kodzai Yoshishige wrote on the dichotomy of the ideology of war and the psychology of peace.
39
Weaver, C. Kay. "A Marxist primer for critical public relations scholarship." Media International Australia 160, no. 1 (August 2016): 43–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1329878x16650735.
Full textAbstract:
Critical public relations which has its foundations in critical social enquiry has developed extensively as a subset of public relations research and theorising. Surprisingly, however, given the profound influence that Karl Marx’s writings had on the evolution of critical theory, there has been minimal discussion of how Marxist criticism might contribute to our understanding and theorising of public relations. At a time when capitalism is regarded by many as ‘in crisis’, this article explores the value of applying a Marxist analysis to the study of public relations in the 21st century. It examines how key Marxist concepts can be applied to theorising public relations, and how these concepts provide insights into the social, political, and economic structures that public relations works to maintain.
40
Lyubinin, Alexander. "From the history of the soviet political economy of socialism: «the Stalin trap»." Russian Economic Journal, no. 2 (June 8, 2021): 91–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.33983/0130-9757-2021-2-91-123.
Full textAbstract:
The article is devoted to the influence on the evolution of the Soviet political economy of the statement of I.V. Stalin, which appeared in 1936, about the implementation in the USSR of «basically the first phase of communism-socialism». This formulation became canonical and was not questioned throughout the Soviet period. Reacting to the apparent inconsistencies of socio-economic practice with classical Marxist ideas about socialism, some political economists went out of criticism of Marxism, leaning towards essentially non-Marxist interpretations of socialism in general and Soviet socialism in particular. Other scholars have sought ways to reconcile Soviet reality with the Marxist classics by improving the former, while remaining convinced that the USSR is a completely socialist country.
Why did this Stalinist formula appear and was sincerely accepted, including for theoretical reasons, by the scientific community? In what historical and methodological plane could the problem of a completely Marxist interpretation of Soviet socialism be adequately resolved? The answers to these questions are offered by the author of the article.
41
Tally, Robert T. "Boundless Mystification." South Atlantic Quarterly 119, no. 4 (October 1, 2020): 779–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00382876-8663687.
Full textAbstract:
In Marxist literary criticism—for example, as represented by Fredric Jame-son’s influential study, The Political Unconscious—the interpretation of texts has frequently involved ideology critique, by which the critic attempts to disclose both the ideological content or structural limitations of a given text while also being attuned to the text’s utopian or revolutionary potential. In recent decades, Marxist criticism in particular and what is taken to be the hermeneutics of suspicion more generally have come under attack by literary scholars who favor various forms of postcritique, including surface reading and thin description. This essay suggests that postcritique, and all that it involves, contributes to the radical dismantling of higher education caused by rampant neoliberalism. The vocation of ideology critique and of Marxist criticism is, this essay contends, the most appropriate response to a society so utterly mystified as our own.
42
Hershkovitz, Shay. "The Meaning of the Matrix: Towards a Cybernetic Critical Theory of Capitalism." Issues in Social Science 6, no. 1 (April 4, 2018): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/iss.v6i1.12953.
Full textAbstract:
Marxist criticism is most discernible; despite the oft-repeated claim that it is now irrelevant, belonging to an age now past. This essay assumes that criticism originating in the Marxist school of thought continue to be relevant also in this present time; though it may need to be further developed and improved by integrating newer critical approaches into the classic Marxist discourse. This essay therefore integrates basic Marxist ideas with key concepts from ‘social systems theory’; especially the theory of the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann's. In this light, capitalism is conceptualized here as a ‘super (social) system’: a meaning-creating social entity, in which social actors, behaviors and structures are realized. This theoretical concept and terminology emphasizes the social construction of control and stability, when discussing the operational logic of capitalism.
43
Kuzmin, P. V. "МАРКСИЗМ: РАЗМЫШЛЕНИЯ ОБ ИСТОРИЧЕСКОЙ РОЛИ И ОГРАНИЧЕННОСТИ." Konfliktologia 14, no. 2 (July 28, 2019): 82. http://dx.doi.org/10.31312/2310-6085-2019-14-2-82-95.
Full textAbstract:
The article comprehends Marxist views in the field of philosophy, political economy, socio-political sphere. It is shown that Marxism is not a monolith. Along with the undoubted advantages, the social doctrine of Marxism contains ideas and provisions that have not stood the test of time. But the costs of Marxism are not the supporting structures of this doctrine. The author is of the opinion that not confirmation of a number of provisions of authentic Marxism by socio - political practice of the XX-th and the passed years of the XXI-th century is connected with the fact that any social theory “works” in this way, as the implementation of such a theory takes place in line with the coherent concept of truth. Marxist doctrine was created in the era of early capitalism, which did not yet contain the necessary material for more accurate scientific positions and forecasts. In the article the author comes to the conclusion that a number of Marxist views, provided their authentic interpretation, remain relevant in our time. These include: unsurpassed by anyone criticism of capitalism; conclusion on the growth of inequality and income inequality between the strata of society; regulations on the adaptation of production relations to changing productive forces, on ensuring the basic needs of people with the help of new technologies, the development of social and industrial democracy; ideas about the dependence of material production on scientific knowledge, creative, spiritual activity of people, on the progress of technology; humanistic position of Marxism, expressed in the ideas of human liberation, social equality, justice, solidarity. The author believes that the urgent task of the intelligentsia is to preserve Marxism as an integral part of intellectual and political culture, as well as the development of Marxist doctrine in creative competition with other trends of social thought.
44
Savin, Alexey E. "Origins of the Interpretation and Criticism of Philosophical Foundations of Leninism in Western Marxism." Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, no. 458 (2020): 79–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.17223/15617793/458/9.
Full textAbstract:
The aim of the article is to discover the nature of the widespread criticism of Leninism in Western countries in the “left communism” or “communism of the Soviets” (Raetekommunismus), which arose in Germany, Holland, and Denmark in the 1920s and 1930s. To understand the general lines of the criticism of the philosophy of Leninism the author analyzes the ideas presented in the work Lenin as Philosopher by Anton Pannekoek, one of the greatest thinkers and politicians of the “communism of the Soviets”. In its philosophical part, the work is devoted to the criticism of Lenin’s main philosophical work Materialism and Empirio-Criticism. The author also takes into account the articles devoted to this criticism by Karl Korsch and Paul Mattik, other founders of “communism of the Soviets”. The significance of these works is determined by the fact that they constitute the philosophical foundation of contemporary Western “Marxist anti-Leninism”. The author reveals the political presuppositions and the political background of the polemic about the philosophical foundations of Leninism. The background is a polemic about the significance of the Russian revolution and the principles of building the Bolshevik party for the rest of the world and especially for Western countries and their Communist parties. The philosophical polemic with Leninism grows out of a doubt about the universal significance of the experience of the Russian revolution. In particular, Pannekoek and Korsch put forward the thesis of the bourgeois-democratic, not socialist character of the Russian revolution. From this thesis, they conclude that the theoretical basis of the Russian revolution is also of a bourgeois character, i.e. the Russian revolution is based on the ideas of the Enlightenment. The philosophical foundation of the Enlightenment is natural-scientific materialism, not historical materialism, i.e. not Marxism. The article demonstrates the genesis of the concept of Leninism as (1) an anti-democratic tendency in the contemporary liberation movement, (2) an instrument for legitimizing the repressive practices of the bureaucracy in the workers’ parties and in the “catching-up” states of organized capitalism, (3) a naturalistic mishmash of natural-scientific and historical materialism, ultimately suppressing and emasculating the historicity of Marxist thought. The author reveals how this concept was transmitted to tmodern Western left-wing thought through the Frankfurt school, and especially through Marcuse’s work Soviet Marxism (1958), which for many years became the most popular theoretical source for the Marxist criticism of Soviet dialectical materialism in the Western left. Nowadays, this interpretation functions in it in a sedimented form as self-evidence (Selbstverstaendlichkeit) and automatism.
45
Walker, Richard. "Capitalism's Recurrent Self-Criticism: An Evaluation of Bob Brenner's Global Economics." Historical Materialism 5, no. 1 (1999): 179–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156920699100414508.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractA joyless irony of our time is that, just as Marxism as political doctrine has been declared dead, Marxist economics has never been better argued and empirically defended. Bob Brenner's The Economics of Global Turbulence is a good example. As an overview of the global economy from World War Two to the present it is unequalled. Here is the historian at work, leaving few stones unturned and the exhaustive treatment makes for daunting reading. But an exploration of fifty years of global economy is not a stroll through the daisies and the serious reader comes prepared for a long hike.
46
Mothlabi, Mokgethi B. G. "Marxism, Morality and Ideology the Marxist Moral Paradox and the Struggle for Social Justice." Religion and Theology 6, no. 2 (1999): 221–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157430199x00146.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThere is a certain paradox inherent in Marx's criticism of morality. On the one hand, he rejects morality as a form of bourgeois ideology which serves mainly to justify the status quo. The status quo in question is one which is mainly detrimental to ordinary working people, while favouring property owners as well as owners of the means of production. In this sense Marx's condemnation of morality resembles his condemnation of religion, which he saw as the opium of the people. On the other hand, Marx employs morally significant language to challenge what he regards as the evils of capitalism and their destructive effects on the working class. It becomes clear from all this that capitalism cannot be seen as purely an economic matter. Insofar as it affects the lives and well-being of people, it is also a moral issue and deserves to be judged accordingly. How Marx steers between his seeming rejection of morality and, at the same time, using it to criticise capitalism is the main concern of this article. In the process, Marx's concept of ideology is explained while the focus and motivation of his social critique is also briefly considered.
47
Parry, Benita. "The Constraints of Chibber’s Criticism." Historical Materialism 25, no. 1 (April 3, 2017): 185–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1569206x-12341513.
Full textAbstract:
A position joining critical theory with the Marxist critique of imperialism informs the following discussion on the perceived shortcomings of Chibber’s study in its avowed claim to disavow postcolonial theory. Chibber’s insistence on reading Subaltern Studiesaspostcolonial theory is unsustainable in that it fails to address the epistemological premises of a theory adopted and not initiated by the project. Whereas Chibber does ably contest assertions made by Subaltern Studies concerning the special conditions of India halting capitalism’s universalising drive, his concentrated but narrowly-focused and repetitive criticism disregards prior work contiguous to his own specialism as well as disciplines other than the social sciences. Thus the explanatory power of Uneven and Combined Development in understanding the internal conditions of societies conscripted into capitalism is cast aside, as are the resources of Marxist cultural criticism in writing a metanarrative of these consequences inallof their aspects: economic, social, cultural and experiential – omissions that paradoxically are to the fore in postcolonial theory.
48
Pruzhinin, Boris, Aleksandr Buzgalin, Taras Varkhotov, Gennadiy Lobastov, Karen Momdzhyan, Petr Orekhovsky, Yuriy Pushchaev, Igor Frolov, and Anatoliy Chusov. "Marxism and Soviet Socio-Humanitarian Thought: a View from the 21st Century (“Round Table” Materials)." Voprosy Filosofii, no. 3 (March 2024): 127–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2024-3-127-147.
Full textAbstract:
The article is a transcript of the discussion about the prospects of Marxism as a philosophical and methodological program and a direction of research in the field of social sciences and scientific methodology in general. The participants of the round table held on June 24, 2023 at the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University expressed different views on the current state and prospects of the Marxist paradigm, focusing on the role of Marxism in the development of Soviet science in the second half of the 20th century and the ideas of K. Marx and the tradition associated with him that retain their relevance and methodological potential. It is happened so that A.V. Buzgalin, who opened the round table conference, passed away on October 18, 2023. However, ideas live longer than people, words are stronger than flesh, and the editors of “Voprosy filosofii” are grateful for the opportunity to help Alexander Buzgalin's thought sounding. In his speech A.V. Buzgalin noted that Marxism has moved far from the developments of the Soviet period, but these developments remain relevant and have significant application potential. A.V. Chusov noted the underestimation of D. Lukács’ Marxist ideas, the non-classical nature of Marxist ontology, and emphasized the originality and methodological importance of a number of the key Marxist philosophy concepts, such as reproduction and activity. I.E. Frolov drew attention to the undervalued developments of Academician A.I. Anchishkin in studies of productive capital and labor productivity, relevant for understanding the economic role of intellectual activity and innovation. P.A. Orekhovsky spoke with sharp criticism of Soviet Marxism as a failed project, which departed far from the original ideas of K. Marx and crashed due to the impossibility of both practical and theoretical creation of an institution of public property. G.V. Lobastov recalled the philosophical and methodological potential of the Hegelian interpretation of Marxism in the version of E.V. Ilyenkov. Yu.V. Pushchaev emphasized the importance of dialectical logic and the underestimation of the principle of coincidence of partisanship and objective truth, which closely correlates with the idea of the impossibility of “evaluation-free”, abstract-objective knowledge. T.A. Varkhotov noted the fragmentation and emasculation of content in modern Marxism and emphasized the methodological significance of the activity approach in solving the problem of epistemological dualism of the body-consciousness. K.H. Momdzhyan pointed out the heuristic potential of Marx’s philosophical and sociological theory and the categorical system of thinking as an important methodological achievement of Soviet historical materialism. B.I. Pruzhinin, summing up the discussion, emphasized the obvious historical evolution of Marxism and the viability of Marxist methodology, which continues to play an important constructive role in the development of both philosophical concepts – for example, in the constructive realism of V.A. Lektorsky, and in scientific research, for example, in psychology, where the activity approach is used and retains significant methodological potential.
49
Vakhitov, R. R. "Left Conservatism of the Marxist M. A. Lifshitz. (Essays on the Conservative Thought in the USSR)." Orthodoxia, no. 4 (September 29, 2023): 101–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.53822/2712-9276-2022-4-101-128.
Full textAbstract:
The paper reviews the philosophy and aesthetics of an outstanding Soviet thinker, the founder of the concept of left Marxist conservatism Mikhail Aleksandrovich Lifshitz (1905–1983). It describes Lifshitz’s life and work, paying attention to his “respectful friendship” with the Orthodox conservative philosopher A. F. Losev, member of the Onomatodoxy (Imiaslavie) movement. Discussions of the 1930s between Lifshitz and his movement (Lukács, Grib, Usievich, Platonov), on the one side, and Marxist “sociologizers” and “vulgar democrats”, on the other side, are described. During these discussions, Lifshitz and his associates criticized the complete reduction of art, philosophy, and morality to economic facts (the notorious Marxist base), defending the autonomy of spiritual and cultural creativity. They criticized “revolutionary, left-wing avant-garde art” and rehabilitated representatives of classical art of the past, “Great conservatives of humanity”, i.e. Plato, Aristophanes, Goethe, Pushkin, Tolstoy, and classical realistic art itself. According to Lifshitz, the latter also included old Russian art, i.e. icons. The paper shows the conservative potential of Lifshitz’s teaching on the dialectic of progress and regress that justifi es the conservative criticism of capitalism by the great realist artists of the past. It also describes Lifshitz’s criticism of the relativistic trend in Marxism and his attempt to reveal and develop the link between Marxism and classical dialectical philosophy from Plato to Hegel. The author shows that, defending the unity of the Truth, Beauty and Goodness, Lifshitz approached some kind of non-religious (possibly crypto-religious) philosophy of all-encompassing unity or unitotality. Finally, the paper off ers a look at Lifshitz’s left conservatism from the standpoint of ordinary (classical) religious conservatism, stating that his understanding of classical epochs lacked the religious component that has always been present in these epochs.
50
Foley, Barbara. "On the Andrew J. Kappel Prize Essay." Twentieth Century Literature 69, no. 3 (September 1, 2023): 241–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/0041462x-10814787.
Full textAbstract:
The winner of this year’s prize is Conrad Steel’s “Standard Forms: Modernism, Market Research, and ‘Howl.’” The judge is Barbara Foley, Emerita Distinguished Professor of English at Rutgers University-Newark. Foley’s chief scholarly and political interests are in the fields of African American literature, US literary radicalism, and Marxist literary criticism. Her most recent book is Marxist Literary Criticism Today (2019). She is past president of the Radical Caucus of the Modern Language Association and currently serves on the editorial board and manuscript collective of Science & Society.