Abstract
The project of renewing historical materialist theory for a new generation requires overcoming the limitations of Althusserian structuralism. Upon investigation, Althusser's theory is revealed to be idealist, inconsistent with the philosophy actually articulated by Marx, and unhelpful in understanding the dynamics of human societies. The flaws in this approach led both to E. P. Thompson's rejection of abstract theory altogether, and Michael Lebowitz's effort to “complete” Marx's theoretical project, while avoiding Althusser's structural determinism by incorporating agency and social struggle into the heart of political economy. Yet Lebowitz's theoretical system has very little to say about how these were historically practiced by classes as institutional formations in different spatio-temporal contexts. In this respect, the “Institutional Marxist” approach developed by Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin shows the most promise for further developing today's revival of historical materialism.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
