Abstract
The aim of this paper is to point out the limits of ‘radical change’ thesis in Marx’s thought. According to this view, there would be a ‘unilinear’ and teleological conception of history in his period of youth. However, for some authors, at some point in his theoretical evolution from 1850’s, Marx would break with this position and formulated a multilinear view of history. From a critical revision, it is intended to point the limits of this thesis from the analysis of Marx’s theory of history that was already in consolidation in the 1840’s. More precisely, in the texts The german ideology (1845-46) and Poverty of philosophy (1847), we can see that Marx’s theoretical works of the mid-1840’s is precisely against a philosophy of history, pointing limitations for the idea of ‘radical change’ in the theory of history.
Highlights
Even after the bicentennial of Marx’s birth, his social theory has still provoked intense debate
The events exposed by the ‘radical change’ thesis authors are of great relevance to Marx’s intellectual evolution and his greater understanding of social development, we argue that there is no significant break of his materialist theory of history of the second half of 1840
It was pointed out that different authors understand that Marx in his youth had a historicalphilosophical and ‘unilinear’ conception of history and at some point, in his intellectual trajectory he would have broken with such a view, manifesting a ‘multilinear’ position of development
Summary
Even after the bicentennial of Marx’s birth, his social theory has still provoked intense debate. As far as the theory of history is concerned, a very widespread thesis refers to a supposed historical determinism In this assignment, there is a ‘unilinearity’ and teleology in history. Some authors argue that Marx had this notion of history in his youth but, at some point, in his intellectual evolution he would have broken with this perspective. This position takes place in different authors such as Scaron (1980), Shanin (1983), Dussel (1990), Kohan (2003), Anderson (2010), Bianchi (2010), Lowy (2013) and many others. We will follow his systematization in the exposition of these interpretations of a change in Marx’s conception of history
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
