Max Weber und der Geist des Marxismus? Der „Historische Materialismus“ in Webers Werk

This article reconsiders some underlying assumptions regarding Marx's theory of subjectivity. It contends that Marx's early resistance to Hegel would initiate a productive and multifaceted engagement with empiricism which would extend throughout his philosophical and economic authorship, the foundations of this empiricism drawn from a dynamic conception of subjectivity much closer to the tradition of Hume. Through an examination of some of Marx's major works, including a more detailed exegetical analysis of the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, this article explores Marx's empirical theory of the subject and considers the manner in which it informs his materialist conception of history, his dialectical procedure and his comprehension of the experience of the subject under capitalism.

This essay notes that the relationship of political values to social theory is an important but unresolved question for all social theory, but notes that in the discipline of International Relations the discussion is particularly undeveloped. Contemporary trends in IR theorizing are evaluated in order to contexualize the increasingly assertive forms of historical materialist thinking, derived from Marxian social theory, which are being given serious attention in the discipline. I argue that Marxian theory is at one and the same time empirical, normative and emancipatory, and conclude that while much of the new historical materialist thinking in IR advances our understanding of international relations empirically and theoretically, and offers a significantly ‘better’ explanation of the ‘international’ than Realism or other theories can, it is deficient because of its inattention to the centrality of normative and emancipatory questions at the heart of Marxian historical materialism. I further argue that because historical materialism necessitates, within the logic of its own theoretical construction, specific political values, a revisionist historical materialism that ignores these values, calls into question the theoretical integrity of the latter approach.

This paper compares Marx's economics with those by Sraffa, Keynes, Kalecki and Minsky. The paper takes an ‘ex post’ view on the matter and looks at the output side of the respective authors, but not at the input side. This means no attempt is made to study in a systematic way whether and to what extent Sraffa, Keynes, Kalecki and Minsky were individually influenced by Marx's work. First, the relationship between Marx's theory of value and Sraffa's reformulation of the classical theory of prices and distribution is reviewed. Then the relationship between Marx's and Keynes's monetary theory is examined, relying on an interpretation of Marx's theory of value as a ‘monetary theory of value’. Next, some light is shed on the Marx–Kalecki connection, focusing on Marx's theory of simple and extended reproduction and the built-in, although not fully elaborated, ‘principle of effective demand’ and the related theories of distribution and accumulation. Finally, Marx's and Minsky's views on financial instability and crises are scrutinised. It is concluded that Marx should not be considered as an ‘early post-Keynesian’ but rather as an important forerunner of modern post-Keynesianism, with certain similarities, but also some important differences, and several areas of compatibility.

This paper is part of a larger effort to present what I would call the “unsaid” – or some of what is “unsaid” – in Karl Marx's theory. By this I am referring to a certain philosophical background made up of presuppositions that are not always completely explicit. This is not an attempt to expose “what Marxism really is,” because I believe there is no such thing in the absolutely univocal sense. Instead, I am attempting to view Marx in another light, principally in regard to the self-representation that Marxism has built up for itself – to view it, in fact, from the basis of a given spirit of (our) time, at the beginning of a new century. I do not presume that a theory can exist without philosophical presuppositions or commitments. The point here is to try to avoid being naive regarding the presuppositions that may be assumed even when seeking to approach Marx's theory in a renewed and anti-dogmatic manner. Particularly in this paper, I want to show a certain permanence, re-elaboration, and consequent “strengthening” in Marx's critical theory of 1845–6, of the originally Feuerbachian notion of a “communitarian” essence of man – with all the weight that this notion of essence has, among other things, for the definition of concepts like alienation. The Marxian re-elaboration of the Feuerbachian notion of “species-essence” ( Gattungswesen ) occurs primarily in Marx's well-known “Theses on Feuerbach,” and the first section, “Feuerbach,” of the German Ideology (a collaborative work by Marx and Engels).

Contrary to the predictions that after 1989 Karl Marx would fall into oblivion, Marx has returned to the attention of international scholars. One hundred and sixty years after it was written, the Manifesto of the Communist Party is celebrated as the text which contains the most formidable prediction of capitalist development on a world scale. This article considers how the writings of Marx and Engels were translated and assimilated in Italy, from its first appearance in 1889 to 1945 and, more generally, explores the misinterpretations of the fortune of Marx's works in Italy. From a close examination of the press of the newly established workers' movement and the first socialist writings, the reality of a counterfeited and theoretically impoverished 'Marxism' emerges. Antonio Labriola's Essays on the Materialist Conception of History, which were published between 1895 and 1897, were the only works in Italy that offered a rigorous interpretation capable of measuring up to the European levels of Marxism. Through the historiographical reconstruction of translated works and the development of the interpretations of Marx and Engels' The Communist Manifesto, this article considers the debate on the 'crisis of Marxism' of the late 19th century in which Benedetto Croce was the most important figure, the limitations of the diffusion of Marx's theories in the Italian Socialist Party, the struggle between reformist and the union-revolutionary revisionism of the early 20th century and the repression of 20 years of fascism.

It is widely recognized that Marx was prescient in identifying and addressing theoretically a number of economic issues (e.g., concen? tration, the business cycle, poverty amid plenty, technological un? employment, the persistence of unemployment) which were only at a later date given theoretical legitimacy when taken up by economists more sympathetic to both capitalism and the orthodox academy. Yet surprisingly, orthodox economists have all but ignored Marx's work. If he is studied at all, he is generally treated as a curiosum, a minor post-Ricardian, or as an example of how not to do economics, [e.g., Samuelson, 1962, p. 12; Schumpeter, 1954, esp. pp. 685 ff.] In many instances, such reactions might emanate from ideological predisposi? tion, but for those who strive to transcend ideology, the rejection of Marx is usually founded on a judgment that either his theories have not withstood the testing of scientific economics or his methodology was not scientific. The scientific standards which orthodox economists attempt to de? ploy to determine the validity of theories are those which have been thought to typify the paragon science, physics. Briefly stated, a scien? tifically valid theory must be logically consistent internally, and hy? potheses deduced from this body of theory must be empirically testable and capable of surviving such testing. The successful empirical con? firmation of hypotheses lends empirical credulity to the body of theory from which it was deduced. When examined according to these cri? teria and in terms of what orthodox economists view as the appropriate subject domain of economic science, Marx's economic theory is gen? erally found to fall short of science on both counts. In terms of in? ternal logical consistency, Marx's theory of value is supposedly in? capable of adequately accounting for prices. In terms of the empirical testability criterion, Marx's theory is judged as failing on two counts: First, his body of theory does not readily generate hypotheses which

Studies of Marx's theory of history are complicated by the fact that Marx himself never provided a systematic treatment of its central principles. As a result, the task of elaborating historical materialism has fallen to Marx's interpreters, who are required to distill its tenets from Marx's historical writings and from general statements in which he summarized his historical method. Within the last decade, this task has attracted considerable scholarly attention occasioned by Cohen's successful restoration of an orthodox version of Marx's theory that had fallen into desuetude. On this reading, historical materialism is guided by the thesis "that history is, fundamentally, the growth of human productive power, and that forms of society (which are organized around economic structures) rise and fall according as they enable and promote, or prevent and discourage, that growth"1 The most promising alternative to Cohen's interpretation is one that awards causal primacy to class and class struggle. The best treatment of this thesis is Brenner's historiography, where it guides his analysis of the transition from feudalism to capitalism in early modern Europe. 2 Brenner replaces the logic of production with the logic of exploitation at the center of his historical analysis. The relations of production and the class struggles arising from them, and not the productive forces, determine the internal composition and evolution of social formations in history. Material progress is only a by-product of the course of development of class struggle. Cohen's defense of historical materialism did not neglect Marx's emphasis on class. He sought to accommodate it, arguing that class conflict serves to facilitate major historical change, while the deeper cause of revolution lies in the autonomous tendency for the productive forces to develop throughout history. "If we want to know why class

Employment is a historical issue that occurs at a specific stage in the process of modernization. According to Marx's theory of historical materialism, employment is a problem that arises in modernization, particularly in industrialization and urbanization. China faces two challenges in its modernization process: insufficient development of its productive forces and current production relations that do not facilitate the development of productive forces. China is in the primary stage of socialism, where mechanized production replaces traditional production modes, resulting in a continuous decline in labor demand while labor supply is increasing. The internal production forces and production relations within society cannot interact, leading to oversupply in the labor market and resulting in a surplus of labor. At the same time, modernization requires a fundamentally new approach to employment in China, while the current employment situation is far from meeting modernization requirements. Therefore, the Chinese government must follow Marx's theory of historical materialism, and deeply reform and innovate its systems and mechanisms to achieve complete unity between production relations and productive forces. Only then can employment problems be solved.

In recent years, there has been little discussion of Marx's writings on gender and the family, but in the 1970s and '80s, these writings were subject to a great deal of debate. In a number of cases, elements of Marx's overall theory were merged with psychoanalytic or other forms of feminist theory….These scholars viewed Marx's theory as primarily gender-blind and in need of an additional theory to understand gender-relations as well. However, they retained Marx's historical materialism as a starting point for understanding production. Moreover, a number of Marxist feminists also made their own contributions in the late 1960s to '80s, particularly in the area of political economy [when they] tried to revalue housework. [Others] attempted to move beyond dual systems towards a unitary understanding of political economy and social reproduction [or show] that Marx can be used to understand the historical development of women's nature.This article can also be found at the Monthly Review website, where most recent articles are published in full.Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the Monthly Review website.

Part 1 Dialectic in Marx - introduction taking Marx seriously Marxism in theory and practice summary of the chapters. Part 2 Contradictions in reality: Kant's transcendental dialectic the contradiction between ourselves as free agents and as beings belonging to nature Kant's dialectic of teleological judgement Kant's dialectic of self-consciousness Hegel's affirmation of contradiction Marx and contradictions in reality. Part 3 Hegel's dialectic and Marx's unity of opposites: three versions of the in Hegel the speculative is the ideal in Hegel's dialectic critique of Hegel's idealism two concepts of an unity of opposites. Part 4 Idealist and materialist mmodels of organic wholes: Mao and Mussachia on contradiction. Part 5 marx's theory of historical materialism: theoretical basis of the distinction between base and superstructure. Part 6 Marx's theory capitalim: the production and exchange of commodities dialectic of commodity production and exchange price and value the dialectic of price and value critics of the labour theory of value. Part 7 Marx's theory of revolution: the dialectic of consciousness and its objective conditions crisis theory development of the proletariat as a class in-and-for itself.

Over the years, Karl Marx's tangled relation with Judaism has provoked heated debate among followers and critics alike. Can the Jewish tradition better help us understand Marx's political theory? Which themes in Marx's writings become clearer when read in a Jewish context? In this provocative book, Dennis Fischman addresses these questions by showing how Marx's work, from his doctoral dissertation to Capital, resounds with the characteristic concerns of Jewish thought. Fischman identifies three key elements that Marx's theory shares with Judaism: its ontology, its use of texts, and its conception of reality underlying Marx's writings and that of the Hebrew Bible, including the notion that human beings are obliged by their own needs to repair and perfect the world. Similarly, Marx's way of commenting on earlier authors, especially Hegel, resembles the rabbinic style of textual interpretation called midrash: both interrogate existing texts to make them speak to the urgent needs of the readers' situation. Finally, Fischman draws on legend, history, and poetry to explore how the Jewish theme of exile can be read in the Marxian theory of alienation. Just as exile disrupts the dialogue between God and humanity and sets all awry, alientation under capitalism corrodes human powers and social relations. Marx himself, Fischman suggests, is a figure in exile. Estranged from his Jewish roots, he is unable fully to understand himself or to explain himself to those who hold a fundamentally different view of reality.

A critical evaluation of the Russian revolution implies e re-consideration of Marx's theory of historical change. In the light of the recent philological acquisitions available thanks to the new critical edition of Marx's and Engels' works. It seems possible to redefine some basic concepts of Historical materialism; this affects both the concept of Revolution and the theory of the historical and political classes supposed to lead this process. The essay begins a reflection on these complex themes and suggest some possible future researches.

The theory of "alienated labor" is a crucial component of Marx's "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844". It also provides strong support for analyzing the poverty of workers under the capitalist mode of production. Marx made extensive discussions on "alienated labor", constructed a relatively complete conceptual system, and systematically analyzed the fourfold determination of alienated labor as the primary content. On the basis of analyzing the fourfold determination, exploring the hidden relationship between alienated labor and private property, and seeking practical ways to eliminate alienated labor are the key to truly grasping Marx's theory of alienated labor. This theory is not only a major theoretical achievement of Marx's criticism of bourgeois political economy, but also an important breakthrough for the formation of his historical materialism. It can be said that the issue of alienation plays a connecting role in Marxism, especially in Marxist political economy. Considering the current development of China's economy and society in the context of the new era, the new development concept implemented in the development of socialism with Chinese characteristics embodies the practical significance and guiding value of Marx's theory of alienated labor: promoting the construction of a community with a shared future for man and nature through innovative development and green development; advancing the building of harmonious labor relations through shared development and open development; and facilitating the free and all-round development of human beings through coordinated development.

Foreword by Colin MacCabe - Introduction - Prospectus - The Necessity of Philosophy - Nature and Human Nature in Marxist Theory - The Question of Class - Forms of Historical Disruption - Towards a New Strategy of Liberation - The End of Political Economy - Marxism and Democracy - Bibliographical Essay - Index

G. A. Cohen's influential ‘technological determinist’ reading of Marx's theory of history rests in part on an interpretation of Marx's use of ‘material’ whose idiosyncrasy has been insufficiently noticed. Cohen takes historical materialism to be asserting the determination of the social by the material/asocial, viz. ‘socio‐neutral’ facts about human nature and human rationality which manifest themselves in a historical tendency for the forces of production to develop. This paper reviews Marx's writings to demonstrate the extensive textual evidence in favour of the traditional interpretation ‐ that for Marx, the ‘material’ includes the economic, and is thus ineluctably social in character. Thus those critics of Cohen who have urged the inclusion of the relations of production in historical materialism's explanans do seem to have Marx's terminological and conceptual backing.