Kind Of Marxism Research Articles

The Analysis of Marxism in the Movie Jack the Giant Slayer

This research was about Marxism in Jack the Giant Slayer on social class and kind of Marxism. Marxism was an important thing in the society because Marxism wanted to remove social classes. Thus, this research was to describe how social classes could influence someone’s roles in the society. This research used descriptive qualitative method. The research was conducted by accommodating two theories: kinds of Marxism by Tyson (2006) and social class by Barry (2002). Tyson’s theory (2006) classifies Marxism into classism, patriotism, religion, rugged individualism, and consumerism. On the other hand, Barry’s theory (2002) classifies social class into the upper class, the middle class, and the lower class. The findings of the analysis reveal that there were ten data in Jack the Giant Slayer. The researcher found ten forms of Marxism, There were one form of classism, twelve forms of rugged individualism, and one form of consumerism. The most of kind dominant Marxism was classism. Besides, the researcher found three forms of social class, they were the upper class, the middle class, and the lower class. There were four characters of the upper class, one character of the middle class, and two characters of the lower class. The dominant social class was the upper class, which appeared in four characters.

Marxism

We compare and contrast two different kinds of Marxism: traditional (orthodox) and overdeterminist. The argument pinpoints key theoretical and political consequences of each kind of Marxism for the history of the Left and for anticapitalist struggle today. Our preference, overdeterminist Marxism, places the elimination of class exploitation (conceived in surplus labor terms) back on the Left's agenda for social change where Marx had placed it. We explain why this overdeterminist focus on reorganizing the production and distribution of the surplus (eliminating exploitation) is different from traditional Marxism's focus rather on eliminating private ownership of the means of production and/or empowering workers. The conclusion suggests why and how overdeterminist Marxism can help to restructure society so as to achieve a new kind of class democracy.

Persistance du marxisme traditionnel et pertinence du marxisme surdéterministe

This article assesses the relevance today of two different kinds of Marxism : (1) traditional, “classical” or determinist Marxism and (2) non-traditional or overdeterminist Marxism. These two Marxisms are compared and contrasted to show how and why they yield different notions of socialism and communism, class, the place of economics in Marxism, causation, and epistemology. The authors explain why the overdeterminist version is preferred to the determinist and what this choice suggests about a new Marxian politics for the 21st century. The latter aims to yield a society with a new kind of economic freedom for workers : one in they collectively receive and distribute the gross profits they produce.

Edward Said and Marxism: Anxieties of Influence

Edward Said and Marxism Anxieties of Influence Stephen Howe To his admirers, Edward Said has—especially since his death—come to be seen as the ideal type of critical intellectual, and Orientalism an ur-text for multiple enquiries and intellectual or even personal transmutations. For Timothy Brennan, Orientalism turned out to be not only a book for knowing but a manual for doing. It was not just a book to emulate, but a book whose content addressed how to be the sort of intellectual Said himself became in the writing of it. This is why it cannot be exhausted. We pour ourselves into it, and therefore get ourselves back, but transformed. (2001, 99) This sounds strangely similar to Louis Althusser's rhapsodic evocation of the inexhaustible, transformative experience of reading Marx's Capital: we have been able to read it every day, transparently, in the dramas and dreams of our history, in its disputes and conflicts, in the defeats and victories of the workers' movement which is our only hope and our destiny. (Althusser and Balibar 1970, 13) Yet even if Said's work stimulates in some devotees an enthusiasm comparable to that felt for Marx's by some followers, the actual relationship has been notably problematic.1 It is striking that, although many of Said's admirers would call themselves Marxists, a great deal of the most probingly critical (not to mention the most sweepingly hostile) commentary on Said's work has also come from Marxists. Said discussed his own attitude to Marxism at various times, but ordinarily in ways that were brief, allusive, ambivalent—and when he was more forthcoming, it was largely when directly challenged on the issue by interviewers, rather than in his own written texts. In one [End Page 50] such interview he said that "Marxism, in so far as it is an orthodofly, an ontology, even an epistemology, strikes me as extraordinarily insufficient . . . but I've never indulged in anti-Marxism either" (Said 1992b, 259). He linked this insufficiency to the political irrelevance of academic Marxism in the United States and the dogmatism and pro-Sovietism of political Marxism in the Arab world (259–61). "That leaves," he went on, "nevertheless, a great deal there to be interested in" (261). Many of the theorists and activists for whom Said expressed greatest admiration, from C. L. R. James to Theodor Adorno, Raymond Williams to Amilcar Cabral, occupied some place in the very broad church of non-Soviet Marxism; and he intermittently engaged—in largely though never unmixedly positive terms—with the work of major Marxist theorists of aesthetics from Lukács (e.g., Said 1976b, 1995b, and the strikingly laudatory invocation of Lukács in 2000c, xviii) to Fredric Jameson (e.g., Said 1982). He once said, sounding almost defensive, that he had always "tried my best to deal with it [Marxist thought] in a very vigorous way" (1992b, 261). Yet the most important, or at least most evident, relevant intellectual relationships were not with Marxism as a body or tradition either of thought or of political action (or a cluster of them) but with a number of individual thinkers who are conventionally designated as Marxist: Adorno and Gramsci, Lukács and Fanon, Williams and, more broadly and diffusely, Marxist historians writing on imperialism. One may well wonder whether these very disparate figures—who, furthermore, tended to figure in or exert an apparent influence on often quite different parts and periods of Said's work—actually have enough in common for the "Marxist" label to have much analytical usefulness in relation to them all. It may also be noted that only certain kinds of Marxism and of Marxist feature at all substantively in relation to Said's work. Said closely engaged with a specifically Western Marxism—both in Perry Anderson's (1976) sense of a western European intellectual tradition focused mostly on philosophical and aesthetic questions, and in the later configuration of a mainly Anglophone academic milieu. In a very different fashion and later in his...

A Third Kind of Marxism: Colin McKay, Socialist Political Economy and the Great Depression

The Canadian socialist movement has a more varied intellectual history than many contemporary socialists believe. Although it is often presented in caricatured, stereotypical terms as a series of epic battles between good and evil (the democratic left against the totalitarian Communists; the true Marxists against the revisionists; the revolutionaries against the reformers, etc.), the history of the Canadian socialist movement would be much more interesting and useful if these dichotomies were retired (or, at the very least, used more cautiously and critically).

Historical Explanation in ‘The Critique of Dialectical Reason’

The Critique of Dialectical Reason was first published in France twenty years ago, in 1960. The book, we know from Simone de Beauvoir, was flung together in a hurry, written virtually without correction during the height of the Algerian war, a period, for Sartre, of stress and anxious stock-taking of his position as a Marxist and a long-term non-joiner of the Communist Party. The whole sense in which, in 1960, Sartre was a Marxist, the question of precisely how eccentric his kind of Marxism was, is centred on his theory of historical explanation. I do not propose to raise many detailed questions about the relation of Sartre's views on history to those of Marx himself, still less to those of other Marxists. Ignorance alone would rule out such a course. I would like if I can, however, to consider Sartre's own view of historical explanation as it appears in the Critique, and leave it to others if they wish to fit it into the Marxist tradition, or exclude it. In order to perform this relatively modest expository task, it will be necessary for me to refer, from time to time, to Sartre's earlier philosophical views. But this will come in incidentally

Weberian Perspectives and the Study of Education

Weber has received less recognition in the sociology of education than that of either Marx or Durkheim. None of them wrote extensively about education, and although mention will made made of Weber's treatment of bureaucracy in education and his study of the education of the Chinese literati, the main purpose of this article is to consider his sociology in relation to recent sociology of education. In doing so the various elements of his approach will be introduced, including social action, power, authority and bureaucracy, class, status and party, ideology, and the necessity for value-freedom, but without extensive discussions of their general importance. The arguments for the use of neo-Weberian perspectives in sociology in general have been made most persuasively by Collins [1]. Instead, they will be compared with other approaches used in the sociological study of education, and examples will be given of the use of neo-Weberian methods in this field, together with suggestions for their further application. Three related general themes run through this commentary. Almost a decade after the introduction of the 'new' sociology of education discussion is moving towards a central issue in sociology; the relationship between micro and macro social processes [2]. How do classroom events relate to social, political and economic structures? The phenomenological element of the new sociology of education has been mainly concerned with the former; the functionalist element of the so-called 'orthodox' sociology of education and the Marxist element in the new, stress the latter. It is suggested that there are limitations to the kinds of explanations afforded by these approaches, and that the study of education using the methods of Weber enables explanations to be made which combine the voluntarism of phenomenology and its important stress on the subjective meaning of social action, with the structural constraints on social action which are emphasised in functionalism and some kinds of Marxism. This is possible since Weberian concepts may be applied at all levels of scale and complexity. This does not mean that any kind of simple solution can be suggested to resolve the under-determined/over-determined debate about the nature of mass education in modern industrial societies. However, drawing on a number of sources, not all overtly Weberian but which have some methodological compatability, it is suggested that education must be granted a