Suchergebnisse

Marxism is frequently regarded in a disdainful and dismissive way in social work education. However, often drawing on Marx's own words, this article argues that many of his focal ideas have continuing resonance for contemporary social work. Three key themes are briefly examined: Marx's analysis of labour and working lives in a capitalist society; neoliberalism and the voraciousness of capital; and the role of the state and dominating ideology. Finally, the discussion will turn from theory to praxis, illustrating how practitioners and educators within the field of social work might endeavour not only to 'interpret' the world, but also to 'change' it.

This article sheds light on the little known and poorly understood extensive discussion on the relationship between Marx's Capital and Hegel's Science of Logic in the tradition of creative Soviet Marxism. The exploration of the mechanism of ascending from the abstract to the concrete and its relation to the movement of thought from the concrete to the abstract was one of the key points of this discussion. The ascending from the abstract to the concrete is a crucial issue of the dialectical logic developed in German Classical Philosophy, especially in Hegel's Science of Logic. Marx implemented the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete to investigate a historically concrete object (the capitalist mode of production) as an organic whole.

Abstract
Within the current resurgence of interest in E.V. Ilyenkov, the influence of Engels on Ilyenkov's work is either overlooked or denied, making Ilyenkov seem closer to Western Marxism than he actually is. In this paper, by considering Engels's place in his philosophy, I show that Ilyenkov's approach is fundamentally hostile to many of Western Marxism's main views. Ilyenkov, like Engels, conceives philosophy as Logic and affirms the 'alliance' between philosophy and the natural sciences against speculative metaphysics. In this regard, he develops an original cosmological hypothesis based on Engels's insights on the hierarchy of matter's forms of movement and provides a remarkable account of the ideal as an attribute of nature that reproduces its concrete universality through social labour, the active transformation of nature's phenomena into objects stamped with the seal of our subjectivity.

This article examines the interdisciplinary movement to "bring the state back in," advanced during the 1980s by the Committee on States and Social Structures. Drawing on the Committee's archives at the Social Science Research Council, I show that its influential neo-Weberian conception of the state was developed in dialogue with earlier neo-Marxist debates about the capitalist state. However, its interpretation of neo-Marxism as a class reductive and functionalist variant of "grand theory" also created a narrative that marginalized the latter's contributions to the literature on the state. This displacement had lasting consequences, for while neo-Marxist approaches had provided a critical perspective on the relationship between the social sciences and the state, the Committee's narrative had a depoliticizing effect on this subject matter. Reconstructing this moment both recovers the forgotten influence of the New Left and neo-Marxist scholarship on postwar political science and sociology, and elaborates on the contested history of the state as a political concept.

AbstractAlthough the impact of Thompson's work outside the UK has been recognized and pointed to many times, the ways in which Thompsonian categories and concepts, or Marxist thought from the West more broadly, was received in the countries of the former Eastern Bloc remain rather unclear. AlthoughThe Makinghas never been translated into Polish, Czech, or Slovak, the historians of East-Central European countries were not totally cut off from Western scholarship. Major academic institutes and universities throughout the communist bloc maintained basic contacts with colleagues in the West, and Thompson's work was known among some local social historians. Marxism from the West in general and Thompson's work in particular posed challenges that had to be dealt with. This paper traces the ways in which historians of Poland and Czechoslovakia responded to these challenges to the official position of Marxist orthodoxy. TakingThe Makingas an example, it highlights the reception (or lack thereof) of Western influences on local scholarship, and the dynamics of these encounters – whether they were affirmative or critical – in relation to the changing political landscape of East-Central European countries after World War II.

AbstractThis work is a companion piece to 'The American Worker', Karl Kautsky's reply to Werner Sombart's Why Is There No Socialism in the United States? (1906), first published in English in the November 2003 edition of this journal. In August 1909 Kautsky wrote an article on Samuel Gompers, the president of the American Federation of Labor, on the occasion of the latter's first European tour. The article was not only a criticism of Gompers's anti-socialist 'pure-and-simple' unionism but also part of an ongoing battle between the revolutionary wing of German Social Democracy and the German trade-union officials. In this critical English edition we provide the historical background to the document as well as an overview of the issues raised by Gompers' visit to Germany, such as the bureaucratisation and increasing conservatism of the union leadership in both Germany and the United States, the role of the General Commission of Free Trade Unions in the abandonment of Marxism by the German Social-Democratic Party and the socialists' attitude toward institutions promoting class collaboration like the National Civic Federation.

For the past several decades, Marxism has had a checkered lineage in the field of educational theory. Drawing on the work of Teresa Ebert, José Carlos Mariátegui, and the Marxist humanist tradition, this article constructs a defense of Marxist theory as the centerpiece for a revitalized revolutionary critical pedagogy.

Доказывается, что современное восприятие неомарксизма не учитывает наличия двух противоборствующих неомарксистских направлений: идеологизированного гуманистического и «сциентистского» академического. Сама история неомарксизма показывает, что его методология может быть другой, отличной от традиционного ее восприятия как идеологически ангажированного подхода. На основе исторического подхода и контент-анализа марксистского и неомарксистского текстового массива установлено, что идеологизация гуманистического неомарксизма, несмотря на оппозицию партийному марксизму, на популярность среди определенных социальных слоев (новых левых) и общественно-политическую активность его теоретиков, была определена гносеологической причиной – изначальной предвзятостью к познаваемой реальности. В такой ситуации метод гуманистического неомарксизма представлял собой проекцию капиталистического порядка на идеал неотчужденного общества, что предполагало исследование капитализма не как явления, которое объективно существует, а как явления, которое не должно существовать. Это привело гуманистический неомарксизм к утопизму. Выявлено, что для академического неомарксизма в большей степени характерна изначальная для всего неомарксизма идеологическая нейтральность. Академический неомарксизм задает отличные от гуманистического неомарксизма параметры исследования: антинормативизм (из неомарксистского исследования исчезает целеполагание на изменение мира), позитивизм (неомарксизм стремится к научной объективности), антипсихологизм (цель неомарксистского познания – выявить закономерности общественно-экономического порядка, а не найти новые движущие силы истории (агентов революции)). Практическая значимость полученных результатов в том, что выявленный академический неомарксизм есть опыт и стратегия для современных научно ориентированных неомарксистских исследований. ; It is proved that modern perception of neo-Marxism does not take into account presence of two opposing neo-Marxism tendencies: ideological humanistic and «scientistic» academic ones. The history of neo-Marxism itself shows that neoMarxism methodology may differ: differ from its traditional perception as a biased ideological approach. It has been established on the basis of historical approach and content-analysis of Marxism and neo-Marxism text material that the ideologization of humanistic neo-Marxism, despite of opposition to party Marxism, despite of popularity among certain social strata (the New Left) and social and political activities of its theorists, was determined by a gnoseological reason – the initial bias towards cognizable reality. In such a situation, the method of humanistic neo-Marxism was a projection of the capitalist order on the ideal of non-alienated society, which suggested the research of capitalism not as a phenomenon that objectively exists, but as a phenomenon that should not exist. This led humanistic neo-Marxism to utopianism. Academic neo-Marxism accordance to primordial ideological neutrality of the whole neo-Marxism as well as academic neo-Marxism research parameters, which differ from humanistic neo-Marxism ones, were revealed. The author mentions anti-normativism, positivism and anti-psychologism among academic neo-Marxism research features. Anti-normativism means that a neoMarxism feature has the sense that the goal-setting to change the world disappears from neo-Marxist research. Positivism is a neo-Marxism feature which has the sense that neo-Marxism strives for scientific objectivity. Anti-psychologism means that the goal of neo-Marxism cognition is to identify patterns of the social-economic order, and not to find new driving forces of history (agents of the revolution). Results received by the author have practical significance since revealed academic neoMarxism is an experience and strategy for current neo-Marxism studies oriented on science.