Suchergebnisse

"The Grundrisse is widely regarded as one of Marx's most important texts, with many commentators claiming it is the centrepiece of his entire oeuvre. It is also, however, a notoriously difficult text to understand and interpret. In this -- the first guide and introduction to reading the Grundrisse -- Simon Choat helps us to make sense of a text that is both a first draft of Capital and a major work in its own right. As well as offering a detailed commentary on the entire text, this guide explains the Grundrisse's central themes and arguments and highlights its impact and influence. The Grundrisse's discussions of money, labour, nature, freedom, the role of machinery, and the development and dynamics of capitalism have influenced generations of thinkers, from Anglo-American historians such as Eric Hobsbawm and Robert Brenner to Continental philosophers like Antonio Negri and Gilles Deleuze, as well as offering vital insights into Marx's methodology and the trajectory of his thought. Contemporary examples are used throughout this guide both to illuminate Marx's terminology and concepts and to illustrate the continuing relevance of the Grundrisse. Readers will be offered guidance on: -Philosophical and Historical Context -Key Themes -Reading the Text -Reception and Influence."--Bloomsbury Publishing

Recent calls to 'decolonise the curriculum' are especially pertinent to the teaching of political theory, which has traditionally been dominated by a canon made up overwhelmingly of White (and male) thinkers. This article explores why and how political theory curricula might be decolonised. By mapping core political theory modules provided at UK universities, and examining associated textbooks, the article shows that non-White thinkers and discussions of colonialism and race are marginalised and neglected. It then argues that there are intellectual, political, and pedagogical reasons why this neglect is problematic and should be reversed. Finally, the article reflects on the experience of rewriting and delivering a core second-year undergraduate modern political thought module at a post-92 London university, including assessing the impact of the changes on the attainment gap between White students and Black and minority ethnic students.

Recent calls to 'decolonise the curriculum' are especially pertinent to the teaching of political theory, which has traditionally been dominated by a canon made up overwhelmingly of White (and male) thinkers. This article explores why and how political theory curricula might be decolonised. By mapping core political theory modules provided at UK universities, and examining associated textbooks, the article shows that non-White thinkers and discussions of colonialism and race are marginalised and neglected. It then argues that there are intellectual, political, and pedagogical reasons why this neglect is problematic and should be reversed. Finally, the article reflects on the experience of rewriting and delivering a core second-year undergraduate modern political thought module at a post-92 London university, including assessing the impact of the changes on the attainment gap between White students and Black and minority ethnic students.

Recent Foucauldian critiques of neoliberalism – especially those by Wendy Brown, Béatrice Hibou, and Pierre Dardot and Christian Laval – have argued that the Marxist interpretation of neoliberalism as a class project is reductive and economistic, and have instead conceptualised neoliberalism as a form of governmental rationality. This article compares these two influential approaches to understanding neoliberalism. It will outline the central features of the Foucauldian and Marxist approaches, assess the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches, and argue that a synthesis of the two approaches is both possible and desirable. While the Foucauldian approach enables a microphysics of everyday neoliberalism and its modes of subjectivity, it is argued that such an analysis must be placed within the broader, macrostructural approach of Marxism. The article thus defends Marxism against its Foucauldian critique, while nonetheless encouraging Marxists to engage with Foucauldian accounts of neoliberalism which they have so far tended to ignore.

In recent years, the work of a diverse range of thinkers has been grouped together under the label 'new materialism'. This article offers a critical introduction to new materialism that challenges its understanding of historical materialism. It aims to demonstrate not that historical materialism is superior to new materialism, but rather that the latter would benefit from engaging with rather than ignoring or dismissing the former. It begins by defining new materialism in relation to its reappraisal of science, its concept of agency and its underlying ontology. Second, it locates new materialism by demonstrating how and why many new materialists are hostile to historical materialism. Finally, it responds to new materialist criticisms of historical materialism, arguing both that there are potential areas of agreement between the two materialisms and that historical materialism offers valuable resources for analysing historically specific and asymmetric power relations.

Challenging claims of a recent 'anarchist turn', this article argues that calls for a 'left convergence' between anarchism and Marxism should be treated with caution. It sets out to establish what distinguishes Marxism from anarchism today, and argues that the former contains superior resources with which to challenge the current dominance of neoliberalism. In order to elucidate the strengths of Marxism, it addresses three common anarchist criticisms of Marxism, concerning its authoritarian strategies; its economic reductionism; and its lack of moral or ethical perspective. It argues that each of these criticisms inadvertently highlights the advantages of Marxism over anarchism.