[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1608528026308.jpg (57.26 KB, 616x440, MarkFisher-616x440.jpg)

 No.871

What are some essential western Marxist works? Which work(s) would you classify as your favourite(s)
>>

 No.874

>>871
What the fuck is Western Marxism? Marx himself was already a German and spent his time in Germany and England, which are both in Western Europe.
>>

 No.875

>>874
The Theoretical Marxist Ideas that originated in Western Europe after the Russian Revolution with the movement growing mostly independent of the USSR i. i.e. Gramsci, Korsh, The Frankfurt School, Debord etc. It expands on Marxist Thought by adding an emphasis on Cultural Studies, Critical Theory and more Philosophical Analysis.
>>871
From what I reading, Society of the Spectacle, Dialectic of Enlightenment, and Gramsci's Prison Notebooks. Philosophically Speaking its my personally favorite current of Marxist Theory.
>>

 No.880

File: 1608528027194.gif (51.03 KB, 812x529, the point of critical phil….gif)

>>875
I don't consider most of these things Marxism. Just dropping a reference to Marx here and there in your writing doesn't make you a Marxist. It's like calling Paul Cockshott a Thatcherist.
>>

 No.881

>>880
Can you leave these stupidifying posts for /leftypol/ please? Claiming that Korsch or Gramsci wasn't Marxists is just pure nonsense.
>>

 No.884

>>881
>[b]most[/b] of these
>Gramsci wasn't Marxists is just pure nonsense
Looks like you aren't cut out for things like reading.
>>

 No.885

File: 1608528027663.jpg (82.81 KB, 1280x720, how-rude.jpg)

>>884
Maybe try explaining why you believe that Korsch, The Frankfurt School and Debord weren't Marxists? We are here to learn.
>>

 No.890

>>871
Western "euro" marxism is a disease. It ranges from crazy anglo trotskyist grups, the operaismo "autonomist-marxism" people etc. The only non-looney things are parts of Korsch, Lukacs, Gramsci and maybe Mandel.
>>

 No.904

Low-effort insults and off-topic opinion should be a bannable offense on this board.
>>

 No.907

Raoul Vaneigem’s “Revolution of Everyday Life” is a nice book, if that counts
>>

 No.908

>>904
Right. No more talking about Debord here!
>>

 No.915

>>908
Make the thread for S.I. / councilists then.
>>

 No.917

>>904
I agree we should keep this board as effortpost central. We don't need to ban people though. People who post low effort opinions and insults are trying to get a response. Just ignore them.
>>

 No.918

>>871
What's even the Western Marxism? It's supposed to be people who call themselves Marxist in the west post 1917.

But this isn't a differentiated intellectual tradition or political belief in any shape or form.

There are New Left, but it's not representative of Marxism in Western Europe.
>>

 No.920

>>918
It's supposed to mean European Marxist that dared to break with the brain-dead dogmatism pushed from the Soviet Union. It's a pretty stupid label, almost as uselessness as "left communism".
>>

 No.921

File: 1608528031105.jpg (33.64 KB, 316x500, polemics.jpg)

As part of my study of Anti-Duhring ( >>733 ) and related works I have been reading some essays by George Novack.

His essay "In Defense of Engels" seems to be a critique of certain strains of Western Marxism and the Frankfurt School. He claims that they seek to draw a distinction between the theory of Marx and that of Engels. This seems like a strawman of western Marxism to me, although I haven't read everything from this current. Do any of you know where he is getting that and what I need to read to see what specific works he is addressing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9C6YUst9GI
>>

 No.923

>>920
>dared to break with the brain-dead dogmatism pushed from the Soviet Union
As far as I know, very few West European Marxists are porked and retarded enough to dismiss the entirety of Soviet Experience, and not consider it an essential staple of Marxist theory and Practice
>>

 No.971

File: 1608528035808.jpg (924.69 KB, 1577x2541, 91rHVIJMOIL.jpg)

>>871
Anybody have any thoughts on this? Seems really neat just to get a different perspective. The way it reconciles marxist thought and the individual seems fascinating.

http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/critique1313/10-13/
>>

 No.972

>>880
I guess being head of the Italian Communist party doesn't count.
>>

 No.974

File: 1608528036373-0.gif (118.17 KB, 757x1084, terrelreview.gif)

File: 1608528036373-1.pdf (4.27 MB, Engels as Interpreter of M….pdf)

>>921
>He claims that they seek to draw a distinction between the theory of Marx and that of Engels.
Lukacs points out some differences between Marx and Engels in History and Class Consciousness (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/), for example:

>The statements of Marx and Engels on this point could hardly be more explicit. “Dialectics thereby reduced itself to the science of the general laws of motion – both in the external world and in the thought of man – two sets of laws which are identical in substance” (Engels). [5] Marx formulated it even more precisely. “In the study of economic categories, as in the case of every historical and social science, it must be borne in mind that … the categories are therefore but forms of being, conditions of existence ….” [6] If this meaning of dialectical method is obscured, dialectics must inevitably begin to look like a superfluous additive, a mere ornament of Marxist ‘sociology’ or ‘economics’. Even worse, it will appear as an obstacle to the ‘sober’, ‘impartial’ study of the ‘facts’, as an empty construct in whose name Marxism does violence to the facts.


&ltend notes: 6. _A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy_ , (my italics). It is of the first importance to realise that the method is limited here to the realms of history and society. The misunderstandings that arise from Engels’ account of dialectics can in the main be put down to the fact that Engels – following Hegel’s mistaken lead – extended the method to apply also to nature. However, the crucial determinants of dialectics – the interaction of subject and object, the unity of theory and practice, the historical changes in the reality underlying the categories as the root cause of changes in thought, etc. – are absent from our knowledge of nature. Unfortunately it is not possible to undertake a detailed analysis of these questions here.
(https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm)

The other work I see mentioned (although I haven't read it) is Marx and Engels: The Intellectual Relationship by Terrell Carver. I couldn't find a PDF of the book, but I have attached a review that should give you enough info to decide whether you want to read it or not. For what it's worth, it seems that Carver is somewhat of an Engels scholar. He published a book called Engels Before Marx this year (https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783030423704).

Other than that I found a paper called Engels as Interpreter of Marx's Economics, by Christopher J. Arthur:
>This paper is concerned with Engels's work on Marx's critique of political economy. As is the case in general, Engels was originally taken as a reliable guide to Marx's work in this area; but the claim has been made that Engels's views as a commentator and popularizer are to be rejected, and that, in the editorial work Engels did on Marx's Capital, he abused (consciously or unconsciously) the trust Marx placed in him as the literary executor of the Marxian legacy. While the main interest of the paper lies in its consideration of Engels's interpretation of Marx's method, I shall first consider the charges pertaining to his work as Marx's literary executor.

>Before considering such charges it is worth noting that the habit of taking Marx and Engels as one person is so deeply ingrained from earlier times2 that traces of it survived in places until very recently. As a prime example of this tradition let us take the well-known textbook by M.C. Howard and J.E. King on The political economy of Marx, which appeared in 1975. Treating of what they assume is Marx's 'logical-historical method', they give passages as if they quote from Marx (e.g. 'in history … development as a whole proceeds from the most simple to the most complex relations') when the passages in question are really the work of Engels!3 They are from a review Engels wrote in 1859 of Marx's Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. (I deal with it extensively below.)

(attached)
>>

 No.977

>>

 No.1022

>>974
Thank you anon! I will be taking a look at those.

Unique IPs: 1

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]