On Marx -- Selections -- A note on the selections -- Notes on James Mill -- The German ideology -- Theses on Feuerbach -- The Communist manifesto -- Capital -- The civil war in France -- Critique of the Gotha programme.

According to a long-standing conservative critique, the proponents of fundamental or revolutionary social change necessarily fail by sacrificing the organic complexity of society and the individual upon a procrustean bed of dogmatic and rigid universal principles. I will argue that Marx's concept of proletarian self-emancipation is not only compatible with this conservative critique but is appropriately understood as a variant of it. The self-emancipation of the working class is the core of Marx's critique of the Utopian socialists, for (...) whom socialism is the instantiation of universal ideals rather than the product of class struggle. This critique should be construed, not as a theoretical promissory note for the realisation of these ideals through the agency of the workers, but as a criticism of the very project of founding political ethics on the basis of universal ideals. Marx's political thought bears a structural similarity to conservative thought in that each seeks to ground its political programme upon the study of society as it actually exists, rather than upon a vision of human nature considered apart from society. If Marx's critique of Utopian socialism holds water, the intellectual roots of Stalinist authoritarianism may be traced, not to the failure of Marx fully to outline the ideal communist society, but to the assimilation of elements of his thought to the Utopian style and tradition of political thought. There should be no surprise, therefore, when attempts to transcend Stalinism by basing radical politics upon sanitised versions of a socialist Utopia or socialist renditions of such universal liberal principles as human rights prove counter-productive. (shrink)

According to a long-standing conservative critique, the proponents of fundamental or revolutionary social change necessarily fail by sacrificing the organic complexity of society and the individual upon a procrustean bed of dogmatic and rigid universal principles. I will argue that Marx's concept of proletarian self-emancipation is not only compatible with this conservative critique but is appropriately understood as a variant of it. The self-emancipation of the working class is the core of Marx's critique of the Utopian socialists, for (...) whom socialism is the instantiation of universal ideals rather than the product of class struggle. This critique should be construed, not as a theoretical promissory note for the realisation of these ideals through the agency of the workers, but as a criticism of the very project of founding political ethics on the basis of universal ideals. Marx's political thought bears a structural similarity to conservative thought in that each seeks to ground its political programme upon the study of society as it actually exists, rather than upon a vision of human nature considered apart from society. If Marx's critique of Utopian socialism holds water, the intellectual roots of Stalinist authoritarianism may be traced, not to the failure of Marx fully to outline the ideal communist society, but to the assimilation of elements of his thought to the Utopian style and tradition of political thought. There should be no surprise, therefore, when attempts to transcend Stalinism by basing radical politics upon sanitised versions of a socialist Utopia or socialist renditions of such universal liberal principles as human rights prove counter-productive. (shrink)

This paper explores new working time arrangements around a critique of the ‘commodification of time’ to illuminate the contradictions of such new flexibilities. Two features of these new arrangements are seen as relevant for evaluating the Marx/Engels analysis. Firstly, it roots the examination of time in commodification, although, as criticised in this paper, some authors have seen this as the generality of time rather than that within the exchange of labour power. Significantly — and central in all working time (...) arrangements — it is labour power that is sold, be it for a particular period of time, rather than the time itself. Hence, working time arrangements set boundaries against ‘free’ time or time in which labour power is not sold as a commodity, that ‘free’ time which was recognised in the traditional arrangements — fought over in early industrialism — which set premium payments against anti-social hours within ‘overtime’. New working time arrangements tend to blur the boundaries between ‘free’ and ‘working’ time, assuming an availability of labour power to capital. While much of the promotion of flexibility stresses the possibility of making adjustment to suit social and domestic requirements it is more usually the means for altering working time to meet the demands of capital. The much-vaunted case of Volkswagen has led to ‘working time accounts’ becoming the established temporal arrangement within the German car industry and increasingly becoming the norm for other European auto producers. The name given to these new working arrangements within the motor industry suggests that time has indeed become further commodified. For workers within these new time regimes, the hours owed to their employer is displayed along with their earnings — and deductions — on their wage slip. (shrink)

This absorbing study invites you to climb inside the heads of the major political philosophers, as it were, and to see the world through their eyes. Beginning with Socrates and concluding with post-Rawlsian theory, Alan Haworth presents the key ideas and developments with clarity and depth. Each chapter provides a concentrated study of a given thinker or group of thinkers and together they constitute a broad account of the main arguments in political philosophy. There are chapters on Socrates, Plato, (...) Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, the Utilitarians, Marx, Rawls, and post-Rawlsian developments. This is a fascinating, lively and engaging look at the topic and will be appropriate for any student taking a course in political philosophy or political thought. (shrink)

_Understanding the Political Philosophers_ is an absorbing and accessible introduction to the major philosophers and core texts of western political philosophy. Organised historically - beginning with Socrates and Plato, and concluding with post-Rawlsian theory - Alan Haworth presents the key ideas and developments with clarity and depth. Each chapter provides a concentrated study of a given thinker or group of thinkers and together they constitute a broad account of the main arguments in political philosophy. There are chapters on Socrates, (...) Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, the Utilitarians, Marx, and Rawls’s early work. This revised second edition has been brought fully up-to-date, and includes expanded coverage of the period from the death of Aristotle to the sixteenth century, as well as a new chapter on Rawls’s later philosophy and the direction of post-Rawlsian philosophy. Including a chronology and suggestions for further reading, _Understanding the Political Philosophers_ is an ideal introductory text for students taking courses in political philosophy or political theory. (shrink)

This absorbing study invites you to climb inside the heads of the major political philosophers, as it were, and to see the world through their eyes. Beginning with Socrates and concluding with post-Rawlsian theory, Alan Haworth presents the key ideas and developments with clarity and depth. Each chapter provides a concentrated study of a given thinker or group of thinkers and together they constitute a broad account of the main arguments in political philosophy. There are chapters on Socrates, Plato, (...) Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, the Utilitarians, Marx, Rawls, and post-Rawlsian developments. This is a fascinating, lively and engaging look at the topic and will be appropriate for any student taking a course in political philosophy or political thought. (shrink)

This absorbing look at political philosophy asks you to climb inside the heads of the major political philosophers. Beginning with Plato and finishing with post-Rawlsian theory, Alan Haworth presents the key ideas and developments with clarity and depth. Each chapter provides an in-depth study of a given thinker or group of thinkers and will constitute broad account of the main arguments in political philosophy. Chapters are arranged historically but the focus of each is very much the analysis of arguments, (...) the way they hang together, the presuppositions on which they are based and the degree to which they succeed in answering the questions they are designed to address. Thinkers addressed include: Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, The Utilitarians, Marx, Rawls, Post-Rawlsian thinkers. This is a fascinating, lively and engaging look at the topic and will be appropriate for any student taking a course in political thought or philosophy. (shrink)

This collection of essays by philosophers, political theorists, and social critics ranges over two millennia--from the ideas of Plato and Aristotle to those of contemporary thinkers such as John Rawls and Robert Nozick. It examines the nature of justice, its importance in human life, and its place among the other virtues. The scope of the collection gives a clear picture of the differences and continuities that have marked the debate: Plato's emphasis on the ideal of "sticking to one's task" contrasts (...) with the modern emphasis on individual rights, while the account of justice as part of the law of nature offered by Aristotle and Cicero contrasts with Hume's analysis of justice as an artificial virtue. Alan Ryan's introductory essay emphasizes the stringency of justice--showing how its demands can conflict with considerations of the general welfare. The book concludes with a discussion of Marx's view that justice is perhaps merely a concession to a world of scarcity and selfishness created by capitalist necessities. An excellent guide to interpretations of one of the central values of political life and thought, this book will interest students and scholars of political theory and philosophy. (shrink)

This absorbing study invites you to climb inside the heads of the major political philosophers, as it were, and to see the world through their eyes. Beginning with Socrates and concluding with post-Rawlsian theory, Alan Haworth presents the key ideas and developments with clarity and depth. Each chapter provides a concentrated study of a given thinker or group of thinkers and together they constitute a broad account of the main arguments in political philosophy. There are chapters on Socrates, Plato, (...) Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, the Utilitarians, Marx, Rawls, and post-Rawlsian developments. This is a fascinating, lively and engaging look at the topic and will be appropriate for any student taking a course in political philosophy or political thought. (shrink)

This paper is a small contribution to two large subjects. The first large subject is that of exploitation—what it is for somebody to be exploited, in what ways people can be and are exploited, whether exploitation necessarily involves coercion, what Marx's understanding of exploitation was and whether it was adequate: all these are issues on which I merely touch, at best. My particular concern here is to answer the two questions, whether Marx thought capitalist exploitationunjustand how the answer (...) to that question illuminates Marx's conception of morality in general. The second large subject is that of the nature of morality—whether there are specificallymoralvalues and specifically moral forms of evaluation and criticism, how these relate to our explanatory interests in the same phenomena, what it would be like to abandon the ‘moral point of view’, whether the growth of a scientific understanding of society and ourselves inevitably undermines our confidence in the existence of moral ‘truths’. These again are issues on which I only touch if I mention them at all, but the questions I try to answer are, what does Marx propose to put in the place of moral judgment, and what kind of assessment of the horrors of capitalism does he provide if not a moral assessment? (shrink)

This paper is a small contribution to two large subjects. The first large subject is that of exploitation—what it is for somebody to be exploited, in what ways people can be and are exploited, whether exploitation necessarily involves coercion, what Marx's understanding of exploitation was and whether it was adequate: all these are issues on which I merely touch, at best. My particular concern here is to answer the two questions, whether Marx thought capitalist exploitationunjustand how the answer (...) to that question illuminates Marx's conception of morality in general. The second large subject is that of the nature of morality—whether there are specificallymoralvalues and specifically moral forms of evaluation and criticism, how these relate to our explanatory interests in the same phenomena, what it would be like to abandon the ‘moral point of view’, whether the growth of a scientific understanding of society and ourselves inevitably undermines our confidence in the existence of moral ‘truths’. These again are issues on which I only touch if I mention them at all, but the questions I try to answer are, what does Marx propose to put in the place of moral judgment, and what kind of assessment of the horrors of capitalism does he provide if not a moral assessment? (shrink)

The second half of the 19th Century saw a revolution in both European politics and philosophy. Philosophical fervour reflected political fervour. Five great critics dominated the European intellectual scene: Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, Soren Kierkegaard, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and Friedrich Nietzsche. "Nineteenth-Century Philosophy" assesses the response of each of these leading figures to Hegelian philosophy - the dominant paradigm of the time - to the shifting political landscape of Europe and the United States, and also to the emerging critique of (...) modernity itself. Both individually and collectively, these thinkers succeeded in revolutionizing theology, philosophy, psychology, and politics. The period also saw the emergence of new schools of thought and new disciplinary thinking. The volume covers the birth of sociology and the social sciences, the development of French spiritualism, the beginning of American pragmatism, the rise of science and mathematics, and the maturation of hermeneutics and phenomenology. (shrink)

The second half of the 19th Century saw a revolution in both European politics and philosophy. Philosophical fervour reflected political fervour. Five great critics dominated the European intellectual scene: Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, Soren Kierkegaard, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and Friedrich Nietzsche. "Nineteenth-Century Philosophy" assesses the response of each of these leading figures to Hegelian philosophy - the dominant paradigm of the time - to the shifting political landscape of Europe and the United States, and also to the emerging critique of (...) modernity itself. Both individually and collectively, these thinkers succeeded in revolutionizing theology, philosophy, psychology, and politics. The period also saw the emergence of new schools of thought and new disciplinary thinking. The volume covers the birth of sociology and the social sciences, the development of French spiritualism, the beginning of American pragmatism, the rise of science and mathematics, and the maturation of hermeneutics and phenomenology. (shrink)

For many contemporary liberals, Anglo-American democracy seems unimpeachably the best political form. In contrast, adherence to democratic values seems an area in which most Marxian regimes, and perhaps Marx himself, are strikingly deficient. Further, Marxian theory insists on the existence of oppressive ruling classes in all capitalist societies and on the need for class struggle and violent revolution to achieve a more cooperative regime – theses which liberal social theories tend to dismiss peremptorily. From the perspective of modern liberal (...) democratic theory, Marxian arguments seem prima facie outlandish and even morally objectionable. (shrink)

In this article, I contrast two theories of history: a Marxist theory and an anarchist theory. Both theories, in their respective attempts at explaining epochal transitions, seem to require some plausible construal of Marx's claim that revolutions occur when a society's economic relations ‘fetter’ the development of its productive forces. From an examination of a number of different construals of ‘fettering’—‘development fettering’, ‘use fettering’, ‘ACRU fettering’, ‘net fettering’, and even ‘forfeitur’—I conclude that none of them supports the Marxist theory (...) of revolution, while each is consistent with the anarchist theory of epochal transformation. (shrink)

In this article, I contrast two theories of history: a Marxist theory (that of G. A. Cohen) and an anarchist theory. Both theories, in their respective attempts at explaining epochal transitions, seem to require some plausible construal of Marx's claim that revolutions occur when a society's economic relations ‘fetter’ the development of its productive forces. From an examination of a number of different construals of ‘fettering’—‘development fettering’, ‘use fettering’, ‘ACRU fettering’, ‘net fettering’, and even ‘forfeitur’—I conclude that none of (...) them supports the Marxist theory of revolution, while each is consistent with the anarchist theory of epochal transformation. (shrink)

Attempts to unify Marxist and feminist social critique have been vexed by the fact that ‘patriarchy’ predates the advent of capitalism (its transhistorical status). Feminists within the Marxist, socialist, and materialist traditions have responded to this point by either granting patriarchy a certain autonomy relative to capitalism (the ‘dual/triple systems’ approach), or by suggesting that patriarchal relations have a foundational and necessary status in the history of capitalist development (which we term the ‘origins-subsistence’ approach). This paper offers an alternative account (...) of the relationship between capitalism and the transhistorical status of ‘patriarchy’. In aid of a ‘unitary theory’ of Marxist Feminism, we argue that the transhistorical status of patriarchy is better understood through an application of Marx’s concepts of formal and real subsumption. A modified version of these concepts can illuminate not only capitalist appropriation of antecedent social and economic forms, but also its capacity to produce new forms of gendered exploitation and oppression. (shrink)

From Karl Marx to Alexandre Kojève to Luce Irigaray, many writers have explored the implications of the famous master-slave dialectic in Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit.1 An interesting debate has developed out of the possible gender connotations of this dialectic—a debate that has centered largely on the theory that the master could represent man, with the slave consequently representing woman. A close analysis of the Phenomenology reveals that both the master and the slave are, in fact, supposed to be men. (...) But is it possible to preserve the core ideas of the Phenomenology while simultaneously recasting both the master and the slave as women? And what are the ramifications of this reconfiguration?These questions. (shrink)

_Business Ethics: The Big Picture_ asks students to focus on the assumptions underlying the activity of business. Why does society provide special protections for businesses? What is the purpose of a corporation? What do businesses owe society? And are there some things that shouldn’t be distributed by the free market? These questions are addressed through classic readings from such central figures as Adam Smith and Karl Marx, in addition to contemporary selections from Milton Friedman, R. Edward Freeman, Debra Satz, (...) and others. A number of compelling real-world case studies are also included. (shrink)

Alan Wood's claim that ‘Marx did not consider capitalism unjust’ is based on three reasons: 1) According to Marx, the conceptions of justice is the highest expression of the rationality of social facts from the juridical point of view; 2) Marx argues that whether an economic trade or social institution is a just one depends on its compatibility with modes of production; 3) according to Marx, possession of surplus value by the capitalists does not include (...) unequal or unjust trades. Wood presents these three reasons in detail and provides specific referential support for them. This paper argues that Wood fails to provide sufficient referential support to his proposition and his interpretation of the relevant texts is mistaken, and hence that Wood’s claim is invalid. (shrink)

Isaiah Berlin's Karl Marx is considered the classic short account of the life and thought of the theorist of the socialist revolution. With a new Introduction by Alan Ryan that elucidates the enduring value of this work and its place in Marxist scholarship, this is a compelling history of ideas as well as a portrait of one of the twentieth century's most incendiary thinkers.

Derek Allen, Richard Boyd, and Alan Gilbert have suggested that Marx’s normative political views should be reconstructed as a sophisticated version of moral consequentialism. This paper investigates whether Marx’s ostensible anti-moralism differs in any interesting way from Mill’s sophisticated utilitarianism plus some Marxist social science. I present an account of the social meaning and implications of moral language and argument, based on Marx’s description of morality as a social practice based on distinctive motives, emotions and sanctions, (...) to explain why Marx would reject moral consequentialism. This account will explain how Marx can consistently reject morality yet retain a normative basis for his social criticism. (shrink)

Kapitalizm, bireysel özgürlüğün son durağı mı? Liberal kuramcılar diyor ki: "Serbest piyasa ekonomisi, belki eşitlik, kardeşlik ve adalet sağlayamıyor ama hiç olmazsa özgürlüğü garanti altına alıyor." Özgürlüğün, tüketicilerin marka seçme özgürlüğüne ya da soyut vatandaşların eşit yasal haklarına indirgenemeyeceğini düşünüyorsak, liberalizmin ilk eleştirmenlerinden Rousseau ve Marx'ın alternatif özgürlük anlayışlarından hâlâ öğreneceğimiz çok şey var. Çoğumuz, ya özgürlüğü kuralsızlık olarak tanımlayıp, mutlak özgürlüğün hiçbir toplumda var olamayacağını düşünüyoruz, ya da özgürlüğü "özel alan" içindeki serbestliğe indirgeyip, kendimizi özgür hissetmenin özgür (...) olmak için yeterli olduğuna inanıyoruz. Peki, ya Rousseau'nun iddia ettiği gibi ayağımızdaki zincirleri halhal zannedip çiçeklerle süslüyorsak? Özgürleşmenin ilk adımı, şu anda neden özgür olmadığımızı kavramaktan geçiyor. Modern toplumda içine düştüğümüz "özgürlük yanılsaması"nı açıklayan Rousseau ve Marx, özgürlüğün ihtiyaçlarla ilişkisine dair iki farklı tez öne sürüyor. Rousseau'ya göre, uygarlık, arzuları ve bağımlılıkları artırdıkça toplumlar yozlaşır ve insanlar farkına varmadan özgürlüklerini kaybeder. Özgürlüğün koşulu "yapay arzular"dan kurtularak yetenekler ve ihtiyaçlar arasında denge kurulmasıdır. Oysa Marx'a göre özgürleşme ancak ihtiyaçların artması ve insancıllaşmasıyla mümkündür. Bütün ihtiyaçlarımızı para ihtiyacına indirgeyen "meta fetişizmi"nden kurtulma mücadelesi, yabancılaşmanın aşılmasının da önünü açar. Bu kitap, "Biz kimiz? Nereden geldik? Nereye gidiyoruz? Nasıl özgürleşebiliriz?" sorularının peşine düşen herkesi düşünsel bir yolculuğa davet ediyor. (shrink)