The Legacy of Marxism: Contemporary Challenges, Conflicts, and Developments
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
Marx's influence is evident in a range of often incompatible and contradictory political movements and intellectual approaches. With a number of those movements now discredited by the experience of ‘really existing socialism', and the academic left gravitating towards approaches which eschew ‘authoritarian', ‘essentialist' and ‘ethnocentric' elements of orthodox Marxism, the relevance of Marx has been called into question.
Featuring chapters by Norman Geras, Joseph Femia, Alan Johnson, Paul Bowman, Ronaldo Munck, Lawrence Wilde, Mark Cowling, Chengyi Peng, Terrell Carver, Oliver Harrison and Stuart Sim, this book is an attempt to examine means by which the left can make real, substantive and positive contributions to contemporary debate. The collection examines such topics as: the meaning of Marxism and pluralism within the left; Marxism's scientific credentials; Žižek, revolution, democracy and cultural studies; the politics of development; the relationship between Marxism and global capitalism; the global justice debate and Marx's rejection of moral discourse; the analysis of crime and criminal justice; Chinese society and constitutional diversity, and the relationship between Marxism and post-Marxism.
as viable. Thus, he says that he is a Marxist because of p, q and r, all these being aspects of Marxist thought which he takes to be true and/or valuable, and despite x, y and z, also aspects of Marxist thought but which he thinks are wrong and to be rejected. Now, here is a second person and she, it just so happens, reverses the weighting put on the very same pair of sets of components of Marxist thought. She says that she is not a Marxist, this because of x, y and z, which she, like the other
the modern era. Marx recognized that the Indians would not reap the benefits of this modernization. That would only happen when the industrial proletariat supplanted the bourgeoisie in Britain or ‘till the Hindus themselves shall have grown strong enough to throw off the English yoke altogether’ (Avineri 1969: 137). The latter was seen as unlikely and hopes were pinned on the Western front. There was no theory of imperialism even implicit in the work of Marx and Engels, except perhaps in relation
North the dependency versus orthodoxy confrontation was not really very productive, in the global South there was a continued engagement with the reality of dependent development. Nowhere more so than in Latin America, where Gunder Frank had not actually been such an important player in the Marxist debates around dependency and development. Much more important was the 1969 work by Brazilian sociologist F. H. Cardoso and Chilean historian Enzo Faletto ‘Dependency and Development in Latin America’.
underdevelopment. Nor do we necessarily need to romanticize the knowledge of the subaltern that is ultimately a refusal of, but not an alternative to, falsely universal economic prescriptions and a blind faith in Western science and progress as antidotes to underdevelopment. The clash between modernization and dependency theories led to what was widely received as an ‘impasse’ in development theory. Some Marxists took this as a cue to return to the mainstream (e.g. Booth 1985) arguing that
Bassi 2010: 123; 126). This has, perhaps because of post-imperial zeitgeist in the West, particular appeal in the case of such international and PROGRESS, ANTI-ISMS AND REVOLUTIONARY SUBJECTS 111 intercultural conflicts as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, where some Marxists appear to apply different evaluative criteria to the activities of groups according to their level of power. This appears to be apparent in Anderson’s (2010: 52) criticism of Marx’s ‘universalistic secular outlook’, which