DOCSLIB.ORG

Alienation, Freedom and Communism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Alienation, Freedom and Communism ALIENATION, FREEDOM & COMMUNISM RAJEEV KUMAR SEHGAL DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON UNIVERSITY OF LONDON Submitted for a Ph.D. in Philosophy MM ProQuest Number: 10013272 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest 10013272 Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ABSTRACT G.A. Cohen poses the following three questions for Socialists. First, what do we want? What, in general, and even not so general terms, is the form of socialist society we seek? Second, why do we want it? What exactly is wrong with capitalism, and what is right about socialism? Third, how can we achieve it? What are the implications for practice of the fact that the working class in advanced capitalist society is not now what it once was, or what it was once thought to be? In this thesis I provide some Marxist answers to these questions. I detail and defend the philosophy of Alienation Marxism. The thesis is divided into three main parts. In part one I argue that Marx’s most fundamental critique of capitalism is to be found in his early writings on the alienation. In part two I defend a Marxist account of freedom as self-realisation which, I argue, forms the positive counterpart to Marx’s negative (critical) writings on capitalism. In part three I relate arguments found in Marx’s later writings on history, economics and freedom to the goal of overcoming alienation, and I set out the economic, institutional and sociological development of a communism that progressively extends freedom as self-realisation to all. 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I have incurred a number of intellectual and personal debts, which enabled me to produce this thesis. First, I would not have conceived, let alone written, this thesis if it were not for the writings of G.A. Cohen. I disagree with Cohen on a number of issues within Marxist philosophy; however, I would not have arrived at my own positions if he had not set out his views to such a high degree of analytical rigour and precision. If I have anything new to contribute to Marxist philosophy then, to quote a cliché, it is largely a result of clambering onto, and standing on, the shoulders of a giant within contemporary political philosophy. I owe a huge debt to my doctoral supervisor Jonathan Wolff. I thank him for having the stamina to bear the sometimes-sketchy formulations of my arguments through the years, and for driving me to think more deeply about my own views. This thesis would not have taken anything like the form it has without Jo’s suggestions and interventions, and the fact that I was able to subject my own ideas to his high intellectual standards. One of my aims in writing this thesis was to become a better philosopher. Jo has made me so. I am grateful to Jerry Valberg for granting me the opportunity to undertake postgraduate study at University College London, Ted Honderich for an inspiring term of supervision in the early days my research and Véronique Munoz-Dardé for her support. I want to thank James Wilson for his comradeship. I discussed almost every aspect of this thesis with him, and he read and commented upon most of what I have written. James was both encouraging and usefully critical of my endeavours. Finally I want to thank my brother Attul and my father Suraj for supporting my studies. This thesis is dedicated to the both of them and to the memory of my mother Sarla. CONTENTS PREFACE 6 PART ONE: THE CRITICAL BASIS OF MARXISM Three Approaches to a Socialist Critique o f Capitalism: Efficiency, Justice & Alienation 1.0 Introduction 14 1.1 Efficiency 16 1.2 Justice 21 1.21 Exploitation & Justice 23 1.22 Liberal Egalitarian Socialism 30 1.3 Alienation 40 1.31‘Abundance’ Under Communism 41 1.32 Marx on the Dual Aspect of Human Needs 45 1.321 Marx on the Alienation of Man from his Activity & Products 49 1.322 Feuerbach 51 1.323 Cohen’s Hegelian Criticism of the Alienation Marxist Philosophical Anthropology 59 1.33 Marx on Self-Determination & Self-Actualisation as Conditions for Self-Realising Production 62 1.331 Self-Determination: To Actualise in Something ‘One’s Own Purpose’ 62 1.332 Self-Actualisation: To Produce in Accord with the 'Laws of Beauty’ 67 1.34 Some Contemporary Treatments of Marx on Alienation 69 1.341 Alienation & ‘Socialisation of the Means of Production’ 71 1.342 ‘Abolition’ or ‘Positive Supersession’ of Private Property in the Means of Production & Consumption? 83 1.4 Conclusion 86 PART TWO: FREEDOM, COMMUNITY & SOCIALISM The Alienation Marxist Sense In Which Socialists Must Defend Freedom & Be Communitarian 2.0 Introduction 89 2.01 Negative Freedom & Self-Determination 90 2.02 David Miller on Socialist Freedom & Community 93 2.1 Mill & Rawls on the Human Good 99 2.11 Mill’s Aristotelian Utilitarianism: ‘Socrates Dissatisfied Is Better Than A Fool Satisfied’ 100 2.12 Rawls’ Aristotelian Principle 105 2.2 Endogenous Preference Formation 108 2.3 Knowledge Concerning Human Needs and Capacities 114 2.4 The Spectre of Social Engineering 119 2.5 Consumer Society 122 2.6 Conclusion 133 PART THREE: PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION & THE SATISFACTION OF THE DUAL ASPECT OF NEEDS UNDER COMMUNISM Technology, An Unconditional Basic Income and Associations of Producers 3.0 Introduction 135 3.01 Aristotle on Slavery, Marx on Economic Surplus & the Class Basis of Pre-Communist Freedom 139 3.02 Oligopolistic Capitalism: Global Capitalism without Capitalists 149 Soviet Socialism vs. Western Capitalism The Marxian Technological-Fix 3.1 The Womb of Capitalism & Production Under Communism 167 3.11 Technology 172 3.111 The Marxian Technological-Fix: The Tendency for Labour Factors to be Replaced by Capital Factors 175 Unemployment & Underemployment 3.112 Fettering: U«^/erconsumption of the Capitalist Economic Product & a Basic Income 202 3.1121 The Contradiction Thesis 213 Counteracting Tendencies: (i) New Capitalist Industries & Business Demanding Labour Factors (ii) International Trade & the World Market (iii) The State (a) Nationalised Industry (b) Welfare (c) Demand Management Global Capitalism Requires a Supra-National Neo-Keynesianism Japan’s Present Underconsumption Crisis The Necessity o f a Basic Income 3.1122 The Correspondence Thesis 239 Alasdair MacIntyre’s Idea o f a Social Practice Internal & External Goods MacIntyre’s Moral ‘Conservatism ’ MacIntyre’s Pessimism 3.12 Associations of Producers 263 3.121 The Paradox of Profit Argument: The Market, Money & the Motives of Greed & Fear 265 3.122 Communism Contra Neo-Conservatism 273 (i) ‘Attractive labour & individual self-realisation ’ (ii) The ‘Inverting ’ Power o f Capitalist Free Market Exchange & Money (iii) Beyond Egoism & Altruism: The Demands of Morality & the Social Determination o f the Self 3.13 A System of Associative Market Socialism 299 Labo ur/Capital Oligopolistic Capitalism Associations & Market Socialism Soviet Socialist Collectivism & Liberal Socialist Egalitarianism 3.2 Conclusion 319 BIBLIOGRAPHY 321 PREFACE In the preface to his book History, Labour & Freedom G.A. Cohen poses the following three questions for socialists: First, what do we want? What, in general, and even not so general terms, is the form of socialist society that we seek? Second, why do we want it? What exactly is wrong with capitalism, and what is right about socialism? Third, how can we achieve it? What are the implications for practice of the fact that the working class in advanced capitalist society is not now what it once was, or what it was once thought to be?’ In this thesis I aim to provide some Marxist answers to these questions. Answers to these questions cannot be easily read off the corpus of Marx’s writings, his writings are suggestive of a number of approaches. However, some approaches are better than others. This thesis is divided into three main parts. In part one I contrast three approaches to developing a specifically Marxist critique of capitalism. I present and defend what I take to be the critical basis of Marxism, which centres on the claim that man is alienated within the capitalist mode of production. I label my own position Alienation Marxism because I believe that Marx’s early writings on alienation provide us with, firstly, a relevant account of what he took to be wrong with capitalism; secondly, the means to make best sense of his later writings on history, economics and freedom; and, thirdly, the key to understanding how Marx envisaged a viable post-capitalist communism. In developing my preferred ‘weapon of criticism’ I also undertake a ‘criticism of weapons’.^ Thus, in my defence of Alienation Marxism I discuss and distinguish my views from those who champion, what I term, the Efficiency and Justice approaches to establishing a Marxist critique of capitalism. History. Labour & Freedom (Oxford, 1988), p.xii. 2 Karl Marx ‘Towards a Critique o f Hegel’s Philosophy o f Right: Introduction in Karl Marx Selected Writings (Oxford, 1977), ed. David McLellan, p.69. Critique is not enough. Objections to any past, prevailing or potential social order must clue us into the aims of, and means to, a preferable social order. Aims. As regards aims, in part two I discuss and defend a Marxian conception of freedom as self-realisation which, I argue, forms the positive counterpart to Marx’s negative (critical) writings on capitalism.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Implications for the Training Provision for Brazilian Office Workers
    TECHNOLOGY, SKILLS AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF WORK: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE TRAINING PROVISION FOR BRAZILIAN . OFFICE WORKERS Ana Maria Lakomy Dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of PhD in Education at the Institute of Education University of London Department of Policy Studies Institute of Education University of London 1995 BIEL LOREN. UNA/. Abstract This thesis is concerned with the process of office automation in Brazil and its skills and training outcomes. The thesis combines a theoretical analysis with an empirical study undertaken in Brazil. Following an introductory chapter, Chapter 2 discusses and analyses two existing theoretical perspectives which address the relationship between technology, work organisation and skills. These are: the labour process approach with reference to the 'deskilling thesis' developed by Harry Braverman (1974) and the 'flexible specialisation thesis' based on Michael Piore and Charles Sabel (1984). They focus on technological changes on the shopfloor, in advanced industrialised countries. Chapter 3 applies the main arguments put forward by these two • approaches to the office environment in advanced industrialised countries. Based on the discussion of a number of empirical studies concerned with the skill outcomes of new technology in the office, the chapter also develops two models of office automation: the 'technology-driven' and the 'informational' models. These models are used as a framework for the discussion of the empirical research undertaken in Brazilian offices. Chapter 4 discusses the recent economic developments in Brazil in order to provide a context for understanding the empirical findings. The chapter describes the country's process of industrialisation, the current economic context and its implications for the adoption of new technology in the Brazilian office environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Before Braverman: Harry Frankel and the American Workers' Movement
    chapter 8 Before Braverman: Harry Frankel and the American Workers’ Movement* What was so great about Harry Braverman? The question, obviously rhetorical, elicits a predictable response in academic circles, where the author of Labor and Monopoly Capital (1974) is deservedly praised for a text that christened the emerging field of labour process studies.1 Braverman’s book was rigorous in its conceptualisations, sufficiently abstract to present an argument that reached beyond particularities into generalised, universal experience and historical and empirical enough to sustain an analysis meant to be received across disciplin- ary boundaries. Moreover, it bridged the academic and activist worlds of left scholarship and practice, a breeze of fresh interpretive air that reinvigorated intellectual sensibilities and revived the study of the work process in fields such as history, sociology, economics, political science and human geography. One of the 50 or so most important studies produced in the third quarter of the 20th century, Labor and Monopoly Capital earned its author a remarkable reputation that, sadly, he never lived to enjoy.2 Authors of great books, having scored the music which rings in the collective ear of generations of readers, inevitably face a cacophony of criticism, some very good, some quite indifferent and some irritatingly bad. Braverman soon faced an avalanche of revisionist study, much of which was written to displace his analysis by showing that somewhere, somehow, some group’s historical engagement with the work process stepped outside the general boundaries developed in Labor and Monopoly Capital. In the end, such studies remain, for the most part, mere footnotes to the edifice of labour process studies, the foundation of which has been, for almost a quarter-century, Braverman’s book.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Did Braverman Go Wrong? a Marxist Response to the Politicist Critiques
    Where did Braverman go wrong? A Marxist response to the politicist critiques Onde está errado Braverman? A resposta marxista às críticas politicistas Eduardo Sartelli1 Marina Kabat2 Abstract Braverman is considered an unquestionable reference of Marxist labour process. The objective of this paper is to show that despite Braverman’s undeniable achievements he forsakes the classical Marxist notions related to work organization, i. e. simple cooperation, manufacture and large-scale industry and replaces them with the notion of Taylorism. We also intend to show that because of this abandonment, Braverman cannot explain properly how the deskilling tendency operates in different historical periods, and in distinct industry branches. Finally, we try to demonstrate that those Marxist concepts neglected by Braverman are especially useful to understand labor unrest related to job organization. Braverman overvalues the incidence of labor fragmentation and direct forms of control and disregards the impact of mechanization achieved with the emergence of Large-scale industry and the new forms of control associated with it. Whereas Braverman’s allegedly Marxist orthodoxy is considered responsible for this, in fact, exactly the opposite can be asserted: the weaknesses of the otherwise noteworthy work of Harry Braverman are grounded in his relinquishment of some crucial Marxist concepts. We state that labor processes conventionally considered Taylorist or Fordist can be reconceptualized in Marxist classic terms allowing a better understanding of the dynamic of conflicts regarding labor process. Keywords: Labor process. Politics. Marxism. Regulationism. Workers’ Struggles. Resumo Braverman é considerado uma referência inquestionável do processo de trabalho marxista. O objetivo deste artigo é mostrar que, apesar das contribuições inegáveis de Braverman ele abandona as noções marxistas clássicas relacionadas à organização do trabalho, a saber, cooperação simples, manufatura e grande-indústria e substituí-las com a noção do taylorismo.
    [Show full text]
  • Gerald A. Cohen (1941-2009) an Intellectual Journey Through Radical Thought
    Gerald A. Cohen (1941-2009) An intellectual journey through radical thought Fabien Tarrit Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne France Abstract: The philosopher Gerald A. Cohen, who once was a Chichele Professor at Oxford University, between 1984 and 2008, died on the 5th of August last year. His thought, known as a radical one and explicitly intended as serving the liberation of humanity, suddenly appeared on the intellectual theatre in 1978 with the publication of Karl Marx‟s Theory of History: A Defence. This book can be seen as doubly original. On the one hand it defends historical materialism on the basis of methodological foundations (analytical philosophy, logical positivism, functional explanation) that are usually known as contradictory with Marx‟s method. On the other hand, it initiated a school of thought, Analytical Marxism, which debate also took on economics, sociology, history… Later, after a long-lasting debate, still in search of intellectual radicalism, he gradually departed from Marx‟s theory, both for theoretical reasons in terms of logical consistency, and for empirical reasons in terms of correspondence between theory and empirical facts. He then gradually turned on theoretical discussions in political philosophy that flourished around John Rawls‟ Theory of Justice. This was not an immediate shift, since beforehand he appropriated the libertarian concept of self-ownership in order to associate it to a Marxist approach. In doing so, he intended, on the basis of John Locke‟s theory, to use a libertarian argument as a tool for critical theory. Cohen then gave up this concept before entering the normative debate around issues on social justice.
    [Show full text]
  • The Analytical Foundations of Contemporary Political Economy: a Comment on Hunt
    THE ANALYTICAL FOUNDATIONS OF CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL ECONOMY: A COMMENT ON HUNT Herbert Gintis I do not disagree with E. K. Hunt's admirable description of analytical Marxism, nor do I differ strongly with his characterization of its differences with traditional Marxism. These differences are deep and fundamental, to the point that rational choice Marxism can indeed be considered hostile to many of traditional Marxism's most basic tenets. In this essay I will neither attempt to defend analytical Marxism against Hunt's critique nor will I endorse this critique. I am not analytical Marxist, although I have sympathy with some of its positions. Nor am I a traditional Marxist, having made my peace with Marxism in my joint work with Samuel Bowles, Democracy and Capitalism: Property, Community, and the Contradictions of Modern Social Thought (1986). Marxism, I believe, has given us many important insights into the operation of society, but has no monopoly on truth. Rather than take sides, I propose here to elucidate the differences between the two, and offer an perspective missing in Hunt's critique: the venerable opposition between neoclassical and Marxian economic theory is antiquated and is increas­ ingly of purely historical interest This is true because both Marxism and neoclas­ sical economics are disintegrating in the face of contemporary political and theo­ retical concerns. Coming years will involve vast changes in all of economic theory, blurring the old distinctions, validating some concerns traditionally held by Marx­ ists, others
    [Show full text]
  • Marxism and the Continuing Irrelevance of Normative Theory (Reviewing G
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 2002 Marxism and the Continuing Irrelevance of Normative Theory (reviewing G. A. Cohen, If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich? (2000)) Brian Leiter Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Brian Leiter, "Marxism and the Continuing Irrelevance of Normative Theory (reviewing G. A. Cohen, If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich? (2000))," 54 Stanford Law Review 1129 (2002). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BOOK REVIEW Marxism and the Continuing Irrelevance of Normative Theory Brian Leiter* IF YOU'RE AN EGALITARIAN, How COME YOU'RE SO RICH? By G. A. Cohen. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000. 237 pp. $18.00. I. INTRODUCTION G. A. Cohen, the Chichele Professor of Social and Political Theory at Oxford, first came to international prominence with his impressive 1978 book on Marx's historical materialism,1 a volume which gave birth to "analytical Marxism."'2 Analytical Marxists reformulated, criticized, and tried to salvage central features of Marx's theories of history, ideology, politics, and economics. They did so not only by bringing a welcome argumentative rigor and clarity to the exposition of Marx's ideas, but also by purging Marxist thinking of what we may call its "Hegelian hangover," that is, its (sometimes tacit) commitment to Hegelian assumptions about matters of both philosophical substance and method.
    [Show full text]
  • Revolution and Culture: the Bogdanov-Lenin Controversy (Cornell, 1988) Library of Congress Cataloging-In-Publication Data Sochor, Zenovia A
    A. A. Bogdanov, 1873-1928 REVOLUTION AND CULTURE The Bogdanov-Lenin Controversy ZENOVIA A. SOCHOR Studies of the Harriman Institute CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRESS Ithaca and London Copyright © 1988 by Cornell University All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or parts thereof, must not be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher. For information, address Cornell University Pres~, 124 Roberts Place, Ithaca, New York 14850. First published 1988 by Cornell University Press. • International Standard Book Number 0-8014-2088-1 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 87-25063 Printed in the United States of America Librarians: Library of Congress cataloging information appears on the last page of the book. The paper in this book is acid-free and meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources. To my parents, Joseph and Maria Sochor STUDIES OF THE HARRIMAN INSTITUTE Columbia University The W. Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union, Columbia University, sponsors the Studies of the Harriman Institute in the belief that their publication contributes to scholarly research and public understanding. In this way the Institute, while not necessarily endorsing their conclusions, is pleased to make available the results of some of the research conducted under its auspices. A list of the Studies appears at the back of the book. Contents Preface ix Part I Points of Departure 1. The Bogdanov-Lenin Controversy 3 2. Cultural Prerequisites of Revolution 21 3. Bogdanovism 42 Part II After October: Which Way to Socialism? 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Bio-Bibliographical Sketch of Bert Cochran
    Lubitz' TrotskyanaNet Bert Cochran Bio-Bibliographical Sketch Contents: Basic biographical data Biographical sketch Selective bibliography Note on archives Basic biographical data Name: Bert Cochran Other names (by-names, pseud. etc.): E.R. Frank ; Alexander Goldfarb ; White Date and place of birth: December 25, 1913 [?]1, New York, NY (USA) Date and place of death: June 6, 1984, New York, NY (USA) Nationality: USA Occupations, careers, etc.: Writer, editor, journalist, lecturer, trade union and party organizer Time of activity in Trotskyist movement: 1934 - ca. 1954 Biographical sketch Bert Cochran, in the Trotskyist movement also known by his pseudonyms E.R. Frank and White, was born in Poland as Alexander Goldfarb. In the early 1930s, he attended the University of Wisconsin and was recruited to Trotskyism by Max Shachtman. In 1934, he joined the ranks of the Communist League of America (CLA), the Trotskyist party founded and led by James P. Cannon, Max Shachtman and Martin Abern. CLA was renamed American Workers Party (AWP) when it fused with the group of A(braham) J(ohannes) Muste. In accordance with Trotsky's turn towards the 'entryist' tactic, the majority of the AWP, including Bert Cochran, entered Norman Thomas' Socialist Party (SP) where the Trotskyists formed a faction called the Appeal Group (named after their organ Socialist Appeal). They were expelled from the SP in 1937 and on January 1, 1938, they founded the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). Cochran belonged to the founding members of this new American Trotskyist party and for several years served as member of its leading body, the National Committee (NC).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 April, 2006 Vita Allen W. Wood Academic Address: Philosophy
    April, 2006 Vita Allen W. Wood Academic Address: Philosophy Department, Bldg 90 Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-2155 Telephone 650-723-2587 Fax 650-723-0985 E-mail: [email protected] Education: B. A., Reed College, 1964; Major: Literature and Philosophy (Thesis: "Nietzsche and Christianity"). M. A., Philosophy, Yale University, 1966. Ph. D., Philosophy, Yale University, 1968 (Thesis: "Kant's Moral Religion"). Academic Employment: Teaching Assistant in Philosophy, Yale University, 1966-1967. Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Cornell University, 1968-1972. Visiting Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Michigan, 1973. Associate Professor of Philosophy, Cornell University, 1973-1980. Professor of Philosophy, Cornell University, 1980-1996. Visiting Professor of Philosophy, University of California at San Diego, 1986. Professor of Philosophy, Yale University, 1996-1999 Visiting Professor of Philosophy, Yale University, 1999-2000. Professor of Philosophy, Stanford University, 1999-2001 Ward W. and Priscilla B. Woods Professor, Stanford University, 2001-present. Isaiah Berlin Visiting Professor, Oxford University, 2005 Academic Honors: William F. Stout Scholarship, Reed College, 1960-64 Woodrow Wilson Fellowship, Yale University, 1964 Yale-Wilson Fellowship, Yale University, 1965-66 Woodrow Wilson Dissertation Fellowship, 1967 Sterling Fellowship, 1967 Cornell Society for the Humanities Summer Fellowship, 1970 John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship, 1983 Fulbright Fellowship, 1983 (declined) Alexander von Humboldt Fellowship, 1983 (declined) National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship, 1992 American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2002 Publications: 1 Books: Kant's Moral Religion. Ithaca: Cornell University Press,1970. Kant's Rational Theology. Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1978. Karl Marx. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981. Hegel's Ethical Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • UC Santa Barbara Dissertation Template
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara Defining the Monster: The Social Science and Rhetoric of Neo-Marxist Theories of Imperialism in the United States and Latin America, 1945-1973 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in History by Christopher Cody Stephens Committee in charge: Professor Nelson Lichtenstein, Chair Professor Alice O’Connor Professor Salim Yaqub June 2018 The dissertation of Christopher Cody Stephens is approved. ____________________________________________ Salim Yaqub ____________________________________________ Alice O’Connor ____________________________________________ Nelson Lichtenstein, Committee Chair April 2017 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I had the benefit of working with many knowledgeable and generous faculty members at UCSB. As my advisor and the chair of my dissertation committee, Nelson Lichtenstein has ushered the project through every stage of its development, from conceptualization to defense. I pitched the idea of writing a seminar paper on Andre Gunder Frank in his office roughly four years ago, and since then he has enthusiastically supported my efforts, encouraged me to stay focused on the end goal, and provided detailed feedback on multiple drafts. That is not to say that I have always incorporated all his comments/criticisms, but when I have failed to do so it is mostly out of lack of time, resources, or self-discipline. I will continue to draw from a store of Nelson’s comments as a blueprint as I revise the manuscript for eventual publication as a monograph. Alice O’Connor, Mary Furner, and Salim Yaqub also read and commented on the manuscript, and more broadly influenced my intellectual trajectory. Salim helped me present my work at numerous conferences, which in turn helped me think through how the project fit in the frame of Cold War historiography.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Companion to Contemporary Marxism
    Critical Companion to Contemporary Marxism BIDET2_f1_i-xv.indd i 10/25/2007 8:05:05 PM Historical Materialism Book Series Editorial Board Paul Blackledge, Leeds – Sébastien Budgen, Paris Michael Krätke, Amsterdam – Stathis Kouvelakis, London – Marcel van der Linden, Amsterdam China Miéville, London – Paul Reynolds, Lancashire Peter Thomas, Amsterdam VOLUME 16 BIDET2_f1_i-xv.indd ii 10/25/2007 8:05:05 PM Critical Companion to Contemporary Marxism Edited by Jacques Bidet and Stathis Kouvelakis LEIDEN • BOSTON 2008 BIDET2_f1_i-xv.indd iii 10/25/2007 8:05:05 PM This book is an English translation of Jacques Bidet and Eustache Kouvelakis, Dic- tionnaire Marx contemporain. C. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris 2001. Ouvrage publié avec le concours du Ministère français chargé de la culture – Centre national du Livre. This book has been published with financial aid of CNL (Centre National du Livre), France. This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Translations by Gregory Elliott. ISSN 1570-1522 ISBN 978 90 04 14598 6 Copyright 2008 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • Analytical Marxism Roberto Veneziani
    ANALYTICAL MARXISM Roberto Veneziani*† Department of Economics, Queen Mary, University of London Abstract: This paper provides a comprehensive survey of the debate on Analytical Marxism. First, the methodological tenets of this approach are critically discussed. Then, John Roemer’s (1982, 1988) fundamental contributions on the theory of exploitation and class are analysed. An original interpretation of Analytical Marxism in general and of Roemer’s theory in particular is provided, which suggests various directions for further research. JEL Classification: B51, B41, E11. Key words: Analytical Marxism, methodological individualism, exploitation, class. * I am grateful to Meghnad Desai, Ben Fine, John Roemer, Gil Skillman, Robert Sugden, and Alessandro Vercelli, for many comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimer applies. † Address for correspondence: Department of Economics, Queen Mary, University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS. E-mail: [email protected]. 1. INTRODUCTION Born in the late 1970s, during the decline of structuralist Marxism and the renaissance of liberal egalitarianism,1 in the following three decades, Analytical Marxism has provided one of the most controversial, analytically sophisticated, and thorough interpretations of Marx’s theory – and one of the last “schools” of Marxist thought. By emphasising the need to use the tools of contemporary mainstream sociology, economic theory, analytical philosophy, and political science, Analytical Marxism (hereafter, AM) has critically re-considered some of the core issues in Marxist theory. Analytical Marxists have thus proposed original interpretations of Marx’s philosophy (Elster, 1982A, 1985), economic theory (Roemer, 1980, 1981; van Parijs, 1983), theory of international relations (Roemer, 1983A), theory of class stratification (Wright, 1984, 1994, 2000; van Parijs, 1986), and theory of class conflict and political struggles (Przeworski, 1985A).
    [Show full text]