Different "Marxisms"

[Zingu]

Been reading a bit of this subject. I'm already have quite a bit knowledge on Critical Theory and its writers and have read some Western Marxist philosophers, I know Western Marxism is very broad; anywhere from the Marxist-Humanists to Gramsci and Lukcas. Many of its philosophers, like Marcuse is similar to Situationist ideas, focusing more on culture and individual consciuness in the universe of closed discourse.

But, what exactly is Analytical Marxism? From my impression of it, it was the sort of "fuck dialectics" and focused more on the individual in society, as well as rejecting Marx's economic theory as well as some "Justice theory".


As for structural; I have no idea what this is. :blink:

[Monty Cantsin]

Analytical Marxism wanted to be a kind of “Marxism without the bullshit”, the bullshit according them is the dialectics which many others have also tried to purge Hegel from Marx by highlighting the influence of Spinoza (Louis Althusser and Antonio Negri, though two very different thinkers). But they defended Marx’s materialist conception of history and explained the fallings of revolutionary socialists through a rational choice theory. Thus some used ‘rational-choice Marxism’ to justify social democracy rather then revolutionary agitation. I don’t know how they tired to de-dialecticize Marx though because they still held the ‘reason in history’ thesis.

[visceroid]

Originally posted by Monty [email protected] 2 2005, 06:37 AM
Analytical Marxism wanted to be a kind of “Marxism without the bullshit”, the bullshit according them is the dialectics which many others have also tried to purge Hegel from Marx
a bit like redstar2000 i guess

[drain.you]

Yeah I had a brief discussion with comrade RedStar2000 regarding dialectics and he was quite opposed to it, I still its quite important however.

[Scars]

Monty Cantsin sums it up, basically. Marxism minus the bullshit is a simple way of summing it up.

Western marxism is very interesting in my opinion, most of it is more on the abstract philosophical side of things (which is a good and bad thing), but at the same time all of it does have practical use and a practical basis- so it's not like much philosophy which one only really reads for personal interest.

[STI]

I don’t know how they tired to de-dialecticize Marx though because they still held the ‘reason in history’ thesis.

I think the general idea is that those same conclusions can be reached using normal rationality and evidence, and don't require dialects to be figured out.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I don’t know how they tired to de-dialecticize Marx though because they still held the ‘reason in history’ thesis.

I think the general idea is that those same conclusions can be reached using normal rationality and evidence, and don't require dialects to be figured out.

Amen brother. ;)

Seriously though, I have not yet seen someone prove something by using dialectics, that can't be proved by using historical materialism and ordinary logic and evidence. Though I will keep an open mind on the subject, however I am currently leaning heavily towards the Redstar interpretation of Marxism "without the crap."