Search results

Noting ambiguities in Marx's attitude towards communism uncovers the Hegelian foundations of his concept of communism, here defined as his substantive principle. Initially, Marx professes radical liberal views based on the Hegelian rational state, combined with a critique of modern social conditions. He then moves away from Hegelian state formalism but continues to adhere to the essential core of Hegel's philosophy, reason. The transitional period (1842–44) shows Marx to be critical of communist views, while his substantive principle is now defined as human emancipation. The Manuscripts of 1844 witness Marx embracing communism explicitly for the first time but this concept, while encumbered by Feuerbachian naturalism, still displays the Hegelian features observed earlier. Marx's communism is Hegelian in that it refers to a philosophical vantage-point and summary description of a developing reality, rather than to a goal to be reached.

Traces Marx's development from a radical liberalism based on the Hegelian rational state, through human emancipation to the complex document, Economic-Philosophic Manuscripts (1844), in which for the first time 'full communism' is viewed as 'genuine resolution'. (SJK)

The concept 'Civil Association' in Oakeshott contains two discrepant elements, namely the quality of civility and the institution of the state. This conflation is the result of Oakeshott's idealist mode of reasoning which consists in the method of one-sided abstraction. Civil association, in its abstract presentation, appears as a purely moral association, sharply distinguished from the pursuit of substantive aims in enterprise associations. Analysis of its postulates, however, reveals civil association as being insubstantial and only a particular expression of a given world of enterprise associations. Without substantive inequality and conflict civil association could not be made intelligible, and it is these features only which, although not ostensibly present in Oakeshott's abstract concept, endow it with its distinctive character: morality by itself is not a sufficient explanation. Idealist abstraction is, on a certain level, common to opposed ideological trends; the content of Oakeshott's concept does not meaningfully distinguish it from the ideal vision of utopian thought.

The nature of Marxist doctrine is explained here by reference to the opposed tendencies of political idealism and political realism. These two can be detected in Marx's own writings, with idealism being dominant. The idealist tendency also prevailed in the official ideology of Leninism and Stalinism. The realist tendency, latent for a long period, is now being seen to emerge more clearly in the writings of many East European Marxists who accept the fundamental tenets of official Marxism yet show themselves critical of some of its aspects. Their realism is manifested in the belief that, first, the socialist order of society contains antagonisms which are in some respects similar to those of capitalism, and secondly that basic existential problems are incapable of a definitive solution even in conditions of communism. Some constructive political proposals, advocating the introduction of a kind of pluralism, are analysed here and commented on critically. Also some philosophical views which start out from the recognition that alienation is an enduring feature of socialist society receive critical evaluation; they are shown to be self-contradictory. The article concludes by arguing, first, that the dualistic state of Marxist doctrine in Eastern Europe is likely to persist there for some time to come, and secondly that Marxist idealism is an ideology inapplicable to post-capitalist conditions, including those of East European society.

The nature of Marxist doctrine is explained by reference to the opposed tendencies of political idealism & political realism. Both can be detected in Marx's writings, with idealism being dominant. The idealist tendency also prevailed in the official ideology of Leninism & Stalinism. The realist tendency, latent for a long period, is now emerging in the writings of many East European Marxists, who accept the fundamental tenets of official Marxism while being critical of some aspects. Their realism is manifested in the belief that: (1) the socialist order of society contains antagonisms that are in some respects similar to those of capitalism, & (2) basic existential problems are incapable of definitive solution even under communism. Some constructive political proposals, advocating the introduction of a kind of pluralism, are critically analyzed. Philosophical views that begin with the recognition that alienation is an enduring feature of socialist society are critically evaluated & shown to be self-contradictory. It is argued that the dualistic state of Marxist doctrine in Eastern Europe is likely to persist for some time, & that Marxist idealism is an ideology inapplicable to postcapitalist conditions, including those of East European society. HA.

THE SOULLESSNESS & SPIRITUAL POVERTY OF ADVANCED SOCIETIES HAS BROUGHT REVISION OF CHERISHED RADICAL BELIEFS QUESTIONING MAN'S BASIC GOODNESS & RATIONALITY. THE RADICAL POLITICAL THEORIST IS COMPELLED TO CASTIGATE ADVANCED SOCIETY FOR THE 'OPPRESSION' & 'EXPLOITATION' OF ITS PEOPLE YET HE MUST CONSECUTIVELY DENOUNCE THOSE PEOPLE FOR CREATING & MAINTAINING SUCH A SOCIETY. THE TENDENCIES INHERENT IN H. MARCUSE'S THOUGHT SUGGEST A SLOW IRREVERSIBLE DRIFT FROM MARXIST SECULARIZED POLITICAL PROCESSES BACK TO RELIGION. THE CHIEF CONTRIBUTION OF MARCUSE AS A SOCIAL CRITIC HAS BEEN TO RAISE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE SPIRITUAL MEANINGLESSNESS OF AFFLUENCE. AS A THEORIST HE FAILS IN 2 DIRECTIONS: (1) HE CHARACTERIZES BUT DOESN'T OFFER EXPLANATIONS--HIS 'EXECUTION' IS TOO AMBIGUOUS TO OFFER COMPREHENSIVE ANSWERS, & (2) THE ILLS OF SPIRITUAL POVERTY ARE FAR FROM UNIVERSAL CONCERNS--BY 'CONCENTRATION' ON RADICAL SPIRITUAL CONCERNS, THE MORE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS OF POVERTY, EXPLOITATION, & POLITICAL OPPRESSION IN A WORLD-WIDE CONTEXT ARE OBSCURED. MODIFIED AUTHOR'S SUMMARY.

My argument is that the very existence of international relations poses a serious, and perhaps intractable, problem for Marxism. This is easy enough to see on the level of empirical politics, and even on the level of ideological controversy, but it is a still too little appreciated issue in the context of a thoroughgoing theoretical analysis of Marxian thought. I would like to offer some tentative remarks on this latter plane. My suggestions are not as conclusive as I would like them to be, but they may at least raise some important and topical questions. Briefly, it is my intention to show that since international relations presuppose the horizontal division of mankind into nations or states, and since Marxian thought postulates the absolute unity of mankind as its ideal, problems relating to horizontal group diversity are much more centrally relevant to the Marxian doctrine than it is usually thought. Not only is there a clear moral argument in Marxian thought against group diversity as such, but the very central tenets of Marxism have a direct, though implicit, reference to the relations between horizontal groups such as nations. I believe, further, that these aspects of Marxian thought have been lost sight of and confused or underemphasized over the years, partly by Marx and Engels themselves at the very start, and partly by their political followers, and (later) academic critics.