RESUMEN El propósito de este artículo es examinar en conjunto las filosofías del segundo Heidegger y del joven Marx para mostrar cómo, aunque difieren en algunos aspectos importantes, ambas filosofías están motivadas por preocupaciones similares y no son tan diferentes como para impedir un diálogo productivo entre ellas. En la medida en que puede decirse que ambos pensadores han pensado, tomando la palabra en el sentido heideggeriano, lo "mismo", el modo en que ambas filosofías divergen entre sí puede ser (...) especialmente esclarecedor a la hora de ofrecer una interpretación clara de las mismas (una tarea especialmente importante para lograr una comprensión de la filosofía de Heidegger que a menudo resulta oscura). Veremos cómo la noción de finitud de Heidegger implica una serie de críticas a la filosofía de Marx. Por último, plantearé una pregunta sobre los límites de la crítica de Heidegger a Marx, considerando que esta crítica llega a criticar la idea de que todos los seres humanos son iguales e implica un rechazo de la idea de los derechos humanos. ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper is to examine the philosophies of the late Heidegger and the young Marx side by side to show how, while differing radically in some important aspects, both philosophies are motivated by similar concerns and are not so different as to preclude a productive dialogue between them. In so far as both thinkers can be said to have thought, taking the word in a Heideggerian sense, the "same", the way both philosophies diverge from each other can be especially illuminating when it comes to offering a clear interpretation of them (a task which is especially important to gain an understanding of Heidegger's philosophy which is often obscure). We'll see how Heidegger's notion of finitude implies a series of criticisms of Marx's philosophy. Finally, I'll pose a question regarding the limits of Heidegger's criticism of Marx, considering that this criticism goes as far as to criticize the idea that all human beings are equal and so implies a rejection of the idea of human rights. (shrink)

Rather, in all the texts of this period Marx tries to mount a compelling critique of the present while altogether avoiding the dilemmas central to philosophy in ...

In Marxist circles it is common to refer to Karl Marx’s The Civil War in France for a theoretical analysis of the historical significance of the Paris Commune, and to Prosper-Olivier Lissagaray’s History of the Commune of 1871 for a description of the facts surrounding the insurrection of the Paris workers and its repression by the National Assembly led by Adolphe Thiers. What is less well-known is that Marx himself oversaw the German translation of Lissagaray’s book and made (...) numerous additions to it. In this article we describe Marx’s addenda to Lissagaray’s work, showing how they contribute to concretising his analysis of the Paris Commune and how they relate to the split in the International Working Men’s Association between Marxists and anarchists that took place after the Commune’s defeat. We also show how Marx’s additions to the German version of Lissagaray’s book were linked to his involvement with the recently created Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany and to his criticism of the programme it had adopted at the congress celebrated in the city of Gotha. (shrink)

This chapter compares the 1844 Marx (the Marx of the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844) and the Rawls of A Theory of Justice, with the central topic being the young Marx and the middle‐aged Rawls. It starts with the standard Marxian criticism of Theory, and then discusses the two ways in which the writers resemble one another. Eventually, the discussion returns to the standard criticism, casting it as a difference in the writers’ conceptions of “alienation.” The (...) 1844 Marx condemns capitalism for its deep and multiform alienation of labor but misses the fact that a theory of distribution asks, among other things, what ought to be distributed. The alienation associated with the absence of the difference principle in a restricted utility society stems from a perceived deficit of concern. Rawls claims in Theory that the difference principle is “an interpretation of the principle of fraternity”. (shrink)

Ce texte constitue la première partie de l'introduction du recueil de textes de K. Marx, Les Crises du capitalisme, Paris, Demopolis, 2009. Daniel Bensaïd y explique la conception marxienne des crises cycliques du capitalisme, tout en abordant au passage celle de la « temporalité propre du capital ». Le tour de force de Marx, contemporain de la première grande expansion bancaire des années victoriennes et du Second empire, c'est d'avoir traversé les apparences, la surface confuse des choses, pour (...) (...) - Économie – Nouvel article. (shrink)

Without denying the contradictory character of Marx s thought, the French philosopher Daniel Bensaid sets out to demonstrate that it was not a philosophy of the ...

The following text is a translation of Daniel Bensaïd’s ‘Strategy and Politics’, which covers debates within the workers’ movement from the time of Marx and Engels, through the Second and Third Internationals, up to the more immediate revolutionary experiences in Nicaragua and Latin America. An Introduction to this has been published simultaneously.

The following text is a translation of Daniel Bensaïd’s ‘Strategy and Politics’, which covers debates within the workers’ movement from the time of Marx and Engels, through the Second and Third Internationals, up to the more immediate revolutionary experiences in Nicaragua and Latin America. An Introduction to this has been published simultaneously.

Central to his own fruitful study of modern society and politics, of the stakes and twists-and-turns of the dramatic twentieth century, was Raymond Aron's fifty year engagement with `Marx and Marxism'. In a series of lecture courses (and elsewhere) Aron provided a comprehensive, balanced, and judicious exposition and appreciation of Marx's intellectual itinerary. On one hand, Marx helpfully highlighted various tensions in liberal-bourgeois society. On the other hand, however, his apolitical, materialistic explanations of them and, especially, his (...) prediction of capitalism's explosive self-overcoming proved grossly inadequate. In addition to being a special sort of social scientist, Marx was a Promethean humanist who rejected all natural and social limits and who claimed to scientifically predict the coming of the true and real City of Man. Aron's own `balanced social analysis' and his humane, sober, reformist thought stand in stark contrast. (shrink)

En este artículo propongo explorar la cuestión ontológica en el pensamiento de Marx, poniendo el foco en los tratamientos que le dedicaron dos autores habitualmente colocados al margen de los intereses propios del marxismo: Martin Heidegger y Jacques Derrida. Desde perspectivas críticas o deconstructivas, sus interpretaciones se caracterizaron por situar a Marx dentro de la tradición metafísica a partir de la comprensión de su filosofía como una ontología del trabajo o, al decir de Werner Hamacher, como una _ergontología_. (...) El artículo, entonces, se dedica a analizar los argumentos filosóficos empleados primero por Heidegger y luego por Derrida para cuestionar, de forma diferenciada, aunque en estrecha relación de continuidad, el privilegio metafísico del trabajo en el discurso marxista, sin descuidar las implicaciones políticas de sus respectivos cuestionamientos. (shrink)

Si no es posible comprender el desarrollo de El Capital sin conocer la Ciencia de la lógica, se busca trazar los lineamientos generales para alcanzar dicha comprensión. En seis tesis se ponen de relieve algunos aspectos importantes del pensamiento de Marx que han sido poco tratados, y se dialoga con la tradición marxista para señalar ciertos equívocos y resaltar algunas interpretaciones. Esto permite ofrecer un nuevo cuadro para entender la actitud crítica que adopta el "último" Marx frente a (...) la dialéctica de su maestro. Because it is not possible to comprehend Capital without knowing the Science of Logic, this article aims to chart some general guidelines to reach such an understanding. In six thesis, I highlight some important aspects of Marx's thought that have been little treated and dialog with the Marxist tradition to indicate certain equivocations and highlight some interpretations. This offers a new framework to understand the critical attitude that the "mature" Marx adopted regarding his teacher's dialect. (shrink)

RESUMEN: El presente artículo trata de lo transindividual, un concepto fundamental en la teoría de la individuación elaborada por Gilbert Simondon, y de su vinculación con ciertas proposiciones de Karl Marx que tratan del individuo y la sociedad. Entre ambos autores existe una relación directa, evidenciada en cada uno de los textos donde Simondon hace mención a Marx y al marxismo en general. Pero también existe una relación indirecta, para nada evidente, que surge menos de lo que Simondon (...) dice acerca de Marx que de lo que ciertos pensadores contemporáneos dicen sobre uno y otro. Aquí intento dar cuenta de ambos tipos de relaciones. Asimismo, me propongo introducir y comentar algunos pasajes de Marx que compiten en radicalidad y audacia con los que escribiera Simondon un siglo más tarde, y en los cuales quiero apoyar mi hipótesis de lectura, a saber, que Marx es un pensador de lo transindividual avant la lettre. ABSTRACT: The present article is about the transindividual, a fundamental concept in the theory of the individuation produced by Gilbert Simondon, and about its entailment with certain propositions of Karl Marx, that deal with the individual and the society. Between both authors there is a direct relationship, evidenced in each of the texts where Simondon makes mention to Marx and the Marxism in general. But it also exists an indirect relationship, at all evident, that arises less from what Simondon says about Marx than from what certain contemporary thinkers claim about one and the other. Here I attempt to give account of both types of relationships. In addition, I propose to introduce and comment some passages of the work of Marx, which compete in both radicalness and audacity with those that Simondon wrote a century after. And in which I want to sustain my reading hypothesis, namely, that Marx is a thinker of the transindividual avant la lettre. (shrink)

There has been much discussion in recent years of the role of moral ideas within Marxism. Marx's stringent criticisms of purely philosophical inquiry impose rather narrow limits on the form which a Marxian moral philosophy might take. For Marx often holds that moral ideas and moral theorizing are irremediably ideological. By this Marx appears to mean that moral ideas are part and parcel of a system of class domination, a way of preserving class domination through internalized norms. (...) As many recent commentators have shown, however, these criticisms of moral reasoning, though present in Marx's system, cannot be the beginning and end of his stance on moral matters. For Marx himself is committed to making normative judgments about capitalism and socialism, and there is a richly textured set of normative ideas that run through his writings from early to late. Further, and perhaps more compellingly, there is a pressing need internal to Marxism for discussion of moral ideas in order to steer the course towards the attainment of socialism. (shrink)

This classic analysis of Western liberal capitalist society contends that capitalism harbors the seeds of its downfall, particularly by effecting a certain cultural tendency among its most successful subjects that is bound to corrode its very foundations. As such, it is a conservative critique employing cultural concerns precisely where Marx prioritized economic ones.

The “transformation problem” in Marx’s Capital (how to make compatible the labour theory of value from the first book with “prices of production” from the third book) has been one of the main reasons to refute the marxist theory and, at the same time, a privileged matter in order to analyze the method question. In this paper, we try to analyze the sense and foundation of the labobour theory of value discussing with any attempt of reading Marx Capital (...) as the development of a supposed “dialectic method”. Analyzing the manuscripts and drafts that Marx did not finish, we try to defend that, contrary to what Engels thought (because it had been anounced by Marx himself), it is not possible to find in the third book a trace of the so expected “dialectic solution” to the “transformation problem”. That demands, of course, a different interpretation to explain the sense of the “transformation” of value into “production prices”. (shrink)

Exploring materialism and social relationships in modern culture Material Culture and Mass Consumption offers an in-depth exploration of objects, objectification, ideology, and materialism in modern society. Drawing from Hegel, Marx, Munn, and Simmel, the discussion delves into the physicality of the material world and attempts to understand materialism as a form of cultural expression. Targeting mass production as the root of mass consumption, rather than the result, this book positions material goods at odds with genuine social interaction and questions (...) these relationships from the abstract to the intensely specific. (shrink)

While neither Hegel nor Marx can be called “ecologists” in any strict sense of the term, they both present views of the human-nature relationship which offer important insights for contemporary debates in philosophical ecology. Further, while Marx and Engels began a tradition of sharply distinguishing their own views of nature from those of Hegel, careful examination reveals a substantial commonality of sentiment. The essay compares Hegel and Marx (and Engels) in terms of their basic conceptions of nature, (...) their critiques of Romanitic nature-worship, their notions of how a meaningful unity with nature requires the act of socially transforming nature, their respective calls for a new science of nature, and their attitudes towards technology. I argue that we can uncover a largely shared humanistic orientation toward nature, and I situate this view within contemporary debates about the anthropocentric or non-anthropocentric foundation of ecological thinking. (shrink)

While neither Hegel nor Marx can be called “ecologists” in any strict sense of the term, they both present views of the human-nature relationship which offer important insights for contemporary debates in philosophical ecology. Further, while Marx and Engels began a tradition of sharply distinguishing their own views of nature from those of Hegel, careful examination reveals a substantial commonality of sentiment. The essay compares Hegel and Marx (and Engels) in terms of their basic conceptions of nature, (...) their critiques of Romanitic nature-worship, their notions of how a meaningful unity with nature requires the act of socially transforming nature, their respective calls for a new science of nature, and their attitudes towards technology. I argue that we can uncover a largely shared humanistic orientation toward nature, and I situate this view within contemporary debates about the anthropocentric or non-anthropocentric foundation of ecological thinking. (shrink)

An anthology of works on the philosophy of economics, including classic texts and essays exploring specific branches and schools of economics. Completely revamped, this edition contains new selections, a revised introduction and a bibliography. The volume contains 26 chapters organized into five parts: Classic Discussions, Positivist and Popperian Views, Ideology and Normative Economics, Branches and Schools of Economics and Their Methodological Problems and New Directions in Economic Methodology. It includes crucial historical contributions by figures such as Mill, Marx, Weber, (...) Robbins, Knight, and Veblen and works by most of the leading contemporary figures writing on economic methodology, including five Nobel Laureates in Economics. (shrink)

El artículo se propone elucidar la lectura deconstructiva que Derrida lleva a cabo de la filosofía de Marx y, más ampliamente, de los presupuestos metafísicos de la filosofía marxista. Espectros de Marx (1993) funciona como el punto de partida de un análisis histórico y conceptual que rastrea algunas de las principales hipótesis de este libro en publicaciones, entrevistas, cursos y seminarios fechados entre 1964 y 2004. La pregunta que sirve como hilo conductor de este trabajo es cómo interpretar (...) filosófica y políticamente la deconstrucción de la ontología marxista. (shrink)