Search

Ignacio Rangel stands out as the most creative and original Brazilian economist of the 20th century. He is a Marxist known for challenging the two dominant schools of thought in Brazil and Latin America—neoclassical and structuralist. His work is regaining relevance as the political economy he developed offers relevant answers to contemporary Brazilian challenges. Moreover, one of his most significant works, "Elements of Projectment Economy," has become important in assisting the understanding of the historical form emerging in China since 1978 as a new socio-economic formation. Rescuing and developing Rangel's contributions to scientific socialism may be seen as a response to Xi Jinping's call to open up new horizons for Marxist political economy in light of developments in China and the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In seeking an appropriate approach to the ideal society in Chinese thought, the present study comprises two main parts. The first part deals with a debate in Chinese philosophy concerning the possibility of an inner or immanent transcendence as a way of defining Chinese culture. As this debate unfolded, it became clear that Chinese philosophers—especially on the mainland—do not regard the transcendent–immanent distinction as applicable to Chinese culture and philosophy. In short, this culture and its philosophy simply has no need for transcendence. Instead, other terms are needed, especially those drawn from a tradition that "secularised" them many millennia ago: moral cultivation, regeneration, home, and intimacy. In this light, the second part of the study deals with two approaches to the ideal society: the Confucian "Great Harmony [大同 datong]" and the short story "Peach Blossom Spring [桃花源 taohuayuan]". These terms are mediated by a treatment of the "Three Worlds Theory [三世说 sanshishuo]", developed most fully by He Xiu (129–82 CE). The outcome of this investigation is that the ideal society is very much part of this world. It can be known only through direct observation, empirical investigation, and it is achievable only by detailed planning. It is nothing less than home. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Slavoj Žižek and Julia Kristeva have followed strikingly similar paths in their intellectual and political development, moving from Marxism through psychoanalysis to Christianity. This article traces the way they have distanced themselves from Marxism and taken up psychoanalysis, of either the Freudian or Lacanian variety. For Kristeva, psychoanalysis provides the therapeutic solution to individual and at times social problems, whereas for Žižek it is the best description of those problems without necessarily providing answers. However, through psychoanalysis, they have gone a step further and become enamoured with Christianity, especially Paul’s letters in the New Testament and the doctrine of love. Paul provides for Kristeva another and earlier version of psychoanalytic solutions, but he enables Žižek to find the social and political answers for which he seeks. By connecting these intellectual moves with their own departures from Eastern Europe, one from Yugoslavia (and then Slovenia) and the other from Bulgaria, I argue that their search for redemption, of both personal and social forms, betrays a residual socialism. In fact, their moves into psychoanalysis and Christianity may be read as compensations for a lost socialism, so much so that Žižek at least makes a belated recovery of Marx through Christianity and Kristeva can never quite excise Marx from her thought.

Defining Christian Zionism as conservative Christian support for the state of Israel, and an influential political force, especially in the United States, this article outlines four antinomies of such a position. Firstly, although Christian Zionism argues that it is purely theological, that it follows God’s will irrespective of any politics, and although mainstream Zionism is resolutely political, we argue that such a separation is impossible. Indeed, mainstream Zionism cannot avoid being influenced by Christian Zionism’s political agenda. Secondly, despite the efforts by mainstream Zionism to use Christian Zionism in order to influence US foreign policy in the Middle East, mainstream Zionism is playing with fire, since Christian Zionists wish to convert or annihilate all Jews. Thirdly, Christian Zionism is the ultimate version of anti-Semitism, for it wishes to get rid of Arabs (as hindrances to the Zionist project) and then dispense with Jews. (Both Arabs and Jews are by definition Semites.) Finally, since Christian Zionists are fundamentalist Christians, they must take the Old and New Testaments at their word. However, this position is impossible to hold, and in order to resolve the tension they must resort to the violence of the final conflict, Armageddon.

This study reassesses a body of research that has been somewhat neglected: Eastern European market socialism of the 1960s-1980s. It does so with the objective of recovering key issues and also identifying problems that need to be addressed. Thus, the study begins with an overview of the practices of market socialism, which was pursued to varying degrees from the 1960s. While some (USSR, East Germany and Czechoslovakia) turned back to centrally planned economies in the 1970s, others (especially Yugoslavia and Hungary) pursued further reforms. This material provides the basis for analysis of three theoretical points and their attendant problems: the market as a neutral 'economic mechanism', as an effort to detach a market economy from its assumed integral connection with a capitalist socio-economic system; the tensions between planning and market; and the ownership of the means of production, which risked ignoring the liberation of productive forces. The conclusion discusses potential assessments of the market socialist experiments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This dialogue begins with the question of "concrete Marxism," which is at the foundations of "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics." The concrete is analysed in terms of Marx's dialectic between freedom and necessity, as also in Marx's early work on Epicurean materialism and in Engels's "Dialectics of Nature" and "Anti-Dühring." We include a discussion of Hegel's dialectic between the actual and the rational. Subsequently, we move to the relationship of socialist construction to the (non-socialist) past and a socialist future. We adduce examples from Marx's "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte," as well as the Chinese concept of mingyun (destiny/future) and explore the implications of Lenin's critique of "left wing" impatience with the past. The issue here is the mistake of a "leftist" effort to make the leap—through sheer voluntary effort—into communism as an over-compensation for practical deficiencies and, on the other hand, the possibility for revolutionary socialism of appropriating and transforming the positive advances of bourgeois culture and civilisation. We conclude with some preliminary observations on the communist prospect, emphasising the concrete form of the dialectic of productive forces and relations of production and the reasons why this form highlights the importance of the former as a motive force. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study offers a comparative analysis of economic reforms in Eastern Europe and China. Some CMEA countries—especially Yugoslavia and Hungary—undertook reforms in the 1960s, while China launched its reform and opening-up in 1978. In light of the lessons learned—concerning planning, markets, ownership of means of production and liberation of productive forces, and the interaction of relations and forces of production during socialist construction—it is possible to provide a systematic comparison. After providing background to the reforms, the comparison has four steps: (1) de-linking a market economy from a capitalist system, and the concomitant de-linking of a planned economy from a socialist system; (2) whether a market economy is a neutral instrument usable in any system, or whether it is a component shaped by the system of which it is a part; (3) planning and markets within a socialist system; (4) the relationship between ownership of the means of production (and control over the forces of production) and liberation of productive forces in the process of socialist construction. The fourth topic leads to the more foundational question of the dialectical interactions between relations and forces of production, since on this matter the economic definition of socialism turns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is an underlying continuity between Marx's doctoral thesis and Engels' Dialectics of Nature. Although the two works are far apart in terms of time, style of writing, and specific topics, an exegesis of the core arguments reveals similar underlying interests: a focus on the materiality of motion; an identification of repulsion (and attraction) as the main dialectical feature of motion; and the philosophical implications of this dialectical interaction. The results of this exegesis raise once again the question of how we may understand the division of labor between Marx's main concern with human history and Engels' later concern with natural history and the hard sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on the principle that universals are valid if they are concrete universals, this article provides a comparison between Western liberal and Chinese Marxist approaches to human rights. It does so in three steps. First is the analysis of the foundations, or roots, of the Western liberal emphasis on an individual's mastery over a "right" understood in terms of private property, and the Marxist tradition's emphasis on anti-hegemonic sovereignty in light of anti-colonial struggles for national liberation. Second is the contrast between the development of the Western approach to the core human rights in terms of freedom of expression, movement, and assembly, and the Marxist emphasis on the right to socioeconomic well-being, or common prosperity. Third is the comparison between the fruits of either tradition, one in terms of identity politics, and the other in the emphasis on civil, political, cultural, and environmental rights. The article concludes by asking whether the two approaches are able to come to an understanding of each other, and proposes that such an understanding may need to take place in light of the concept and reality of concrete universals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study offers a comparison between the "rooted universals" of Western liberal and Chinese Marxist approaches to human rights. I begin with sovereignty, which is redefined in formerly colonized countries as anti-colonial sovereignty, predicated on mutual non-interference in the affairs of other states. From here, I analyze the Western liberal tradition, which arose from a unique legal tradition and its connection with private property, leading to a restricted emphasis on civil and political rights. The Chinese Marxist tradition differs, basing itself on anti-colonial sovereignty and emphasizing the core right to socioeconomic well-being, from which flow a range of further rights. The article closes with the point that it is necessary to understand and appreciate these different traditions in a global situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study tackles four Western Marxist misrepresentations of socialism with Chinese characteristics, particularly as it has developed with the reform and opening-up. Each of these misrepresentations sets in opposition the economy and the state, with the former being seen as "capitalist" (in some form) and the latter as variously "authoritarian," "bureaucratic" or simply as "interventionist." In other words, "Chinese characteristics" designates the superstructural feature that determines—incorrectly in light of Marxist analysis—the economic base, which is mistakenly seen as capitalist. While each misrepresentation has its own distinct problems, they also have common problems: a voluntarist position on political decisions, which fails to provide any reason for a "capitalist turn"; the assumption that a "market economy," wherever and whenever it appears, is by definition capitalist; the deployment of neocolonial and "Orientalist" assumptions coupled with a Western "betrayal narrative"; and a systemic neglect of Chinese language research. The conclusion provides a summarising assessment that focuses on the empirical flaws and methodological presuppositions of these misrepresentations. We emphasise that our focus is primarily on the internal problems and inconsistencies of these misrepresentations, although we also offer—where needed—some constructive alternatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on a seminar on leading Western Marxist philosopher Domenico Losurdo. Topics discussed include two books of Losurdo that have been translated into Chinese including "Liberalism: A Counter-History" and "Hegel and the Freedom of the Moderns," observation on Losurdo's sustained critique of Western European traditions that have been detrimental and destructive, and how Losurdo defines liberalism.

The articles gathered here provide a range of approaches, but there are some topics that should be added to the discussion to provide a fuller picture. These topics include: a Chinese Marxist approach to human rights; socialist rule of law, which frames the revised (2018) regulation on religion; the largest Protestant church organization in the world, the Three-Self Patriotic Movement; and the 2018 Chinese-Vatican agreement. The following is predicated on the need for engagement with the full picture, upon which assessment should be based. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For Marx, what happens to the state under socialism in power, after a communist revolution? This study requires a strict self-discipline: to avoid reading later positions back into Marx's own positions. The material is organised in sections. The first concerns Marx's observations on hitherto existing forms of the state, especially absolutist, bourgeois and imperialist forms (directly experienced in Prussia and England). The second concerns his proposals for what may follow, focusing on the dictatorship of the proletariat. The third deals with the commune, based on the experiment in Paris in 1871. The material on the proletarian dictatorship and the commune evinces a number of tensions, which Marx bequeathed to the subsequent tradition. He also begins to offer a possible resolution. Thus, the final section examines Marx's fascinating struggle in dealing with forms of governance under communism. That he realised such governance is necessary is clear, but that he was also reticent to spell it out in detail is also obvious—not least because he seemed to know that he did not have the experience and thereby evidence to undertake a "scientific" study of what happens to the state under communism. Throughout, the emphasis is on careful analysis of Marx's texts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Argument is the property of InkriT e.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article deals with one aspect of Joseph Stalin’s unrecognised contribution to redefining human nature. The larger whole of such a redefinition was what may be called an Augustinian awareness of the depth and pervasiveness of evil. The specific aspect on which I focus is the question of sin within that larger whole. The key distinction concerning sin is between the detection of sin in others and in oneself. While the former was relatively easier, the internal process was the more difficult, for it entailed the need for ‘criticism and self-criticism’—that is, admission, confession, repentance and, where necessary, punishment. The surprise of this emphasis, in which sin is understood in relation to the socialist project and the party, is that the personal dimension of sin was a new departure in a Russian Orthodox context, providing one element of the development of a socialist counter-tradition. The focus of this study is relatively rare in our times: careful and detailed attention to Stalin’s texts and thought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study offers a specific interpretation of the Taiping Revolution in China in the mid-nineteenth century. It was not only the largest revolutionary movement in the world at the time, but also one that was inspired by Christianity. Indeed, it marks the moment when the revolutionary religious tradition arrived in China. My account of the revolution stresses the role of the Bible, its radical reinterpretation by the Taiping revolutionaries, and the role it played in their revolutionary acts and reconstruction of economic and social relations. After providing this account, I raise a number of implications for Marxist approaches to religion. These involve the revolutionary religious tradition, first identified by Engels and established by Karl Kautsky, the question of political ambivalence of a religion like Christianity, and the distinction between ontological and temporal transcendence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This discussion article concerns the implicit idea of proleptic communism in the thought of Joseph Stalin. This idea refers to the sense that communism is creatively present as a type of reverse causality, determining the nature of the present even though it remains to be achieved. I situate this approach to communism in terms of the theological doctrine of proleptic eschatology. Functioning as a response to the delay of the Parousia (Christ's return), this form of eschatology may also be found in Eastern Orthodox theology. In order to render explicit the implicit idea of proleptic communism in Stalin's thought, the argument requires two steps: to track the way Stalin pushes the era of communism (in distinction from socialism) into a well-nigh mythical future; to espy the contours of proleptic communism. My specific aim is to understand an unacknowledged feature of Stalin's thought, without taking sides in the perpetual polarisation over his legacy. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]