Engelsianism, Second Internationalism, and the Loss of Marx’s Critical Method

C. Byron
{"title":"Engelsianism, Second Internationalism, and the Loss of Marx’s Critical Method","authors":"C. Byron","doi":"10.1080/03017605.2023.2199584","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This essay argues that the predominant view of ‘Marxism’ was largely shaped by Engels and the Second International. The predominant view of Marxism includes a metaphysical theory (Dialectical Materialism) and a Scientific Theory (Historical Materialism). Marx never used either phrase. Moreover, a close reading of his mature works and letters reveals that he explicitly rejected the content of those theories. Hence, in the shaping of ‘Marxism’, a series of confusions and inaccuracies about history and economic development were attributed to Marx. One source of miscommunication was Engels, who seems to have misunderstood Marx’s theories in Capital. Moreover, Engels’ writings provide the origin point for ‘Dialectical’ and ‘Historical Materialism’. These attributions to Marx were taken up by Lenin and Trotsky in the Second International. Unlike Engels, Lenin and the Second International had access to few of Marx’s writings, so they had to rely on Engels’ proclamations on Marx’s work for their understanding of ‘Marxism’. Subsequently, ‘Marxism’ has been perverted, as it relates to Marx’s actual method of analysis and presentation, in his critical engagement with capitalism. In this essay the author charts the miscommunication of Marx’s theories, and then provides the reader with Marx’s actual critical method for analyzing Capitalism.","PeriodicalId":81032,"journal":{"name":"Critique (Clandeboye, Man.)","volume":"44 6 1","pages":"535 - 556"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critique (Clandeboye, Man.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03017605.2023.2199584","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This essay argues that the predominant view of ‘Marxism’ was largely shaped by Engels and the Second International. The predominant view of Marxism includes a metaphysical theory (Dialectical Materialism) and a Scientific Theory (Historical Materialism). Marx never used either phrase. Moreover, a close reading of his mature works and letters reveals that he explicitly rejected the content of those theories. Hence, in the shaping of ‘Marxism’, a series of confusions and inaccuracies about history and economic development were attributed to Marx. One source of miscommunication was Engels, who seems to have misunderstood Marx’s theories in Capital. Moreover, Engels’ writings provide the origin point for ‘Dialectical’ and ‘Historical Materialism’. These attributions to Marx were taken up by Lenin and Trotsky in the Second International. Unlike Engels, Lenin and the Second International had access to few of Marx’s writings, so they had to rely on Engels’ proclamations on Marx’s work for their understanding of ‘Marxism’. Subsequently, ‘Marxism’ has been perverted, as it relates to Marx’s actual method of analysis and presentation, in his critical engagement with capitalism. In this essay the author charts the miscommunication of Marx’s theories, and then provides the reader with Marx’s actual critical method for analyzing Capitalism.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
恩格斯主义、第二国际主义与马克思批判方法的失落
本文认为,“马克思主义”的主流观点在很大程度上是由恩格斯和第二国际形成的。马克思主义的主流观点包括形而上学理论(辩证唯物主义)和科学理论(历史唯物主义)。马克思从未使用过这两个词。此外,仔细阅读他的成熟作品和信件,就会发现他明确地拒绝这些理论的内容。因此,在塑造“马克思主义”的过程中,一系列关于历史和经济发展的混淆和不准确都归咎于马克思。误解的来源之一是恩格斯,他似乎误解了马克思在《资本论》中的理论。此外,恩格斯的著作为“辩证唯物主义”和“历史唯物主义”提供了起点。列宁和托洛茨基在第二国际中采纳了马克思的这些观点。与恩格斯不同的是,列宁和第二国际很少接触到马克思的著作,所以他们不得不依靠恩格斯对马克思著作的评论来理解“马克思主义”。随后,“马克思主义”被歪曲了,因为它与马克思的实际分析和呈现方法有关,在他对资本主义的批判参与中。在本文中,作者列举了马克思理论的误解,并为读者提供了马克思分析资本主义的实际批判方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Papa, pas maman, Shakespeare et moi Œdipe zombie. Familles queers, inceste et tradition psychanalytique Les mères profanées Œdipe sous le signe du Trois. Papa, maman et moi Les pères coupables ?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1