Skip to main content
Taylor & Francis Group Logo
    Advanced Search

    Click here to search products using title name,author name and keywords.

    • Login
    • Hi, User  
      • Your Account
      • Logout
      Advanced Search

      Click here to search products using title name,author name and keywords.

      Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

      Chapter

      ‘Marxism is not a “Science of History”’: Testing the boundaries of Marxism
      loading

      Chapter

      ‘Marxism is not a “Science of History”’: Testing the boundaries of Marxism

      DOI link for ‘Marxism is not a “Science of History”’: Testing the boundaries of Marxism

      ‘Marxism is not a “Science of History”’: Testing the boundaries of Marxism book

      ‘Marxism is not a “Science of History”’: Testing the boundaries of Marxism

      DOI link for ‘Marxism is not a “Science of History”’: Testing the boundaries of Marxism

      ‘Marxism is not a “Science of History”’: Testing the boundaries of Marxism book

      ByStuart Sim
      BookPost-Marxism

      Click here to navigate to parent product.

      Edition 1st Edition
      First Published 2000
      Imprint Routledge
      Pages 22
      eBook ISBN 9780203186169
      Share
      Share

      ABSTRACT

      During the period when Laclau and Mouffe were urging us to go beyond Marxism in our politics, critical voices were also beginning to be heard from within the Marxist camp itself, and from the 1960s through to the 1980s we can observe the boundaries of Marxism being subjected to some rigorous testing. Hindess and Hirst, for example, although still proclaiming themselves Marxist, come very close to espousing a post-Marxist position in books such as Pre-Capitalist Modes of Production, Mode of Production and Social Formation, and Marx’s ‘Capital’ and Capitalism Today, and their impact on the development of post-Marxism deserves consideration – particularly since their rejection of classical Marxism is nearly as vigorous as Laclau and Mouffe’s. Hindess and Hirst adopt a reformist stance, drawing our attention to Marxism’s theoretical inadequacies, as well as to a tradition of ‘vulgar’ Marxism based on what to the authors is a series of misinterpretations of the original material. While to some extent their project is a contribution to the ‘what Marx really said’ genre, eventually it goes well beyond this in its criticism not just of the history of Marxism but of Marx himself, suggesting that a large-scale revision of the theory is urgently called for if it is to continue to play any significant cultural role.

      T&F logoTaylor & Francis Group logo
      • Policies
        • Privacy Policy
        • Terms & Conditions
        • Cookie Policy
        • Privacy Policy
        • Terms & Conditions
        • Cookie Policy
      • Journals
        • Taylor & Francis Online
        • CogentOA
        • Taylor & Francis Online
        • CogentOA
      • Corporate
        • Taylor & Francis Group
        • Taylor & Francis Group
        • Taylor & Francis Group
        • Taylor & Francis Group
      • Help & Contact
        • Students/Researchers
        • Librarians/Institutions
        • Students/Researchers
        • Librarians/Institutions
      • Connect with us

      Connect with us

      Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067
      5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2022 Informa UK Limited