Marx, Spinoza and Darwin presents a common thread in its argument: it shows how these authors—certainly with differences among themselves—consolidated a field of investigation that does not resort to transcendent or religious premises in approaching the phenomena they analyze. Thus, when Spinoza declared that the “will of God” is the “sanctuary of ignorance,” when Marx provocatively maintained that “criticism of religion is the premise of all criticism,” or when Darwin polemicized against a millennial creationist approach, all were taking a stand that invited us to view our world through a secular and immanent lens. In addition to this common thread, Martins discusses other issues present in the works of these thinkers, for instance the space that exists for human subjectivity from a Marxist perspective (which is not to be confused with philosophical “objectivism”): men and women are encouraged to act in the world. With this conceptual background, the concluding chapters of the book address the proliferation of some less examined Christian fundamentalisms in contemporary world, presenting an explanatory hypothesis for the phenomenon.

"How did Baruch Spinoza, the seventeenth-century Dutch-Jewish philosopher, become a nineteenth-century German Marxist? It is on its face an unlikely development. Karl Marx was a fiery revolutionary theorist who heralded the imminent demise of capitalism, while Spinoza was a contemplative philosopher who preached rational understanding and voiced skepticism about open rebellion. Further, Spinoza criticized all teleological ideas as anthropomorphic fantasies, while Marxism came to be associated expressly with teleological historical development. Yet socialists of the German nineteenth century were consistently drawn to Spinoza as their philosophical guide. Tracie Matysik shows how the metaphorical meeting of Spinoza and Marx arose out of an intellectual conundrum about the meaning of activity. How is it, exactly, that humans can be fully determined creatures - creatures in nature and governed by causal laws of nature - and also able to change their world? To address this seeming paradox, many revolutionary theorists scrapped the idea of activity as something autonomous humans do when they assert themselves against nature and its causal laws. Thinking with Spinoza, they came to think of activity instead as relating - as the state of relations between humans and between humans and the non-human world. Matysik follows these Spinozist-socialist intellectual experiments in the meaning of activity that unfolded across the nineteenth century, drawing lessons from them that may be meaningful for the environmental-justice issues confronting the contemporary world"--

Marx's masterpiece Capital (Das Kapital) ignored or misread as well as selectively and creatively interpreted by the generation of social scientists that came after him. Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and Georg Simmel attempt to supplement what they call ‘historical materialism’ or to engage in debates about ‘socialism’ through their readings of The Communist Manifesto and occasional Capital. Although these and other classical sociologists did not have access to most of Marx’s published and unpublished works as we do today, each is concerned with revising and refining Marx’s unfinished critique of political economy. Despite their differences with Marx and with one another, they share his concern with how empirically detailed and scientifically valid knowledge of the social world may inform historical struggles for a more human world. This commitment can be called ‘Faustian’, after the title character of the poet J. W. von Goethe’s tragic epic of modernity, insofar as Marx and the classical sociologists hope to translate theory into practice while making a pact or wager with the diabolical social, political, and economic forces of the modern world.

This book discusses Marx’s relations with Russia, which have always been ambivalent. In his youth, and indeed a good way into the 1860s, Marx might even be called a “Russophobe.” Around 1870, however, his views on Russia undergo a change; he becomes acquainted with a new kind of Russian radical and revolutionary movement and begins to study Russian. It becomes clear that Marx begins to feel that Russia is some kind of a “touchstone” for his theories. Offering a new and original interpretation of Marx’s theoretical development, Marx’s Russian Moment analyzes the following themes: Marx’s concept of ideology (as developed in the German Ideology) and its fortunes in Russia; Marx’s encounter with Bakunin and Russian nihilism; Marx’s and Engels’s studies of primitive societies; Engels’s views of the developmental perspectives of small Slavic nations; and Marx’s views on Finland, the Russian Grand Duchy. Considering these topics as “case studies,” Oittinen argues that Marx’s encounter with Russia substantially influenced Marx’s (and Engels’s) views not just on current political and economic matters but also on a philosophical and methodological level.

Chapter 1 is the most important chapter in Capital, as well as the most difficult and the most controversial. An influential interpretation of Chapter 1 in recent decades has been the so-called “value-form interpretation” of Marx’s theory in general and Chapter 1 in particular. The most important proponent of the value-form interpretation today, both in Germany and in the English-speaking world, is Michael Heinrich, and Heinrich’s work has emphasized the first chapter. Heinrich’s latest book in English is a detailed commentary of the first seven chapters of Volume 1 of Capital. The publication of an English translation of Heinrich’s book is an important event in Marxian scholarship and it is important to critically engage with this important book in order to advance our understanding of this critical foundational chapter. This book emphasizes the quantitative issue of whether the magnitude of value and socially necessary labour-time are determined in production or also depend on exchange and demand, which has been the main issue in the controversy over the value-form interpretation.

This book reconstructs the concept of the individual in Marx as the key to a fresh interpretation of Marxian philosophy. Marx moved from an examination of the contingency and indeterminacy of individual consciousness in his early years to a critique of the atomistic individual and materialised social relations in his later years. His thought proposes that ‘real individuals’ are the basis for an understanding of human society that promotes the emancipation of humankind. Marx’s philosophy has often been misunderstood as lacking a concept of the individual. In China, this misunderstanding not only relates to cultural and linguistic particularities (the word ‘individual’ is seldom used in Chinese), but also relates to a misleading view of socialism and communism. This book helps remedy this misunderstanding and draws important comparisons and contrasts between Marx’s concept of the individual with that of liberalism, and between Western and Eastern Marxism.

This book deals with a central aspect of Marx’s critique of society that is usually not examined further since it is taken as a matter of course: its scientific claim of being true. But what concept of truth underlies his way of reasoning which attempts to comprehend the social and political circumstances in terms of the possibility of their practical upheaval? In three studies focusing specifically on the development of Marx’s scientific critique of capitalist society, his journalistic commentaries on European politics, and his reflections on the organisation of revolutionary subjectivity, the authors carve out the immanent relation between the scientifically substantiated claim to truth and the revolutionary perspective in Marxʼs writings. They argue that Marx does not grasp the world ‘as it is’ but conceives it as an inverted state which cannot remain what it is but generates the means by which it can eventually be overcome. This is not something to be taken lightly: Such a concept has theoretical, political and even violent consequences—consequences that nevertheless derive neither from a subjective error nor a contamination of an otherwise ‘pure’ science. By analyzing Marx’s concept of truth the authors also attempt to shed light on a pivotal problematique of any modern critique of society that raises a reasoned claim of being true.

This edited collection evaluates the relationship between Marxism and religion in two ways: Marxism’s treatment of religion and the religious aspects of Marxism. Its aim is to complicate the superficial understanding of Marxism as a simple rejection of religion both in theory and practice. Divided into two parts (Theory and Praxis), this book brings together the three different themes of Marxism, religion, and emancipation for the first time. The first part explores the more theoretical discussions regarding the relationship between Marxism and various themes (or currents) within religious thought, to highlight points of compatibility as well as incompatibilities/conflicts. The studies in the second part of the collection refer to how Marxist ideas are received in different parts of the world. They show that as soon as Marxism arrives in a new place, the theory interacts and bonds with a pre-existing stock of ideas, each changing the other reciprocally.

This book redefines the relationship between Marxism and history. At its roots, Marxism was aimed at analyzing society in order to change it, reflecting on the past to create the ‘poetry of the future.’ No single event of the past was as important to early Marxists as the French Revolution of 1789. Studying the varying uses of the history of that past event among Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and prominent European Marxists before 1914 (Karl Kautsky, V.I. Lenin, and others), this book argues that we should take the historiography of concrete past events seriously. It was not only an auxiliary element of Marxism, but a core constitutive element in its formation. Thus, this book calls for transcending traditional approaches to Marxism as a fixed set of social theories combined with strategies for the present and future. Important to students of Marxism, the labor movement, and the French Revolution alike, this study contains refreshing perspectives on the interplay between past, present, and future and on the role of states, social classes, socio-economic determination, and political organization in history.

This book proposes a radical transformation of labour institutions, in order to lay the foundation for the democratization of society rather than capitalist accumulation. Using an empirical analysis of the contemporary world of work, Alexis Cukier examines the democratic meaning of today’s critique of work organization and questions the theoretical models (linked to class struggles and to industrial democracy) to conceive of a "democratic work." Considering particular historical experiments (such as cooperatives, self-management, worker’s councils) that try to realize democracy at work, this book also analyzes the political issue of "democratic work" in relation to issues such as labour law, feminist struggles and political ecology. Ultimately, this book proposes some institutional paths that could overtake the divide between the rights of the citizens and the rights of the workers, arguing finally: if we really want to radicalize democracy, we should begin with democratizing work.