Showing papers by "Alvin W. Gouldner published in 1980"

The Two Marxisms: Contradictions and Anomalies in the Development of Theory

Abstract: The two Marxisms : contradictions and anomalies in the development of theory , The two Marxisms : contradictions and anomalies in the development of theory , کتابخانه دانشگاه امام صادق(ع)

Civil Society in Capitalism and Socialism

Abstract: The more Marx ignored and devalued civil society the more he formulated a socialism without safeguards, a socialism whose rise to power could only take the form of centralization. Marx had inherited the idea of civil society as one of a pair of concepts, the other being, of course, the state. We are told that Marx himself even noticed civil society’s importance for capitalist development, although, once again, if we look at the texts they seem pretty modest to support such a heavy hypothesis. The most important is a letter Marx wrote Engels on 27 July 1854.

Anomalies and the Evolution of Early Marxism

Abstract: It is one thing when a system is young, still forming its boundaries, and when its principal adversaries are outside of it, but quite another when it becomes old enough to have a past containing commitments which it has made and with which it must somehow live. In this chapter, a view in three stages of the evolution of Marxism in the lifetimes of its founders is offered, which devolves around this transition.

State and Class in Marxism

Abstract: I want to begin here by reexamining the Asiatic Mode of Production (AMP) as an anomaly—that is, as a moment of aborted creativity—in Marxism. I have earlier indicated that the texts bearing on the AMP, and the other social forms developed after the dissolution of the primitive (tribal) commune, are extremely skimpy. I am neither the first to suggest this, nor does this view go unchallenged in discussion among Marxists and “Marxologists.” Thus, for example, M. Shapiro1 has also stressed the brevity with which Marx treats the AMP which, in turn, has drawn a dissenting rejoinder from Umberto Melotti. Melotti argues, however, not without certain internal contradictions, that “Marx did not make just a single stray reference to the Asiatic Mode but actually dealt with it quite extensively.” One may take this as typical of the level with which such discussions are pursued. Having set up a straw man—i.e., “a single stray reference”—which he correctly rejects, Melotti then proceeds to draw a patently false conclusion, i.e., claiming Marx “dealt with it quite extensively.” There are “many passages” (left uncited) which Melotti claims “presuppose” such a concept; then, he adds, Engels “uses it in several letters.”2 Even Melotti’s avid defense of the textual basis of the AMP is not precisely overwhelming.

“Economic Determinisms” in Marxism

Abstract: We find ourselves in a situation which is at once remarkable but common: the people whom we are studying are also studying us. As the tale goes, we have put our eye to the keyhole and the first thing we observe is another eye staring back at us. We are not isolated, superior anthropologists studying faraway illiterates, nor industrial sociologists studying supposedly naive factory workers. Those about whom we are reflecting are just as reflective as we, and, sometimes, they disagree with our conclusions.