A Marxist Critique of Marx's Theory of History: Beyond the Dichotomy between Scientific and Critical Marxism

Abstract

This article argues that an application of Marxism to itself can help us transcend Gouldner's (1980) dichotomy between scientific and critical Marxism. After demonstrating that the paradigmatic document of scientific marxism, Marx's Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, turns the structural logic of capitalist economy into the basis for a transhistorical theory of social‐economic development, this article explores the limitations of critical Marxism's response to scientific Marxism and concludes that a viable, not class‐centered, reformulation of the emancipatory project is possible through an analysis of capitalism's “dialectic of scarcity.” The task of the emancipatory project, it is argued, is to turn humanity, and not the working class, from a political subject in itself to a political subject in and for itself.

From the Black Death to Covid-19: the Rise and Fall of Capitalism

“…Capitalism arose, following the disintegration of feudalism, only in England and owing to the particular conditions of that country at that time (Macfarlane 1988). Arguably, Marx's view that social change involves "progress" actually stems from a generalization across history of his observations on the capitalist mode of production (Panayotakis 2004). Moreover, he not only generalizes the dynamics specific to a certain period of capitalism (i.e., intensive accumulation) to the entirety of the system, but he also generalizes the mechanism that operates within capitalism as it moves from one stage to another as if it serves to understand the historical transition from one mode of production to another (Gülalp 1989, 90-92).…”

“…Furthermore, the possibility of obtaining an unlimited number of products by just pressing the printer's button, or by similar automation methods, will cause mass unemployment under capitalism (İnan 2019). Therefore, as Marx pointed out from the very beginning, capitalism as it stands today is capable of making absolute abundance an achievable goal, but at the same time it structurally makes it impossible for large masses to reach that goal (Panayotakis 2004). This is an untenable situation and trying to maintain it will involve huge social costs.…”

Welcome-back Marx! Marxist Perspectives for Roman Archaeology at the End of the Post-Modern Era

“…Furthermore, every society is the product of its own separated history and therefore responds to economic changes in its own distinctive fashion. Because of this, it is impossible to formulate general laws to explain all of the concrete reality of cultural change in a predictive fashion (Panayotakis 2004). For these reasons, we have to reject the accusation to Marx formulated in Popper's Poverty of Historicism (Popper 1957).…”

Memory as a political problem of Modernity

“…«Знание прошлого еще не содержит в себе знания настоящего и будущего, что свидетельствует об отсутствии каких-либо общеисторических законов (наподобие природных), позволяющих предугадывать ход событий с той же точностью, с какой мы предвидим, например, смену времен года. Но как тогда возможна связь между историческими временами?» 16 , задается вопросом философ.…”