To reject or not to reject nationalism: debating Marx and Engels' struggles with nationalism, 1840s–1880s

The relationship between Marxism and nationalism has been tumultuous. While theoretically attempting to reject nationalism as a transient product of capitalism, Marxism has in practice oftentimes exploited its appeal and utilized its extensive institutional repertoire. To a large extent, the difficult dialogue between the two ideological constellations can be traced back to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who neglected to leave a definitive statement on the nationality question. The article traces the evolution of Marxism's conceptualization of the nationality question – a slow shift from an outright rejection of nationalism to an acceptance of its progressive features, complexity, varieties and influences. It re-evaluates Marx and Engels' views on the nationality question, from its outright denial to limited acceptance and application. After identifying factors that shaped their perception of the nationality question, the study offers an analysis of the evolution of these attitudes from the 1840s to the 1860s. The objective is to show how Marx and Engels' theoretical dogmatism was tainted by their desire for activism. Their views were not inflexible but rather evolved in response to changing circumstances in the mid 19th century.     

Marxism in the Post-Communist World

Abstract

Marx was and remained a philosopher. This simple fact was forgotten when Marxism became a system. Now that the system has been defeated, the philosophy re-emerges. However, its "Marxist" adherents have never understood that this philosophy was always political - in short, they have never understood politics, and there fore will never understand philosophy. Thus, the claim of the article is that, correctly read, Marx can be seen as the true philosophical founder of a modern theory of democracy.     

Spectres of Coke: Judicial Supervision as a Revolutionary Inheritance

Sir Edward Coke is known for having played a central role in establishing the power of the common law courts to exercise a supervisory jurisdiction over the executive/administration. Coke is usually praised in the literature for his boldness in doing this, whilst he is at the same time censured for having dared to suggest that this jurisdiction should be a very wide one. This essay questions the inheritance of judicial supervision and enquires whether there may be a secret to uncover in Coke’s texts. Referring to Coke’s Institutes, it is suggested that the wide jurisdiction of the common law courts that Coke advanced, is linked to and should be understood in light of Coke’s pronouncements in the epigrams on law and justice. Judicial supervision, according to this reading of Coke, involves not only a necessarily limited jurisdiction in accordance with law, but also the desire for an unlimited jurisdiction, which corresponds with Derrida’s analysis of justice and law. This reading of Coke, it is suggested, calls on us to view judicial supervision as revolutionary in nature, which requires of the courts to rethink fundamentally the way in which they exercise their supervisory function.

马克思政治哲学新探——中国特色马克思学一个新的生长点

马克思政治哲学资源丰富,从狭义层面看,主要包括了市民社会思想、国家观、政党观和群众观等内容。全球化时代的到来,我们深入探析马克思政治哲学思想,不仅可以找寻到解答问题的广阔视角,而且也为中国特色马克思学的研究找到了一个新的生长点。     

法律与社会理论的批判意识——略论马克思社会理论中的法律思想

马克思的法律思想是他的社会理论思想的重要组成部分。他继承黑格尔的辩证法思想 ,基于理性 ,对现实社会及其法律制度进行了深入批判和否定 ;他对黑格尔法哲学的批判 ,同样闪烁着辩证法的光辉。他把法律看成人类社会的一种暂时现象 ,这种观点根本上来源于他对工业化所开辟的人类社会历史前景的乐观态度。因此 ,马克思法律思想的深刻性与他对现代性问题的洞察是分不开的。换言之 ,资本主义法律制度的问题性 ,只是资本主义社会矛盾的反映     

社会主义初级阶段促进共同富裕的理论思考——为纪念邓小平诞辰110周年而作

在马克思著作中,共同富裕是指在生产资料社会所有制基础上劳动者通过按劳分配实现的生活资料平等占有状态。邓小平共同富裕思想是马克思共同富裕思想在中国的创造性实践和政策性发展。共同富裕在共产主义社会第一阶段和高级阶段具有不同的特性,在社会主义初级阶段也有其特殊的规定性。社会主义初级阶段的共同富裕是在公有制为主体的所有制结构基础之上的橄榄型收入分配格局。实现社会主义初级阶段的共同富裕,必须从社会主义初级阶段的经济现实出发,在发展社会生产力的基础上进一步完善市场初次分配机制和政府再分配调节机制。     

马恩经典著述在大学生法制教育中的实践应用

大学生法制教育是大学政治理论教育的重要内容,在大学生法制教育中援引马克思、恩格斯经典著述,是必要且可行的。把马克思、恩格斯经典著述应用于大学生法制教育应找好切入点,可以从马、恩关于法的起源、本质、职能,关于法的正义、自由、平等等价值,关于法与人权、民主的关系以及关于法的创制、实现等论述切入社会主义法制教育各环节。法制教育中应始终坚持求证于马恩原著经典著述的原则,把握马克思主义法学与时俱进的品质,紧密结合当前社会主义法制教育的实践展开教学。     

马克思的后政治民主模式构想——兼析“政治终结”过程中的民主模式

马克思在其著作中准确地论述了关于理想社会中的民主模式的现实前提以及民主模式的实质。马克思的民主模式鲜明地表达了“后政治”语境。这种直接民主模式既遭到了巴枯宁等无政府主义者的曲解,又受到当代自由主义者和新左派在内的西方学者的责难。而在现实的社会主义实践中也存在着类似的时序错位,未能充分意识到马克思民主模式是后政治民主或后资本主义民主的民主模式。由于这种时序错位,马克思民主模式的“后政治”语境在理论和实践中都被忽视、曲解和扭曲。     

青年马克思哲学思想发展的逻辑解读

青年马克思哲学的出发点是自我意识哲学,黑格尔的“否定性辩证法”是其哲学发展的直接推动原则,而费尔巴哈的客体性原则是其哲学的立足点,青年马克思哲学制高点是实践的唯物主义。主客体的统一是青年马克思自我超越的基本原则,也是我们今后哲学发展的原则要求。     

马克思是“哲学家”还是“科学家”?——从《在马克思墓前的讲话》谈起

恩格斯在《在马克思墓前的讲话》中称马克思为"当代最伟大的思想家",认为马克思的"两大发现"是他一生中对人类最伟大的贡献:1、发现了人类历史的发展规律(唯物史观);2、发现了现代资本主义生产方式和它所产生的资产阶级社会的特殊的运动规律(剩余价值规律)。一般认为,马克思所发现的"唯物史观"被视之为"哲学",认为马克思是"哲学家";马克思所发现的"剩余价值"被视之为"科学",认为马克思是"科学家"。部分学者一方面质疑"唯物史观"的"哲学"性而力图论证其为"科学",另一方面又质疑"剩余价值"的"科学"性而力图论证其为"哲学"。这样,由"两大发现"而构成的"哲学家"与"科学家"的马克思,似乎又模糊了他的"哲学家"与"科学家"的双重身份。通过正确地分析《在马克思墓前的讲话》和马克思的部分理论作品,我们只能说,首先是一个革命家的马克思,既是哲学家又是科学家。