This chapter discusses the philosophical side of Karl Marx's thought as well as some of the major debates about it in the secondary literature. It first examines Marx's early writings, focusing, in particular, on his views on religion, the limitations of political emancipation and the dehumanizing conditions of work under capitalism. Marx and Engels considered the theory of history to be one of Marx's most important theoretical achievements. In an autobiographical note Marx described it as the “guiding thread of his (...) studies,” and in a speech delivered at Marx's graveside Engels compared Marx's discovery of “the law of development of human history” with Darwin's discovery of the law of nature. The chapter examines Marx's materialist theory of history, the view that history is characterized by the development of productive power to free people from material scarcity. It also examines the problematic area of Marx's ethics. (shrink)

The role of the ‘ideal’ in political philosophy is currently much discussed. These debates cast useful light on Mill's self-designation as ‘under the general designation of Socialist’. Considering Mill's assessment of potential property-relations on the grounds of their desirability, feasibility and ‘accessibility’ (disambiguated as ‘immediate-availability’, ‘eventual-availability’ and ‘conceivable-availability’) shows us not only how desirable and feasible he thought ‘utopian’ socialist schemes were, but which options we should implement. This, coupled with Mill's belief that a socialist ideal should guide social reforms (...) (as the North Star guides mariners), reveals much more clearly the extent of his socialist commitments (even if he thought political economists would be concerned with forms of individual property for some time to come). Moreover, this framework for assessments of ‘ideal’ institutions makes a useful contribution to an ongoing contemporary debate. (shrink)

Karl Marx (1818-1883) is best known not as a philosopher but as a revolutionary communist, whose works inspired the foundation of many communist regimes in the twentieth century. It is hard to think of many who have had as much influence in the creation of the modern world. Trained as a philosopher, Marx turned away from philosophy in his mid-twenties, towards economics and politics. However, in addition to his overtly philosophical early work, his later writings have many points of contact (...) with contemporary philosophical debates, especially in the philosophy of history and the social sciences, and in moral and political philosophy. Historical materialism — Marx's theory of history — is centered around the idea that forms of society rise and fall as they further and then impede the development of human productive power. Marx sees the historical process as proceeding through a necessary series of modes of production, culminating in communism. Marx's economic analysis of capitalism is based on his version of the labour theory of value, and includes the analysis of capitalist profit as the extraction of surplus value from the exploited proletariat. The analysis of history and economics come together in Marx's prediction of the inevitable economic breakdown of capitalism, to be replaced by communism. However Marx refused to speculate in detail about the nature of communism, arguing that it would arise through historical processes, and was not the realisation of a pre-determined moral ideal. (shrink)

We are surrounded by communication of many kinds whose aim is to persuade rather to convince, to manipulate rather than to reason. Advertising and much public discourse is like this. How should we react to this fact? Perhaps even more importantly: What does this fact mean about modern society? Not all persuasion is regrettable or to be disapproved. Not all persuasion is propaganda. And perhaps not even all propaganda is necessarily bad. This last point was the focus of a controversy (...) between W. E. B. Du Bois, who held that propaganda could be used for good, and Alain Locke, who held that all propaganda corrupts our thinking. My own view is that propaganda can be used for good, but Locke was perfectly right to be worried about it.Estamos rodeados de muchos tipos de comunicación, cuya finalidad es persuadir antes que convencer, manipular antes que razonar. La publicidad y gran parte del discurso público es así. ¿Cómo deberíamos reaccionar a este hecho? Quizá más importante aún: ¿qué dice este hecho acerca de la sociedad moderna? No toda persuasión es lamentable o debería desaprobarse. No toda persuasión es propaganda. E incluso quizá no toda propaganda es necesariamente mala. Este último punto centró la controversia entre W.E.B. du Bois, quien sostenía que la propaganda podría utilizarse para un buen fin, y Alain Locke, quien sostenía que toda propaganda corrompe el pensamiento. Mi propio punto de vista es que la propaganda puede utilizarse para un buen fin, pero que Locke tenía razón al preocuparse por ella. (shrink)

ABSTRACT This introduction examines the intellectual, political, economic, and social context to the reception of Robert Owen’s ideas, and Owenism more generally, in Continental Europe. The introduction describes how Owen’s ideas attracted significant interest in the years following the Napoleonic Wars, particularly in France, and discusses how the French reception of his ideas served as a filter and medium through which his ideas were disseminated throughout Continental Europe. The article describes the individual contributions to this special issue and traces the (...) story of how Owen’s ideas never attracted in Continental Europe the widespread interest they enjoyed in Britain, Ireland, or America. (shrink)