Analytical Marxism - Wikipedia Analytical Marxism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search Part of a series on Marxism Theoretical works Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 Theses on Feuerbach The German Ideology Wage Labour and Capital The Communist Manifesto The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon Grundrisse der Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy Das Kapital Critique of the Gotha Program Dialectics of Nature Philosophy Economic determinism Historical materialism Marx's dialectic Marx's method Philosophy of nature Economics Capital (accumulation) Crisis theory Commodity Exploitation Factors of production Means of labor Means of production Mode of production Asiatic Capitalist Socialist Law of value Productive forces Scientific socialism Surplus product Surplus value Value-form Wage labor Sociology Alienation Base and superstructure Bourgeoisie Class Class consciousness Class struggle Classless society Commodity fetishism Communist society Cultural hegemony Dictatorship of the proletariat Exploitation Free association General intellect Human nature Ideology Immiseration Lumpenproletariat Metabolic rift Proletariat Private property Relations of production Reification State theory Social metabolism Working class History Anarchism and Marxism Philosophy in the Soviet Union Primitive accumulation Proletarian revolution Proletarian internationalism World revolution Young Marx Aspects Aesthetics Archaeology Criminology Cultural analysis Feminism Film theory Geography Historiography Literary criticism Marxism and religion Variants Analytical Austro Budapest School Classical Democratic socialism Eurocommunism Frankfurt School Freudian Hegelian Humanist Impossibilism Instrumental Libertarian Autonomism Council communism De Leonism Left communism Bordigism Leninism Marxism–Leninism Maoism Trotskyism Neo-Gramscianism Neo- Neue Marx-Lektüre Open Orthodox Political Post- Revisionist Praxis School Social democracy Structural Western People Karl Marx Engels Bebel Bernstein De Leon Kautsky Eleanor Marx Debs Hardie Plekhanov Zetkin Gorky Connolly Lenin Luxemburg Liebknecht Kollontai Pannekoek Bukharin Stalin Trotsky Borochov Lukács Korsch Ho Gramsci Benjamin Mao Horkheimer Ibárruri Reich Aragon Brecht Marcuse Fromm Lefebvre Adorno Sartre Rubel Beauvoir Allende Dunayevskaya Mills Hobsbawm Althusser Pasolini Zinn Miliband Parenti Bauman Guevara Castro Debord Fanon Harvey Wolff Sankara Žižek Losurdo Varoufakis Related topics Critical theory Criticism of Marxism Communism History of communism Left-wing politics New Left Old Left Social anarchism Anarcho-communism Socialism Libertarian Revolutionary Utopian Related categories ► Karl Marx Outline  Communism portal  Philosophy portal  Socialism portal v t e Analytical Marxism is an approach to Marxist theory that was prominent amongst English-speaking philosophers and social scientists during the 1980s. It was mainly associated with the September Group of academics, so called because of their biennial September meetings to discuss common interests. Described by G. A. Cohen as "non-bullshit Marxism",[1] the group was characterized, in the words of David Miller, by "clear and rigorous thinking about questions that are usually blanketed by ideological fog."[2] Members of this school seek to apply the techniques of analytic philosophy, along with tools of modern social science such as rational choice theory, to the elucidation of the theories of Karl Marx and his successors. There is general agreement that the three leading exponents of analytical Marxism were the philosopher G. A. Cohen, the social scientist Jon Elster, and the economist John Roemer. Cohen's book, Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence (1978), is generally regarded as having started the analytical Marxist approach. In that book, Cohen attempted to apply the tools of logical and linguistic analysis to the elucidation and defence of Marx's materialist conception of history.[3] Other prominent analytical Marxists include the sociologist Erik Olin Wright and the political scientist Adam Przeworski. Contents 1 Origin 2 Theory 2.1 Exploitation 2.2 Rational choice Marxism 2.3 Justice 3 Criticism 3.1 Method 3.2 History 3.3 Justice and power 4 See also 5 References 5.1 Footnotes 5.2 Bibliography 6 Further reading Origin[edit] Analytical Marxism is understood to have originated with the publication of G. A. Cohen's Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence (1978).[4][verification needed] Cohen's book was, from the outset, intended as a defence of historical materialism.[5] Cohen painstakingly reconstructed historical materialism through a close reading of Karl Marx's texts, with the aim of providing the most logically coherent and parsimonious account. For Cohen, Marx's historical materialism is a technologically deterministic theory, in which the economic relations of production are functionally explained by the material forces of production, and in which the political and legal institutions (the "superstructure") are functionally explained by the relations of production (the "base"). The transition from one mode of production to another is driven by the tendency of the productive forces to develop. Cohen accounts for this tendency by reference to the rational character of the human species: where there is the opportunity to adopt a more productive technology and thus reduce the burden of labour, human beings will tend to take it. Thus, human history can be understood as a series of rational steps that increase human productive power. Theory[edit] Exploitation[edit] At the same time as Cohen was working on Karl Marx's Theory of History, the American economist John Roemer was employing neoclassical economics to defend the Marxist concepts of exploitation and class. In his A General Theory of Exploitation and Class (1982), Roemer employed rational choice and game theory to demonstrate how exploitation and class relations may arise in the development of a market for labour. Roemer would go on to reject the necessity of the labour theory of value to explain exploitation and class. Value was in principle capable of being explained in terms of any class of commodity inputs, such as oil, wheat, etc., rather than being exclusively explained by embodied labour power. Roemer was led to the conclusion that exploitation and class were thus generated not in the sphere of production but of market exchange. Significantly, as a purely technical category, exploitation did not always imply a moral wrong (see section Justice below). Rational choice Marxism[edit] By the mid-1980s, "analytical Marxism" was being recognized as a "paradigm".[6][page needed] The September Group had been meeting for several years, and a succession of texts by its members were published. Several of these appeared under the imprint of Cambridge University Press's series Studies in Marxism and Social Theory, including Jon Elster's Making Sense of Marx (1985) and Adam Przeworski's Capitalism and Social Democracy (1985). Among the most methodologically controversial were these two authors, and Roemer, due to their use of rational-actor models. Not all analytical Marxists are rational-choice Marxists, however.[7][page needed] Elster's account was an exhaustive examination of Marx's texts in order to ascertain what could be salvaged out of Marxism employing the tools of rational choice theory and methodological individualism (which Elster defended as the only form of explanation appropriate to the social sciences). His conclusion was that – contra Cohen – no general theory of history as the development of the productive forces could be saved. Like Roemer, he also rejected the labour theory of value and, going further, virtually all of Marxian economics. The "dialectical" method is rejected as a form of Hegelian obscurantism. The theory of ideology and revolution continued to be useful to a certain degree, but only once they had been purged of their tendencies to holism and functionalism and established on the basis of an individualist methodology and a causal or intentional explanation. Przeworski's book uses rational choice and game theory in order to demonstrate that the revolutionary strategies adopted by socialists in the twentieth century were likely to fail, since it was in the rational interests of workers to strive for the reform of capitalism through the achievement of union recognition, improved wages and living conditions, rather than adopting the risky strategy of revolution.[citation needed] Przeworski's book is clearly influenced by economic explanations of political behaviour advanced by thinkers such as Anthony Downs (An Economic Theory of Democracy, 1957) and Mancur Olson (The Logic of Collective Action, 1965).[citation needed] Justice[edit] The analytical (and rational choice) Marxists held a variety of leftist political sympathies, ranging from communism to reformist social democracy. Through the 1980s, most of them began to believe that Marxism as a theory capable of explaining revolution in terms of the economic dynamics of capitalism and the class interests of the proletariat had been seriously compromised. They were largely in agreement that the transformation of capitalism was an ethical project. During the 1980s, a debate had developed within Anglophone academia about whether Marxism could accommodate a theory of justice. This debate was clearly linked to the revival of normative political philosophy after the publication of John Rawls's A Theory of Justice (1971). Some commentators remained hostile to the idea of a Marxist theory of justice, arguing that Marx saw "justice" as little more than a bourgeois ideological construct designed to justify exploitation by reference to reciprocity in the wage contract.[8][page needed] The analytical Marxists, however, largely rejected this point of view. Led by G. A. Cohen (a moral philosopher by training), they argued that a Marxist theory of justice had to focus on egalitarianism. For Cohen, this meant an engagement with moral and political philosophy in order to demonstrate the injustice of market exchange, and the construction of an appropriate egalitarian metric. This argument is pursued in Cohen's books, Self-Ownership, Freedom and Equality (1995) and If You're an Egalitarian How Come You're So Rich? (2000b). Cohen departs from previous Marxists by arguing that capitalism is a system characterized by unjust exploitation not because the labour of workers is "stolen" by employers, but because it is a system wherein "autonomy" is infringed and which results in a distribution of benefits and burdens that is unfair. In the traditional Marxist account, exploitation and injustice occur because non-workers appropriate the value produced by the labour of workers. This would be overcome in a socialist society where no class would own the means of production and be in a position to appropriate the value produced by labourers. Cohen argues that underpinning this account is the assumption that workers have "rights of self-ownership" over themselves and thus, should "own" what is produced by their labour. Because the worker is paid a wage less than the value they create through work, the capitalist is said to extract a surplus-value from the worker's labour, and thus to steal part of what the worker produces, the time of the worker and the worker's powers. Cohen argues that the concept of self-ownership is favourable to Rawls's difference principle as it ensures "each person's rights over his being and powers"[9][page needed] – i.e. that one is treated as an end always and never as a means – but also highlights that its centrality provides for an area of common ground between the Marxist account of justice and the right-libertarianism of Robert Nozick. However, much as Cohen criticizes Rawls for treating people's personal powers as just another external resource for which no individual can claim desert, so does he charge Nozick with moving beyond the concept of self-ownership to his own right-wing "thesis" of self-ownership. In Cohen's view, Nozick's mistake is to endow people's claims to legitimately acquire external resources with the same moral quality that belongs to people's ownership of themselves. In other words, proprietarianism allows inequalities to arise from differences in talent and differences in external resources, but it does so because it assumes that the world is "up for grabs",[9][page needed] that it can be justly appropriated as private property, with virtually no restriction(s). Criticism[edit] Analytical Marxism received criticism from a number of different quarters, both Marxist and non-Marxist. Method[edit] This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) A number of critics argued that analytical Marxism proceeded from the wrong methodological and epistemological premises. While the analytical Marxists dismissed "dialectically oriented" Marxism as "bullshit", others maintain that the distinctive character of Marxist philosophy is lost if it is understood "non-dialectically". The crucial feature of Marxist philosophy is that it is not a reflection in thought of the world, a crude materialism, but rather an intervention in the world concerned with human praxis. According to this view, analytical Marxism wrongly characterizes intellectual activity as occurring in isolation from the struggles constitutive of its social and political conjuncture, and at the same time does little to intervene in that conjuncture. For dialectical Marxists, analytical Marxism eviscerated Marxism, turning it from a systematic doctrine of revolutionary transformation into a set of discrete theses that stand or fall on the basis of their logical consistency and empirical validity. Analytical Marxism's non-Marxist critics also raised methodological objections. Against Elster and the rational choice Marxists, Terrell Carver[10][page needed] argued that methodological individualism was not the only form of valid explanation in the social sciences, that functionalism in the absence of micro-foundations could remain a convincing and fruitful mode of inquiry, and that rational choice and game theory were far from being universally accepted as sound or useful ways of modelling social institutions and processes. History[edit] Cohen's defence of a technological determinist interpretation of historical materialism was, in turn, quite widely criticized, even by analytical Marxists. Together with Andrew Levine, Wright argued that in attributing primacy to the productive forces (the development thesis), Cohen overlooked the role played by class actors in the transition between modes of production. For the authors, it was forms of class relations (the relations of production) that had primacy in terms of how the productive forces were employed and the extent to which they developed. It was not evident, they claimed, that the relations of production become "fetters" once the productive forces are capable of sustaining a different set of production relations.[4][page needed] Likewise, the political philosopher Richard W. Miller, while sympathetic with Cohen's analytical approach to Marxism, rejected Cohen's technological interpretation of historical materialism, to which he counterpoised with what he called a "mode of production" interpretation which placed greater emphasis on the role of class struggle in the transition from one mode of production to another.[11][page needed] The Greek philosopher Nicholas Vrousalis generalized Miller's critique, pointing out that Cohen's distinction between the material and social properties of society cannot be drawn as sharply as Cohen's materialism requires.[12][page needed] Other non-Marxist critics argued that Cohen, in line with the Marxist tradition, underestimated the role played by the legal and political superstructure in shaping the character of the economic base.[13][page needed] Finally, Cohen's anthropology was judged dubious: whether human beings adopt new and more productive technology is not a function of an ahistorical rationality, but depends on the extent to which these forms of technology are compatible with pre-existing beliefs and social practices.[14] Cohen recognized and accepted some, though not all, of these criticisms in his History, Labour, and Freedom (1988). Roemer's version of the cause of change in the mode of production as due to being inequitable rather than inefficient is also the source of criticism. One such criticism is that his argument relies on the legal ownership of production which is only present in later forms of class society rather than the social relations of production.[14] Justice and power[edit] Some Marxists argue, against analytical Marxist theories of justice, that it is mistaken to suppose that Marxism offers a theory of justice;[8][page needed] others question analytical Marxists' identification of justice with rights.[15][page needed] The question of justice cannot be seen in isolation from questions of power, or from the balance of class forces in any specific conjuncture. Non-Marxists may employ a similar criticism in their critique of liberal theories of justice in the Rawlsian tradition. They argue that the theories fail to address problems about the configuration of power relations in the contemporary world, and by so doing appear as little more than exercises in logic. "Justice", on this view, is whatever is produced by the assumptions of the theory. It has little to do with the actual distribution of power and resources in the world. See also[edit] Communism portal Philosophy portal Criticisms of Marxism Frankfurt School Libertarian Marxism Neo-Marxism Western Marxism References[edit] Footnotes[edit] ^ Cohen 2000, pp. xxv–xxvi. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFCohen2000 (help) ^ D. Miller 1996. ^ Farmelant, James (8 August 2009). "G. A. Cohen, 1941–2009". MR Online. New York: Monthly Review Foundation. Retrieved 16 January 2020. ^ a b Levine & Wright 1980. ^ Cohen, G.A. (1978), ix. Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence, Clarendon Press, Oxford. ISBN 0-19-827196-4. ^ Roemer 1986. ^ Veneziani 2012. ^ a b Wood 2004. ^ a b Cohen 1995. ^ Carver & Thomas 1995; Roberts 1996. ^ R. W. Miller 1984. ^ Vrousalis 2015. ^ Carter 1988. ^ a b Hirst 1985, pp. 20–29. ^ Furner 2019. Bibliography[edit] Carter, Alan (1988). Marx: A Radical Critique. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. ISBN 978-0-7108-0449-5.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Carver, Terrell; Thomas, Paul, eds. (1995). Rational Choice Marxism. London: MacMillan. ISBN 978-0-271-01463-0.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Cohen, G. A. (1995). Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-47751-2.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)  ———  (2000). Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence (expanded ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-924206-1.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Furner, James (2019). Marx on Capitalism: The Interaction-Recognition-Antinomy Thesis. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. doi:10.1163/9789004384804. ISBN 978-90-04-32331-5.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Levine, Andrew; Wright, Erik Olin (1980). "Rationality and Class Struggle". New Left Review. 1 (123). Retrieved 16 January 2020.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Hirst, Paul Q. (1985). Marxism and Historical Writing. London: Routledge (published 2010). doi:10.4324/9780203855652. ISBN 978-0-7100-9925-9.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Miller, David (1996). "My Body Is My Own". London Review of Books. Vol. 18 no. 21. Retrieved 16 January 2020. Miller, Richard W. (1984). Analyzing Marx: Morality, Power, and History. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-01413-5. Roberts, Marcus (1996). Analytical Marxism: A Critique. London: Verso. ISBN 978-1-85984-855-5.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Roemer, John, ed. (1986). Analytical Marxism. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-31731-3.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Veneziani, Roberto (2012). "Analytical Marxism". Journal of Economic Surveys. 26 (4): 649–673. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2010.00667.x. ISSN 1467-6419. S2CID 147488908.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Vrousalis, Nicholas (2015). The Political Philosophy of G. A. Cohen: Back to Socialist Basics. London: Bloosmbury. ISBN 978-1-4725-2828-5.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Wood, Allen W. (2004). Karl Marx (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-31698-9.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Further reading[edit] Acton, H. B. (1955). The Illusion of the Epoch: Marxism-Leninism as a Philosophical Creed. Cohen and West.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Cohen, G. A. (1988). History, Labour, and Freedom: Themes from Marx. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-824816-3.  ———  (2000). If You're an Egalitarian, How Come You're So Rich?. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-00218-0. Elster, Jon (1985). Making Sense of Marx. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-29705-9.  ———  (1986). An Introduction to Karl Marx. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-33831-8. Gordon, David (1991). Resurrecting Marx: The Analytical Marxists on Freedom, Exploitation, and Justice. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-0-88738-390-8. Husami, Ziyad I. (1980). "Marx on Distributive Justice". In Cohen, Marshall; Nagel, Thomas; Scanlon, Thomas (eds.). Marx, Justice, and History. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. pp. 42–79. ISBN 978-0-691-02009-9. Mayer, Tom (1994). Analytical Marxism. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. ISBN 978-0-8039-4681-1. Przeworski, Adam (1985). Capitalism and Social Democracy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-26742-7. Roemer, John (1982). A General Theory of Exploitation and Class. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-34440-2. Tarrit, Fabien (2006). "A Brief History, Scope and Peculiarities of 'Analytical Marxism'" (PDF). Review of Radical Political Economics. 38 (4): 595–618. doi:10.1177/0486613406293223. ISSN 1552-8502. S2CID 145635274. Van Parijs, Philippe (1993). Marxism Recycled. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-2-7351-0536-6. Vrousalis, Nicholas (2016). "Analytical Marxism". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.199. ISBN 9780190228637. Wright, Erik Olin (1994). "What Is Analytical Marxism?" (PDF). Interrogating Inequality: Essays on Class Analysis, Socialism and Marxism. Verso. Retrieved 16 January 2020.  ———  (2003). "Autobiographical Essay" (PDF). In Turner, Stephen; Sica, Alan (eds.). A Disobedient Generation: '68ers and the Transformation of Social Theory. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. ISBN 978-0-7619-4275-7. Retrieved 16 January 2020. v t e Analytic philosophy Related articles Areas of focus Epistemology Language Mathematics Science Turns Aretaic Linguistic Logic Classical Mathematical Non-classical Philosophical Theories Anti-realism Australian realism Descriptivist theory of names Emotivism Functionalism Analytical feminism Logical atomism Logical positivism Analytical Marxism Neopragmatism Neurophilosophy Ordinary language Quietism Scientific structuralism Sense data Concepts Analysis (paradox of analysis) Analytic–synthetic distinction Counterfactual Natural kind Reflective equilibrium Supervenience Modality Actualism Necessity Possibility Possible world Realism Rigid designator Philosophers Noam Chomsky Keith Donnellan Paul Feyerabend Gottlob Frege Ian Hacking Karl Popper Ernest Sosa Barry Stroud Michael Walzer Cambridge Charlie Broad Norman Malcolm G. E. Moore Graham Priest Bertrand Russell Frank P. Ramsey Ludwig Wittgenstein Oxford G. E. M. Anscombe J. L. Austin A. J. Ayer Michael Dummett Antony Flew Philippa Foot Peter Geach Paul Grice R. M. Hare Alasdair MacIntyre Derek Parfit Gilbert Ryle John Searle P. F. Strawson Richard Swinburne Charles Taylor Bernard Williams Timothy Williamson Logical positivists Ernest Nagel Berlin Circle Carl Gustav Hempel Hans Reichenbach Vienna Circle Rudolf Carnap Kurt Gödel Otto Neurath Moritz Schlick Harvard Roderick Chisholm Donald Davidson Daniel Dennett Nelson Goodman Christine Korsgaard Thomas Kuhn Thomas Nagel Robert Nozick Hilary Putnam W. V. O. Quine John Rawls Pittsburgh School Robert Brandom Patricia Churchland Paul Churchland Adolf Grünbaum John McDowell Ruth Millikan Nicholas Rescher Wilfrid Sellars Bas van Fraassen Princeton Jerry Fodor David Lewis Jaegwon Kim Saul Kripke Richard Rorty Notre Dame Robert Audi Peter van Inwagen Alvin Plantinga Australian David Chalmers J. L. Mackie Peter Singer J. J. C. Smart Quietism James F. Conant Alice Crary Cora Diamond Category Index v t e Philosophy Branches Traditional Metaphysics Epistemology Logic Ethics Aesthetics Philosophy of... Action Color Culture Design Music Film Cosmology Education Environment Geography Happiness History Human nature Humor Feminism Language Law Life Literature Mathematics Medicine Healthcare Psychiatry Mind Pain Psychology Perception Philosophy Religion Science Physics Chemistry Biology Sexuality Social science Business Culture Economics Politics Society Space and time Sport Technology Artificial intelligence Computer science Engineering Information War Schools of thought By era Ancient Western Medieval Renaissance Early modern Modern Contemporary Ancient Chinese Agriculturalism Confucianism Legalism Logicians Mohism Chinese naturalism Neotaoism Taoism Yangism Chan Greco-Roman Aristotelianism Atomism Cynicism Cyrenaics Eleatics Eretrian school Epicureanism Hermeneutics Ionian Ephesian Milesian Megarian school Neoplatonism Peripatetic Platonism Pluralism Presocratic Pyrrhonism Pythagoreanism Neopythagoreanism Sophistic Stoicism Indian Hindu Samkhya Nyaya Vaisheshika Yoga Mīmāṃsā Ājīvika Ajñana Cārvāka Jain Anekantavada Syādvāda Buddhist Śūnyatā Madhyamaka Yogacara Sautrāntika Svatantrika Persian Mazdakism Mithraism Zoroastrianism Zurvanism Medieval European Christian Augustinianism Scholasticism Thomism Scotism Occamism Renaissance humanism East Asian Korean Confucianism Edo neo-Confucianism Neo-Confucianism Indian Vedanta Acintya bheda abheda Advaita Bhedabheda Dvaita Nimbarka Sampradaya Shuddhadvaita Vishishtadvaita Navya-Nyāya Islamic Averroism Avicennism Illuminationism ʿIlm al-Kalām Sufi Jewish Judeo-Islamic Modern People Cartesianism Kantianism Neo-Kantianism Hegelianism Marxism Spinozism 0 Anarchism Classical Realism Liberalism Collectivism Conservatism Determinism Dualism Empiricism Existentialism Foundationalism Historicism Holism Humanism Anti- Idealism Absolute British German Objective Subjective Transcendental Individualism Kokugaku Materialism Modernism Monism Naturalism Natural law Nihilism New Confucianism Neo-scholasticism Pragmatism Phenomenology Positivism Reductionism Rationalism Social contract Socialism Transcendentalism Utilitarianism Contemporary Analytic Applied ethics Analytic feminism Analytical Marxism Communitarianism Consequentialism Critical rationalism Experimental philosophy Falsificationism Foundationalism / Coherentism Internalism and externalism Logical positivism Legal positivism Normative ethics Meta-ethics Moral realism Quinean naturalism Ordinary language philosophy Postanalytic philosophy Quietism Rawlsian Reformed epistemology Systemics Scientism Scientific realism Scientific skepticism Transactionalism Contemporary utilitarianism Vienna Circle Wittgensteinian Continental Critical theory Deconstruction Existentialism Feminist Frankfurt School New Historicism Hermeneutics Neo-Marxism Phenomenology Posthumanism Postmodernism Post-structuralism Social constructionism Structuralism Western Marxism Other Kyoto School Objectivism Postcritique Russian cosmism more... Positions Aesthetics Formalism Institutionalism Aesthetic response Ethics Consequentialism Deontology Virtue Free will Compatibilism Determinism Hard Incompatibilism Hard Libertarianism Metaphysics Atomism Dualism Idealism Monism Naturalism Realism Epistemology Empiricism Fideism Naturalism Particularism Rationalism Skepticism Solipsism Mind Behaviorism Emergentism Eliminativism Epiphenomenalism Functionalism Objectivism Subjectivism Normativity Absolutism Particularism Relativism Nihilism Skepticism Universalism Ontology Action Event Process Reality Anti-realism Conceptualism Idealism Materialism Naturalism Nominalism Physicalism Realism By region Related lists Miscellaneous By region African Ethiopian Amerindian Aztec Eastern Chinese Egyptian Indian Indonesian Iranian Japanese Korean Taiwanese Pakistani Vietnamese Middle Eastern Western American Australian British Czech Danish French German Greek Italian Polish Romanian Russian Slovene Spanish Turkish Lists Outline Index Years Problems Schools Glossary Philosophers Movements Publications Miscellaneous Natural law Sage Theoretical philosophy / Practical philosophy Women in philosophy Portal Category Book v t e September Group Members G. A. Cohen John Roemer Jon Elster Adam Przeworski Erik Olin Wright Philippe Van Parijs Robert Jan van der Veen [nl] Robert Brenner Hillel Steiner Samuel Bowles Joshua Cohen See also Analytical Marxism Left-libertarianism Game theory Marxism Karl Marx John Rawls Robert Nozick Self-ownership Exploitation Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Analytical_Marxism&oldid=992063517" Categories: Marxist schools of thought Analytic philosophy Hidden categories: Harv and Sfn multiple-target errors Use Oxford spelling from January 2020 All pages needing factual verification Wikipedia articles needing factual verification from January 2020 Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from January 2020 All articles with unsourced statements Articles with unsourced statements from March 2010 Articles needing additional references from March 2010 All articles needing additional references CS1 maint: ref=harv Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in Namespaces Article Talk Variants Views Read Edit View history More Search Navigation Main page Contents Current events Random article About Wikipedia Contact us Donate Contribute Help Learn to edit Community portal Recent changes Upload file Tools What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Permanent link Page information Cite this page Wikidata item Print/export Download as PDF Printable version Languages العربية Български Català Cymraeg Deutsch Ελληνικά Español فارسی Français 한국어 Nederlands 日本語 Polski Português Русский Suomi Svenska 中文 Edit links This page was last edited on 3 December 2020, at 08:14 (UTC). Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Mobile view Developers Statistics Cookie statement