首页> 外文期刊>Critique: Journal of Socialist Theory >In Defence of Marxism: A Reply to a Neo-Hindu's Reading of The Seductions of Karl Marx
【24h】

In Defence of Marxism: A Reply to a Neo-Hindu's Reading of The Seductions of Karl Marx

机译:捍卫马克思主义:对新印度人读《马克思的诱惑》的回应

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Metaphysical niceties lie at the core of Bourgeois Reason. But when threatened, metaphysical niceties turn into the violence of Manipulative Reason. While Classical German Philosophy differentiated understanding from reason, it was the Frankfurt School thinkers who highlighted that understanding which is not able to transform itself into reason turns into a form of anti-humanist technique that they labeled ‘technological reason’. For both wings of the bourgeoisie—the liberal and the conservative—reason is technological reason: the reason not to know, but to calculate, control and destroy. The chief role of Manipulative Reason is an outright distortion of facts, but its chief function is to attack Critical and Emancipatory Reason. In India, over the last two decades the role of Manipulative Reason has dominated both the academic and political life-worlds through the triumph of the neo-religious rightists. Special mention should be made of the domination of the neo-Hindu ideology in academics and politics and its attack on liberal philosophies in general and secularism and Marxism in particular. This essay is a response to a neo-Hindu's reading of The Seductions of Karl Marx. It highlights how Marx's humanism and internationalism are transfigured into Eurocentric ideologies. For the neo-Hindu, the critique of Marxism is no longer based on Edward Said's Orientalism. Instead it borrows from the ideological discourses of the ‘New Orientalists’ and the anti-secular postmodern thinkers that follow Ashis Nandy and David Lorenzen in hypostasizing India as the ‘Hindu Nation’ that has existed from time immemorial with its idealist systems of philosophy that are resistant to secular ideals. The neo-Hindu, like the Orientalist in general, confuses the ideas of the ruling classes of India (dominated by the oligarchical Brahmanical castes) with the ideas of the popular classes.View full textDownload full textKeywordsAsiatic Mode of Production, Hinduism, Caste, Marxist-humanismRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00111619.2011.640064
机译:形而上的美是资产阶级理性的核心。但是,当受到威胁时,形而上的善良就变成了操纵理性的暴力。尽管古典德国哲学将理解与理性区分开,但法兰克福学派的思想家们强调指出,无法将自身转化为理性的理解变成了一种反人本主义的技术形式,他们称之为“技术理性”。对于资产阶级的两翼(“自由主义”和“保守主义”)原因是技术原因:不知道而是计算,控制和摧毁的原因。操纵理性的主要作用是事实的彻底扭曲,但其主要功能是攻击批判性和解放性理性。在印度,过去二十年来,通过新宗教右派的胜利,操纵理性的角色在学术和政治生活世界中均占据主导地位。应该特别提到新印度思想在学术和政治中的统治,以及它对一般自由主义哲学,尤其是世俗主义和马克思主义的攻击。本文是对新印度人读《马克思的诱惑》的回应。它强调了马克思的人文主义和国际主义如何被化为欧洲中心的意识形态。对于新印度教徒来说,对马克思主义的批评不再基于爱德华·赛义德的东方主义。相反,它借鉴了“新东方主义者”的思想话语以及跟随阿西斯·南迪和戴维·洛伦岑的反世俗的后现代思想家,使印度沦为“印度民族”,自远古以来就一直存在。抵制世俗理想的唯心主义哲学体系。与整个东方主义者一样,新印度人将印度统治阶级(以寡头婆罗门教种姓为主)的思想与流行阶级的思想相混淆。查看全文下载全文关键词亚洲生产方式,印度教,种姓,马克思主义者-humanismRelated var addthis_config = {ui_cobrand:“泰勒和弗朗西斯在线”,servicescompact:“ citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,更多”,发布:“ ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b”};添加到候选列表链接永久链接http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00111619.2011.640064

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号