Karl Marx's Paranoid Ideation in the Communist Manifesto

2001 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Windholz
Cultura ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-178
Author(s):  
Nan WANG

Abstract There are many Chinese versions of The Communist Manifesto and all of them had problems with the translation of foreign concepts and words, which triggered debates for years. One of the most interesting questions in the debates on the translation of the Manifesto is how to translate (Ger.) Assoziation / “association” and how Marx understood this concept.


1979 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 319-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Ferguson

57 V.A. patients hospitalized for either psychiatric or medical reasons completed a role-taking test and the SCL-90-R symptom checklist. It was hypothesized that compared to medical patients, psychiatric patients would evidence inferior role-taking ability and report more symptomatology on a majority of the SCL-90-R dimensions. And, it was hypothesized that patients with low role-taking ability, compared to patients of high ability, would report more distress on SCL-90-R dimensions containing items dealing with disturbed interpersonal relationships. The latter two hypotheses were confirmed. Compared to medical patients, psychiatric patients complained of more distress due to the SCL-90-R dimensions of Paranoid Ideation, Interpersonal Sensitivity, Hostility, Psychoticism, Anxiety, Depression, Phobic Anxiety and Obsessive-compulsive. The psychiatric patients did not complain of greater distress on the SCL-90-R dimension labeled Somatization. Finally, patients of low role-taking ability, compared to high ability patients, reported more distress on SCL-90-R dimensions labeled Paranoid Ideation, Interpersonal Sensitivity, Hostility, and Psychoticism, suggesting that patients of low ability experience more distressful interpersonal interactions than subjects of high ability.


1961 ◽  
Vol 71 (283) ◽  
pp. 601 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. J. Habakkuk ◽  
W. W. Rostow

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 273-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Neilson

First-generation neo-Marxist class theorists advanced some way beyond the orthodox Marxist account that is grounded in a particular reading of the Communist Manifesto. However, capitalism’s changing reality since then has revealed the limited extent of their break with orthodoxy. With the support of Bhaskar’s critical realism and Gramsci’s philosophy of praxis, this article addresses these limitations to facilitate movement towards second-generation neo-Marxist class theory. Rather than following first-generation neo-Marxist Poulantzas who dismissed the ‘class-in-itself’/‘class-for-itself’ distinction as a non-Marxist Hegelian residue, this article treats it as the central problematic of Marx’s class theory. Bourdieu’s subjectivist reformulations of the distinction that resonates with Marxist interpretations that run counter to the neo-Marxist social scientific aspiration are also critically engaged. The innovative conceptual framework arising from the article’s critical engagement with these diverging intellectual trajectories is applied to sketch ‘class effects’ in-themselves especially around the theme of the ‘relative surplus population’. Expected class effects implied by the core dynamic of the capitalist mode of production, and then contemporary empirical effects generated by neoliberal-led global capitalism, are outlined. This re-conceptualisation is then supplemented by critically examining Beck’s argument that individualisation leads to capitalism without classes-for-themselves. The article concludes by reconsidering class-for-itself in the light of the preceding discussion.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document