Structure and Agency in Historical Materialism: A Response to Knafo and Teschke

IF 0.9 4区社会学 0 PHILOSOPHY

Historical Materialism-Research in Critical Marxist Theory Pub Date : 2021-04-06 DOI:10.1163/1569206X-12342040

C. Post

引用次数: 2

Abstract

This essay argues that Knafo and Teschke fundamentally misread Brenner’s original contribution to the transition debate. They equate his rejection of trans-historical or trans-modal laws of motion with the notion that social-property relations do not have strong rules of reproduction that structure the actions of agents and give rise to ‘developmental patterns’ specific to each form of social labour. Knafo and Teschke’s critique of Brenner’s analysis of capitalist expansion and crisis is also theoretically and empirically questionable.

查看原文本刊更多论文

历史唯物主义的结构与能动性:对克纳福和特施克的回应

本文认为，Knafo和Teschke从根本上误读了Brenner对过渡辩论的最初贡献。他们将他对跨历史或跨模式运动定律的拒绝等同于社会财产关系没有强有力的再生产规则，这种规则构成了代理人的行为，并产生了每种形式的社会劳动特有的“发展模式”。Knafo和Teschke对Brenner对资本主义扩张和危机的分析的批评在理论和实证上也存在疑问。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Historical Materialism-Research in Critical Marxist Theory Multiple-

CiteScore

1.10

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Historical Materialism is an interdisciplinary journal dedicated to exploring and developing the critical and explanatory potential of Marxist theory. The journal started as a project at the London School of Economics from 1995 to 1998. The advisory editorial board comprises many leading Marxists, including Robert Brenner, Maurice Godelier, Michael Lebowitz, Justin Rosenberg, Ellen Meiksins Wood and others. Marxism has manifested itself in the late 1990s from the pages of the Financial Times to new work by Fredric Jameson, Terry Eagleton and David Harvey. Unburdened by pre-1989 ideological baggage, Historical Materialism stands at the edge of a vibrant intellectual current, publishing a new generation of Marxist thinkers and scholars.