《The Marx-Engels Reader》是一本由Karl Marx / Friedrich Engels著作，W. W. Norton & Company出版的Paperback图书，本书定价：GBP 18.99，页数：788，特精心从网络上整理的一些读者的读后感，希望对大家能有帮助。
《The Marx-Engels Reader》精选点评：
●不是跪舔洋大人 但是导言部分确已经完胜国内马恩选集
●Bonus cookie on commodity fetishism.
●借机重读了部分重要文献。可惜这个版本中节选的资本论省略了不少注释。
●大概读了其中的2/3，暂时放下，读本多少让人有点摸不着头脑，不过选的篇目都很好，除了大家都知道capital,手稿，德意志什么的，还有on jewish question这种能让人全方位去理解马克思的篇目。也真心磨人>.<
●翻译不错，不过跟别的一些版本在前后顺序上有很大差距。据说是国外非专攻者的课程用书。细致琢磨逻辑关系一类的还是用共产国际的版本比较好，顺序看着也更舒服。《德意志意识形态》手稿顺序乱七八糟的。以及读的过程中忘掉中学学过的扁平化概念，想想概念如何被引入
●只有一周时间读，大家都默默觉得崩溃，总算讨论结束的时候松了一口气。宏大理论沃勒斯坦又隐约相见，心下略抖霍，可总算这周阶段性结束了。
●有理有据 insightful
●磨了我一学期的小妖精
●5 stars for the genius young Marx
●买了就别卖了，许多年里都会反复碰见这本小红书的
《The Marx-Engels Reader》读后感(一)：值得收藏
和第一版相比，第二版的马恩文选增加了数篇重要的材料，如the Grundrisse的节选。一本在手，马恩的经典文字几可说是尽在其中。虽然受篇幅所限，某些长文不得不进行节选摘录，但是编者眼光精到，很能把握住关键的文字。
《The Marx-Engels Reader》读后感(二)：关于犹太问题 “On the Jewish Question”
马克思于1843年写完这篇文章并发表在Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher上，意在批判一个年轻的黑格尔主义者 Bruno Bauer关于犹太主义的两篇著作中的观点。
此文的第一部分是政治学批评。马克思得出结论：人类解放需要终结公民社会中的“自我主义个体”同国家中的抽象的“公民”之间的割裂状态。
文章试图就犹太问题展开讨论：德国犹太人追求什么样的解放？犹太人是否追求同基督教信徒平等？犹太人怎么看基督教国家？德国人是否对犹太人解放感兴趣？既然犹太人对于解放德国人没兴趣，为何德国人还要解放犹太人？犹太人要求基督徒放弃宗教歧视，但犹太人自身是否愿意放弃自身的宗教特权？
Bauer批判了一些既有的观点和方法，他提出了犹太解放问题的新方法。待解放的犹太人的本性是什么？要解放犹太人的基督教国家的本性是什么？他试图通过对犹太教的批评，对犹太教和基督教的割裂关系的分析，来解释基督教国家的本质。Bauer如何解决犹太问题呢？他的结论是：我们在解放他人之前，首先要解放自己。犹太人和基督教信徒们的最大冲突是宗教对抗。要解决这一问题，Bauer认为，应当废除宗教，付诸科学，科学会建构他们的团结统一，科学自身的矛盾则将由科学自身解决。
德国犹太人饱受缺乏政治自由、基督教宗教压迫等的折磨。在Bauer看来，犹太人问题有着广普的价值，并非仅在德国存在。这实际上是宗教和国家的关系问题，也是宗教歧视和政治解放的问题。摆脱宗教，被Bauer视为是政治解放的前提条件。Bauer拿法国犹太人的例子，构建了国家这一角色的正当性。在当时法国，公民对于国家和公众的义务逐渐超越了公民个人的宗教义务，宗教事务变成了私人问题，宗教特权不复存在。Bauer据此判断，犹太人应当放弃犹太教，所有人都应当摒弃宗教，以此实现作为公民的解放。把宗教放在首要地位的国家，不是真正意义的国家。
马克思说，此处关于犹太人问题，Bauer只是从一个视角去考察，失之片面。
马克思认为，问出像“谁应该解放？谁应该被解放”这样的问题是不够的。我们应当继续追问，“我们要什么样的解放？现在迫切需要的解放的情况是基本情况是什么样的？”。马克思认为，对于政治解放的批评只是犹太人问题批评的最终阶段，而这一问题的真正的解决方案，在于回答“这个时代的真问题”
马克思认为，Bauer只是把批评的主体限于基督教国家，而非此类所有国家自身，并未检验政治解放和全人类解放的关系，犯了过度引申、自相矛盾的错误。
马克思认为，德国在当时并非是一个真正意义上的国家。因此，德国犹太人问题只限于在宗教学或者神学领域讨论。批评也仅限于宗教学批评。法国则是宪政共和国，犹太人问题是宪法问题，也是宗教学、神学问题。在北美地区的自由国家中，犹太人问题则突破了宗教范围，有了世俗的意义。
马克思认为，只有在国家发展到了最高级的形态，犹太人，或是宗教信徒，同政治国家的关系才发展到了最完全体的地步。对这种关系的批评也就摆脱了宗教批评的限制，而变成对政治国家的批评。就这一点而言，Bauer的观点也就无从思量了。
然而，美国这一自由国家，虽然政治国家有着至高无上的地位，但多数国民依旧信仰宗教。马克思提出了一个问题：完全政治解放同宗教的关系是什么？
马克思认为，美国这一案例的存在，证明宗教并非站在国家不断发展进步的对立面。马克思以为，宗教的存在是源于世界尚不完美，源于政治国家自身的缺点。宗教不在是世俗的基础，而是成了世俗狭隘性的表征。我们不需讲世俗问题付诸宗教，反而应当将宗教问题付诸世俗。因此，政治解放同宗教的关系，也就转化为了政治解放同全人类解放的关系。
马克思据此判断，犹太人的政治解放问题，归根结底是国家从宗教中解放出来。但是，政治解放的局限性在于，国家摆脱某种桎梏，不意味着一个人摆脱这种限制。国家可以摒弃宗教，很多人却还是以私人的方式去信仰它们。自由国家看待宗教的态度，则应当是他们对待这些信仰宗教的个人的态度。国家成了个人和人类自由的中介。
马克思指出Bauer未谈及犹太人问题的存在的前提，包含物质元素和精神元素，也就是私人财产、文化、宗教、政治国家和公民社会分裂等问题。他只是阻止宗教表达。马克思对这些话题进行了探讨。马克思批判了基督教国家之中存在的人类的“异化”现象。马克思通过对多份历史文献的考察，得出了宗教信仰权利应当是人的权利之一这一结论。
但是，他指出，自然人的权利应当同公民权利区分开来。这一区分的依据就是，公民是公民社会的成员。马克思界定了自由的权限，“自由已不伤害他人为界”。自由包含财产自由、平等、和安全。这些都是“公民社会”中，“自由主义个体”理应享有的权利。
但是，政治解放则意味着旧社会的消解。政治革命意味着公民社会的革命。政治革命会推翻统治者的权力，国家事务将变成所有公民、社区的事务。政治革命将废除公民社会中的政治角色，也将消解公民社会的基本元素，比如个体以及个体构成的物质和文化基础，打破“自由主义个体”的现有生活体验。“自由主义个体”的行为和境遇将不复与政治国家存在任何关系。公共事务成为每个人的公共事务。政治功能成为一般性的政治功能。
马克思认为，政治解放是人的毁减，个人变成公民社会的成员，一个独立的，自由自利主义的个体，一个公民，一个道德个人。相比之下，全人类的解放，则是抽象公民化身到每一个单独的人类身上，人变成一种类存在物（species-being），一种有意识的存在物，他的生命活动变成他的意志和意识的对象，当他认识到作为自身权力的社会权力时，他将不会再将社会权力和政治权力割裂开来。
第二部分，马克思展开了经济学批评。马克思把经济和商务行为等同于犹太教或者犹太主义。他在结尾呼吁，“社会应当从犹太主义中解放出来”。这在某些场合中被认为是马克思的反闪米特主义宣言书。这实际上也是马克思呼吁把社会从“资本主义”从解放出来的宣言书。
马克思指出，Bauer既然把犹太问题转化成宗教问题，那就应当搞清楚犹太教的本质是什么。
Bauer认为犹太教是对基督教的粗旷的批评，犹太主义是犹太人的本性。马克思认为，犹太主义的本质是实际需求、自私自利；犹太人的世俗信仰是“贸易、销售”；犹太人世俗的神是金钱。要解放犹太人，就是把整个世界从犹太主义中解放出来。
现实中，犹太人实用主义的精神已经成为基督教国家的国家精神。犹太人通过犹太主义实现了自我解放。而基督徒则全都变成了犹太人。在欧洲、在北美都是如此。犹太人政治权力和权利的矛盾，实际上是政治和金钱之间的矛盾。政治从原则上讲要比金钱更加优越，但实际上，政治往往是金钱的奴隶。
马克思认为，犹太教的基础是：生活的实际需要和利己主义。生活需求和利己主义是公民社会的基本原则。公民社会正在不断侵蚀政治国家。实际需求和利己主义之神就是金钱。金钱教统治着整个世界。
现实生活中的实际需求的精神内核就是自私自利。这种自私自利往往是被动的，不会主观延展，但是却随着社会的发展而不断拓宽。公民社会发展推动犹太主义发展达到顶峰。公民社会发展要想达到完美的境地，就必须摒弃基督教。
基督教追求物化所有的民族的、自然的、道德的、宗教的关系。公民社会只有摒弃基督教，才能够彻底同政治国家分离，切断同其他人的种族意义上的关联，建构起来自私自利的关系取而代之，把人类世界变成原子化、互相敌对的个体。
基督教从犹太教从产生，到现在又要融入到犹太教中去。基督教曾试图将犹太教理论化（涵化）；而如今，务实的基督教信徒就是犹太教主义者。如果犹太主义全面控制了这个世界，异化了的人和自然就变成了可分割的、可以被销售的物体，以满足所有的自私自利和兜售牟利需求。
物化本身，亦是异化的实践。人信仰宗教，就是将自己存在的本质物化，把自身个体一切行为的主动权交由一个陌生的实体去控制。在犹太主义语境中，这个实体就是金钱。
在完美的实践中，基督教精神上的自私自利主义会转变成犹太主义者现实中的自私自利；虚拟的需求转变为实际需求，主观主义变成自私自利。犹太人的本质已经被广泛实现，已经在公民社会中世俗化。现实生活中的实际需求已经成为犹太人宗教的表征。犹太人的本质不止存在于《希伯来圣经》和《塔木德》中，亦体现于到处都有的现世犹太人之中；这本质不是抽象的，而是具体的，经验的；既是犹太人所经受的限制，也是社会的桎梏。
只有社会摒弃了犹太主义的经验性现实——资本主义和它存在的条件，犹太主义者才能彻底消失。个体感官的存在和作为种群成员的存在之间的矛盾也会消失。
犹太人的社会解放，就是把社会从犹太主义中解放出来。
《The Marx-Engels Reader》读后感(三)：Marx and Engles: Class, Politics, Revolution, and Socialism
Marxist Historical Philosophy and Theory of Politics
Following the principle of historical materialism, Marx and Engels viewed forces of production as the ultimate momentum of historical advancement. Political structures and political power, along with a series of other social existences, were “upper structures”. These upper structures, according to Engels, could react to economic forces and cause significant advances, changes or setbacks; yet their shapes and functions were ultimately decided by the forces of production and the material conditions of particular historical periods. The interaction between production forces and relations of production was the principal force of history.
ased on these philosophical principles, Marx and Engels viewed the history of politics and power fundamentally as history of class divisions and class struggles. Class divisions were, simply put, based on control of means of production: the haves against the have-nots, slave owners against slaves, land owners against landless peasants. The stages of society was characterized both the level of production forces and by class formation and relations, which were integral parts of relations of production. In capitalist society, the primary class antagonism occurred between bourgeoisie class against proletariat class. There existed sub-divisions of classes such as lower middle class and “lumpenproletariat”, but they escaped neither the logic of class division based on control of means of production nor the upcoming revolutionary sweep. Subsequently, the central issue of politics and power would be domination of one class and subordination of another.
The Inevitability (？) of Revolution and Communism
Marx and Engels believed that as forces of production progressed, relations of production and upper structures of society must change, and violent revolutions were historically necessary to totally change the class relations thereof. They heralded the once revolutionary (and destructive) force of the bourgeoisie class. They claimed that bourgeoisie class not only promoted vigorous advancement of production forces based on application of new technologies, machinery and mass factory production, it also shattered obsolete, feudal social relations and structures inhibiting progress of production forces. Moreover, the necessity of bourgeoisie control of means of production as well as endless pursuit of profit had both opened up and connected the globe as a global market for products, and engendered centralized administration, the nation, the state, as a necessary instrument of politics, a “management committee” of bourgeoisie domination. Finally, bourgeoisie had promoted the philosophy of rationality and culture, and stripped off the myth surrounding feudal culture, superstition and religious beliefs. In short, bourgeoisie laid bare the true face of class exploitation.
On the other hand, Marx and Engels believed in capitalist society the most ultimate form of class domination and subordination had been achieved. Absolute private ownership of property and production means and private appropriation of surplus values by the minority class of bourgeoisie had generated a huge, suppressed proletariat working class. Similar classes had formed and rebelled against dominant social order in previous stages of human society, but according to Marx and Engels, only in capitalist society was this huge proletariat class submerged in homogenous lifestyle, exposure to education and machinery production and suppression under the formation of factory production regimes, hence generating their consciousness as a subordinated class. Moreover, the more modern methods of communication and the sweeping forces of capitalism across the globed made possible the union of proletariat class everywhere. The piecemeal, reactionary, fragmented struggle of various workers organizations in different states, Marx and Engels envisioned, would soon form a global, sweeping struggle against capitalist order at large. The most radical faction of workers political force, the Communists, according to Marx and Engels, must lead the workers in the struggle and seize state power after series of revolutions. In this sense, bourgeoisie and capitalism gave birth to their own grave diggers, “working men of all countries, unite!”
olitical revolution, however, was only a first and integral step to a much broader economic and social revolution. Marx and Engels believed that in a Communist society, private property and the social relations (such as borgeoisie family) based on such ownership must be abandoned, as well as the coupling cultures, laws and philosophy. A whole new set of upper structures should be built upon the new production relations. The state/nation, in the end, would be abolished as no class domination would exist anymore. A unity of free men would be achieved.
olitical Strategies: Radicalism and Pragmatism
Living in a time featuring turbulent social changes, chaotic power politics in Continental Europe and swift technological evolutions, Marx and Engels held onto their radical vision of violent social and political revolution but (primarily Engels by the end of the 19th century) also recognized the necessity of more pragmatic strategies serving this goal. As early as in the Manifesto, Marx and Engels believed that Communist party could work with various political forces, including the bourgeoisie, if they acted in “revolutionary” manners. However, the mission of proletariat revolution should not be forgotten and should immediately be carried out after the bourgeoisie revolution. The mission of Communist party included leadership of the working class as well as generation of hostility toward privileged social classes and their policies. In the 1870s, Marx and Engels criticized the myopic vision of German social democratic parties focusing only on “imminent” successes, propaganda of ideas and appeasement with monarchist/capitalist suppression, arguing that such efforts would deprive the political party of its representativeness of working class and degenerate it to a petty bourgeoisie party, and that conditions of abrupt outburst of revolution still existed. Around 1890s, however, Engels seemed to have took a step back from this stance, noting that not only had the level of capitalist force of production not reached the level that could break down the parochial national boundaries, it also could not by then generate a more conscious, united proletariat class. Moreover, the new design of urbanization and progresses in military technologies advantageous to the standing army of bourgeoisie states meant that outbursts of revolution and street barricade warfares were no longer feasible in the foreseeable future. He therefore praised the social democratic strategy of promoting universal suffrage, winning congressional majority in capitalist states and gaining access to government positions, claiming that if proletariat revolutionary forces could defeat bourgeoisie class in the latter’s own game, they would have more leeway in eclipsing the power of the latter. Moreover, they would help the revolutionary forces to educate and consolidate the mass and prepare for future revolutions.
uances: Variance of Socialism and Deviation of Revolution
Marx and Engels were fully aware that their radical faction monopolized neither the concepts of Socialism/Communism and revolution, nor the leadership of revolutionary forces. Adhering to the principle of scientific, revolutionary socialism, they criticized other variants of socialism, such as “conservative/nostalgic” Socialism, utopian Socialism and Germanized French Socialism either of lacking solid social and class bases in reality, or of lacking a materialist philosophy of progressive revolution and surrendering to the petit logic of bourgeoisie.
Marx, in particular, warned against a “reactionary” kind of revolution, represented by the coup and reign of Louis Bonaparte. Marx saw in Louis Bonaparte an ambivalence of having to ride on the bourgeoisie forces of production and representing as a monarchy the French small peasants class, whom by the nature of property ownership and separated, conservative lifestyles could not be revolutionary. Neither the fragile France Republic nor the short-lived Paris Commune could hold back the powerful landed aristocracy. The coup in France resulted eventually in the dictatorial state’s domination of society and production as well as suppression of mass revolts. The violent revolution brought about a return of absolute monarchy.
Commentary
Marx and Engels might have envisioned the ultimate stage of capitalism by the end of the 19th century and therefore proposed the imminence of revolution. While historical trajectory had developed the otherwise and they (especially Engels) arguably retreated from a more radical position, this could not refute the merit of Marxist revolution theory as a profound analysis of human history and Communism as an “ultimate” goal of human society. Rather, the historical irony seemed to be that the first successful revolutions bearing the flag of Communism were all peasant-nationalist revolutions (with the possible exception of Russian revolution, but Russia also lagged behind in industrial development compared with other major European powers around its revolution). These peasant-nationalist revolutions utilized capitalist means and technologies of struggle, borrowed Marxist rhetoric of revolution and revolt, but mobilized a peasant class (in the case of China, even the “small peasant” class despised by Marx). It seems that revolutionary-ness of a particular class was associated less with the homogeneity of lifestyles and class experience and suppression of factory regime than with a more general condition of deprivation and suppression.
Referred Works
Marx, “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”, “Economics and Politics in the Labor Movement”, and “Circular Letter to Bebel, Liebknecht, Bracke, and Others” ;Marx and Engels, “The Manifesto of the Communist Party”; Engels, “The Tactics of Social Democracy”, all in Robert Tucker eds, The Marx-Engels Reader.
《The Marx-Engels Reader》读后感(四)：Marx and Engles: Wage Labor, Labor Relations, and Capitalism
The Nature of Capital and Capitalist Production Model
For Marx and Engles, the fundamental nature of capitalism was defined by “capital” itself, in its search not only of higher profits but also of ways to reproduce itself. It did so by manipulating the production process and wage of workers in such ways that the surplus value generated by the actual producers of products---the workers themselves---was not returned but rather was reaped by owner of capital---the capitalists---in the process of exchange of commodities.
Marx argued that besides the use value of commodities themselves, which was rather fixed and unchangeable, the exchange value of commodities was achieved by the human labor (measured only in quantitative differences) in the production process of them, which was further determined by the socially necessary labor time under particular conditions. Market exchange was a process unique to commercial society in which the exchange value of commodities was realized. Production processes, while not generating value, were processes that transferred labor value realized in all previous products and machinery into the final commodities. Marx believed that in the exchange of commodities via monetary means, the exchange was not equal in that capitalists as owners of means of production only paid the costs of subsistence and reproduction to workers to “purchase” their labor, but sold their products at higher prices on the market for an increment realized in monetary means. This incremental part reaped by capitalists was surplus value generated by work of labor but not returned.
Moreover, the advancement of production technologies in capitalism meant that the socially necessary time of labor of producing particular commodities were constantly shortened, and the labor value crystallized in particular commodities thus constantly declined. With the increase in production volume and thus expansion of capital, capitalists continued to reap more profits from production. Yet their payment of wages to labor did not increase as quickly as workers now needed relatively less expensive commodities to subsist and reproduce, and they continued to press workers to follow the same working time despite the decline in socially necessary labor time. Thus the wealth of capitalists accumulated much faster relative to the income of workers.
Under capitalist political-economic system, therefore, the “Fetish of Commodities” occurred as the chain of commodity exchange via monetary means blurred the inter-human interactions hidden in production processes and led to the belief that social relations were first and foremost achieved in the form of things, in commodities and monetary means. Capital under the disguise of “unitary” exchange processes continued to expand and reproduce.
Working Class and Class Conflict in Capitalism
With the nature of production in capitalism as such, Marx and Engels further revealed its implications for the wage-earning, the working class. Marx believed that particular level of production and social division determined. In capitalist system, the most fundamental social relation consisted of the Refuting the fantasy notion that wage workers had a “shared” interest with capitalists in the expansion and reproduction of capital, Marx argued that workers as a class without ownership of means of production could only sell their labor force to capitalists who owned means of production. While individual labor might be “free” to “choose” between various capitalists, working class as a whole had no other means to maintain subsistence and reproduction other than selling their labor force on the market of labor. Labor, then, was dissociated from workers as organic and complete human beings and sold as a commodity.
Marx revealed that such a “contract” of buying and selling labor was only of an economic exchange nature, but was also embedded with a set of social relations with implications on power. Workers, according to Marx, had no “life” of their own when producing on the production streamline as slaves of machinery, as human bodies transferring their labor force into exchangeable commodities. Their life began only AFTER work, only when they were free to manage their own time and develop themselves as complete individuals. This possibility, however, was seriously impeded not only by the harsh work conditions, violent disciplining and suppression of workers by capitalists, but also by the fundamental fact that they did not possess any means of production and was separated by the monetary exchange process from the final products of their labor endeavor. Moreover, the advancement of machinery productions under capitalism only further “de-skilled” the labor force, as production was divided into simpler and simpler processes that could be fulfilled by workers without much knowledge and skills.
On the other hand, the massive invasion of capital into rural areas and transferring of any and all material into commodities had destroyed the medieval production model consisting of individual producers and laborers, making them the “reserve army” of industrial workers. Not only did capitalist have more free labors to choose from, workers as a class were also subjected to more turbulent and insecure guarantee of work as means of subsistence. The myth that workers could always find “new” type of employment in “new” industrial sectors, according to Marx, neglected the fact that not only were those new employment opportunities now being competed for by a larger labor force with more “fresh meat and blood”, they also did not change the fact that workers were being de-skilled.
All in all, in capitalist system working class was systematically subordinated as a class, based on its lack of ownership of production and not being able to directly own the fruits of their labor force.
Incompatibility, Crisis and Revolution
Marx believed that since capitalist system adopted the process of production---exchange in monetary means---increment in capital---further production, cyclical economic crisis would occur several forms: either a kind of overproduction crisis in which the number of commodities overflowed the purchasing power of monetary means, or a monetary crisis in which inflation of monetary means generated a lack of purchasing power in the capitalist society to digest all the commodities. Regardless of the difference in forms, Marx argued that crisis was generated by the cyclical nature of capitalist economy and the inherent decline of profit rates. According to Marx, while some capitalists could boost profits by applying more advanced machinery and reducing the socially necessary labor time, sooner or later other capitalists under pressure of competition would adopt the same methods and further squeeze the profit rate by leveling out the margins of profits for early comers.
Engels further elaborated this inherent contradiction within capitalist system as the conflict between “socialized” production organization required by the division of labor under machine production, and the anachronistic model of appropriation of surplus values by capitalists alone. The state, according to Engels, having long been a “committee” representing the dominant class across all societies, increasingly took up responsibilities in managing economic affairs due to the inability of capitalists to do so and the danger of allowing islands of irrational production owned by individual capitalists to exist as the social production model as a whole was moving toward a more rational level with increasing application of knowledge and machinery. But Engels argued that this was not enough, as neither monopolies nor state management of capitalism could completely eliminate its irrationality and cyclical crises. Only after the proletariat had taken over the production and distribution process, eliminated state and monetary means as necessary components of political economy, could working be no longer “alienated”, class no longer exist and production finally “rationalized”. In the end, Engles proposed that a “scientific” socialism started with analyses of the production process, and reached finally the conclusion that a more rational model of control and distribution of production, socialism, must come into being to free human beings from the “realm of necessity” to “realm of freedom”.
Commentary: The Fullness and Scientific Nature of Marxist Political Economy
Engels proclaimed that theories of Marx was “scientific” in the sense that it followed the method of natural science in viewing socio-economic systems as evolutionary as the natural world and in starting with observations of solid material facts rather than spiritual imagination. Socialism had existed as a utopian concept before Marx and Engels, but only after their systemic critique of capitalism was it endowed with solid and interconnected arguments.
A common topic of debate would be that Marx focused primarily on the critique of political economy of capitalism and he never had a “clear” picture of socialism. This assertion might carry some merit, and arguably it had been Engel’s efforts in deducing the organizing principle of socialism from Marx’s works. In addition, the notion of “scientific” socialism was associated with the concept of “rationality”, denoting the more efficient use of machinery in human’s relationship with nature and in production process. Then was this a deviation from the “scientific” principle in that the proposal of socialism indeed came from theoretical deduction？ How should we view the relationship between Marxist critique of capitalism and the “actually existing Socialism” that appeared in the 20th century---were they embodiment of “scientific” realization of socialism, or deviations from the model？ How does “human rationality” fit into the picture？ Moreover, could human society really be viewed from a “natural science” perspective with an emphasis on evolution and stages？
Reviewed Works
Engels, “Socialism, Utopian and Scientific” (Section 3); Marx, “Wage Labor and Capital”; Marx, “Capital” (Excerpts from Volumes 2 and 3); Marx, “Crisis Theory” , all in Robert Tucker eds, The Marx-Engels Reader.