Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T11:59:50.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marxism and Secular Faith

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Richard J. Arneson
Richard J. Arneson*
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has been argued by Mancur Olson and others that Karl Marx's theory of revolution is logically defective in that front its premises one cannot draw Marx's conclusion that workers will unite to revolt against capitalism. Workers who might wish for large social changes are confronted with a collective action problem that Marx fails to appreciate—so runs the criticism. The critics are assuming that Marx is reasoning from a Hobbesian premise to the effect that insofar as they are rational, individuals act always to fulfill narrowly self-interested goals. This article denies the assumption. In particular it is urged that to make sense of Marx's optimistic hopes about the likely outcome of successful majoritarian working-class revolution, one must attribute to him a secular faith that most people are disposed to play fair with others. This disposition is relatively weak and only sporadically effective in determining behavior, but in the right revolutionary circumstances, Marx hopes, it might play a considerably greater role in this respect. (A circumstance on which Marx places great weight is material abundance.) Being optimistic about the future, Marx cannot be as cynical about human motivation in the present as commentators often take him to be.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 79 , Issue 3 , September 1985 , pp. 627 - 640
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barry, B. Sociologists, economists and democracy. London: Collier-Macmillan, 1970.Google Scholar
Becker, G. The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.10.7208/chicago/9780226217062.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, A. Marx and justice. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1982.Google Scholar
Cohen, G. A. Karl Marx's theory of history: a defence. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Gouldner, A. The two Marxisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980.10.1007/978-1-349-16296-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. Knowledge and human interests (Shapiro, J., Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. Theory and practise (Viertel, J., Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press, 1973.Google Scholar
Hardin, R. Collective action. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Hirschman, A. Shifting involvements: private interest and public action. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Holmstrom, N. Rationality and revolution. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 1983, 13, 305–325.10.1080/00455091.1983.10715840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horowitz, J. A change of coasts for the “red queen.” Los Angeles Times, June 6, 1983, View Sect., p. 7.Google Scholar
Kavka, G. Two solutions to the paradox of revolution. In French, P., Uehling, T. Jr., & Wettstein, H. (Eds.), Midwest studies in philosophy (vol. 7). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982.Google Scholar
Hobbes, T. Leviathan (Macpherson, C. B., Ed.). Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1981. (Originally published, 1651).Google Scholar
Laver, M. Political solutions to the collective action problem. Political Studies, 1980, 28, 195–209.10.1111/j.1467-9248.1980.tb01245.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipset, S. Radicalism or reformism: the sources of working-class politics. American Political Science Review, 1983, 77, 1–18.10.2307/1956008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R., & Raiffa, H. Games and decisions. New York: John Wiley, 1957.Google Scholar
Luxemburg, R. The mass strike, the political party and the trade unions (Lauin, , Trans.). N.p., 1925.Google Scholar
Marx, K. The class struggles in France, 1848 to 1850. In Marx, K. & Engels, F., Collected works (vol. 10). New York: International Publishers, 1978. (b)Google Scholar
Marx, K. A contribution to the critique of political economy (Dobb, M., Ed.). New York: International Publishers, 1970.Google Scholar
Marx, K. The curtain lifted (Interview in the New York World, July 18, 1871) and Instructions to delegates to the Geneva congress. In Fernbach, D. (Ed.), Karl Marx: political writings (vol. 3). New York: Random House, 1974.Google Scholar
Marx, K. Critique of the Gotha program. In Tucker, R. (Ed.), The Marx-Engels reader. New York: W. W. Norton, 1978. (a)Google Scholar
Marx, K. The eighteenth brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. In Marx, K., & Engels, F., Collected works (vol. 11). New York: International Publishers, 1979.Google Scholar
Marx, K., & Engels, F. The German ideology. In Collected works (vol. 5). New York: International Publishers, 1976. (a)Google Scholar
Marx, K., & Engels, F. Manifesto of the communist party. In Collected works (vol. 6). New York: International Publishers, 1976. (b)Google Scholar
Moore, B. Injustice: the social bases of obedience and revolt. White Plains, N.Y.: N. E. Sharpe, Inc., 1978.10.1007/978-1-349-15916-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, M. The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965/1971.Google Scholar
Roemer, J. Neoclassicism, marxism, and collective action. Journal of Economic Issues, 1978, 12, 147–161.10.1080/00213624.1978.11503509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roemer, J. Mass action is not individually rational: reply. Journal of Economic Issues, 1979, 13, 763–769.10.1080/00213624.1979.11503677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schick, F. Having reasons: an essay on rationality and sociality. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984.10.1515/9781400856831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trotsky, L. The history of the Russian revolution (Eastman, M., Trans.) (vol. 1). London: Sphere Books, 1965.Google Scholar
Tullock, G. The paradox of revolution. Public Choice, 1971, 11, 88–99.10.1007/BF01726214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.