|WikiProject Socialism||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Politics||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
Quite strange article...
It could be inside Karl Marx's article. But it is outside, shouldn't young marx and mature marx be together?
With the information that it contains now (in the moment I write this), this article don't describe the young marx, but the thought that there were young and mature marx. Even if one day it describe the young marx, I think that treating both of them in the same article is the correct way.
i think your right, the concept of Young Marx/Mature Marx should go together i dont know how to merge the articles though or rather change this ones name and delete the other. --126.96.36.199 10:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- No merge please. This is specific discussion about the evolution of Marx and precisely concerns the Marxian/Marxist debate aout whether the Young and the mature Marx truely are the "same person" — this might sound strange, but let's put it this way: is Marx's mature works already in the Young Marx? But isn't claiming this an adoption of a teleological perspective, thus of Hegelian idealism — henceforth a step backward from Marx? How can one provide a Marxist reading of Marx's evolution is the real question posed by this distinction between a "young Marx" and a "mature Marx". This question may be more globally related to the questionning of the concept of "works" and magnum opus itself. See for ex. Michel Foucault's introduction to the Archeology of Knowledge:
"What one is seeing, then, is the emergence of a whole field of questions, some of which are already familiar, by which this new form of history is trying to develop its own theory: how is one to specify the different concepts that enable us to conceive of discontinuity (threshold, rupture, break, mutation, transformation)? By what criteria is one to isolate the unities with which one is dealing; what is a science? What is an œuvre? What is a theory? What is a concept? What is a text? How is one to diversify the levels at which one may place oneself, each of which possesses its own divisions and form of analysis? What is the legitimate level of formalisation? What is that of interpretation? Of structural analysis? Of attributions of causality?"
. Santa Sangre 17:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
what about lukacs?
i feel like this article is dominated by french interpretations of this dichotomy (especially with the focus on althusser) -- there were a lot of leading theorists (i.e. lukacs) who called for an end to the mature-young dichotomy (check his preface to the reissue of "history and class consciousness").
also, as much i love quoting foucault, that passage (from "the archaeology of knowledge") fits more in line with general epistemological and (post-)structuralist questions than with "young marx". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
add more names
could mention the views of tom bottomore and david mclellen on the false dichotomy. the article also gives the impression that there is still a debate going on about this..there isn't and there hasn't been for decades...old news..dichotomy has been pretty much dismissed...and i don't know why but this article reads like it was written almost 50 years ago. crude interpretations and old references make for a very dull reading...it's amazing how much rubbish has been written about this though hats off to althusser for bringing attention to it i dont think 60% of this article should be devoted to his argument