Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T02:45:31.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dewey and Marx: On Partisanship and the Reconstruction of Society

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Alfonso J. Damico
Alfonso J. Damico*
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There are many similarities between Dewey and Marx, particularly the claim by each to have united theory and practice. But this article argues that the distance between the two remains great. Dewey denies what Marx affirms; namely, that partisanship performs a variety of positive functions in the movement towards a more morally adequate society and in the moral transformation of man. Against Marx, Dewey argues that the “rivalry of parties” must come under the control of the norms of critical inquiry which, Dewey believes, can also serve as the site of a more comprehensive and nonpartisan social interest. The article concludes that both Dewey and Marx are correct in what they have to say about partisanship, but in a more limited way than either would acknowledge. If partisanship is functional in the reconstruction of society, as Marx holds, and dysfunctional to the moral growth of the individual, as Dewey holds, then the controversy between liberal amelioration and radical politics is likely to persist.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 75 , Issue 3 , September 1981 , pp. 654 - 666
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1981

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

Avineri, Shlomo (1976). “How to Save Marx from the Alchemists of Revolution.” Political Theory 4: 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avineri, Shlomo (1970). The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Balbus, Isaac (1974). “The Concept of Interest in Pluralist and Marxian Analysis.” In Katznelson, Ira (ed.), The Politics and Society Reader. New York: David McKay, pp. 278–304.Google Scholar
Berlin, Isaiah (1958). Two Concepts of Liberty. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Richard (1971). Praxis and Action. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, John (1936). “Class Struggle and the Democratic Way.” Social Frontier 11, 2: 241–42.Google Scholar
Dewey, John (1966). Democracy and Education. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, John (1936). “Education and Social Change.” Social Frontier 3, No. 26: 237.Google Scholar
Dewey, John (1939). “Experience, Knowledge and Value: A Rejoinder.” In Schilpp, Paul (ed.), Philosophy of John Dewey. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, pp. 515–608.Google Scholar
Dewey, John (1963). Freedom and Culture. New York: Capricorn Books.Google Scholar
Dewey, John (1957a). Human Nature and Conduct. New York: Modern Library.Google Scholar
Dewey, John (1962). Individualism: Old and New. New York: Capricorn Books.Google Scholar
Dewey, John (1960a). On Experience, Nature, and Freedom. Edited by Bernstein, Richard. Indianapolis: Liberal Arts Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, John. (1927). The Public and Its Problems. Chicago: Sage Books.Google Scholar
Dewey, John (1960b). The Quest for Certainty. New York: Capricorn Books.Google Scholar
Dewey, John (1957b). Reconstruction in Philosophy. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, John. (1934). “Why I Am Not a Communist.” Modern Monthly 8: 135–37.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Alan (1976). “Salvaging Marx from Avineri.” Political Theory 4: 9–34.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Alan (1979). “Social Theory and Revolutionary Activity in Marx.” American Political Science Review 73: 521–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, Carol (1978). Marx's Social Ontology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hook, Sidney (1934). “The Importance of a Class Point of View.” Social Frontier 1, No. 1, pp. 19–22, No. 2, pp. 17–19.Google Scholar
Hook, Sidney (1939). John Dewey: An Intellectual Portrait. New York: John Day.Google Scholar
Kelly, George (1979). “Mediation versus Compromise in Hegel.” In Pennock, J. Roland and Chapman, John W. (eds.), Compromise in Ethics, Law, and Politics: Nomos XXI. New York: New York University Press, pp. 87–103.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl (1963). Early Writings. Edited by Bottomore, T. B.. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl (1947). The German Ideology. Edited by Pascal, R.. New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl (1972). The Grundrisse. Edited by McLellan, David. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl (1977). Selected Writings. Edited by McLellan, David. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl (1956). Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy. Edited by Bottomore, T. B. and Rubel, Maximillian. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl (1967). Writings of the Young Marx on Philosophy and Society. Edited by Easton, Lloyd D. and Guddat, Kurt H.. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Mills, C. Wright (1961). The Sociological Imagination. New York: Grove Press.Google Scholar
Mills, C. Wright (1966). Sociology and Pragmatism. New York: Oxford University.Google Scholar
Moore, Barrington Jr., (1978). Injustice: The Social Bases of Obedience and Revolt. New York: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Novack, George (1975). Pragmatism vs. Marxism. New York: Pathfinder Press.Google Scholar
Ollman, Bertell (1971). Alienation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles Sanders (1958). Collected Papers, Vol. 5. Edited by Hamhorne, C. and Weiss, P.. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pennock, J. Roland, and Chapman, John, ed. (1979). Compromise in Ethics, Law, and Politics. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans (1939). “Dewey's Theory of Science.” In Schilpp, Paul (ed.), Philosophy of John Dewey. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, pp. 157–92.Google Scholar
Rotenstreich, Nathan (1965). Basic Problems of Marx's Philosophy. Indianapolis: Liberal Arts Press.Google Scholar
Somjee, A. H. (1968). The Political Theory of John Dewey. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, Paul (1979). “Marxism and Compromise: A Speculation.” In Pennock, J. Roland and Chapman, John W. (eds.), Compromise in Ethics, Law, and Politics. New York: New York University Press, pp. 104–20.Google Scholar
Tucker, C. Robert (1978). The Marx-Engels Reader, 2nd ed. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.