3

What is the difference between 'marxist' (with a small 'm') and 'Marxist'? This question arose to me when I came across this:

It follows from this belief that if you can totally change the 'ensemble of the social relations', you can totally change human nature. This claim goes to the heart of Marxism and of more broadly marxist (with a small 'm') thinking.

I have seen that, similarly, Daniel Dennett in his paper Postmodernism and Truth differentiates between 'Truth' and 'truth':

When philosophers argue about truth, they are arguing about how not to inflate the truth about truth into the Truth about Truth, some absolutistic doctrine that makes indefensible demands on our systems of thought.

(emphasis by me)

Maybe this is common in English and is not specific to fields like philosophy.

  • 1
    Marxism with capital M : Marxist theory, Marxist philosopher. I'm not an English native, but I think that this is the correct way of writing it. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Apr 2 at 14:18
  • @MauroALLEGRANZA is correct; "marxist", with a lower-case "m", is just a grammatical error. Since Marx is a proper noun, the first letter is always supposed to be capitalized. The issue with capitalizing the first letter of words that aren't usually considered proper nouns is meant to empathize them becoming a proper noun, to suggest some sort of universality. Sorta like, if you program in C# or something, how class names are supposed to be capitalized while instances of those classes aren't. – Nat Apr 2 at 15:33
  • 3
    IMO, there is nothing "philosophical" there... When the author writes "more broadly marxist thinking", it sounds to me as a way to allude to non-orthodox Marxism, to someone broadly "inspired" by Marxist (capital M) philosophy. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Apr 2 at 15:38
  • 1
    This is not specific to Marx, but roughly, "Marxist" would refer to ideas more or less attributable to Marx, whereas "marxist" (especially when the small "m" is emphasized) to ideas loosely in the same spirit. It is the same with Platonism and platonism, etc. The distinction is not very strictly followed though. – Conifold Apr 2 at 18:49
1

There is nothing deep here but a distinction is just about possible. An idea, argument or theory might properly be called 'Marxist' if it is explicitly present in the work of Marx. For instance, the idea of surplus value or of commodity fetishism. In contrast, an explanation of the Russian Revolution in terms drawn from Marx could reasonably be called 'marxist'. The lower case 'm' would indicate that this explanation is applied Marx rather than Marx's own account - which it couldn't be, short of clairvoyance, since Marx was long dead before the Revolution.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.