Theory And History

Mortal man does not know how the universe and all that it contains may appear to a superhuman intelligence. Perhaps such an exalted mind is in a position to elaborate a coherent and comprehensive monistic interpretation of all phenomena. Man—up to now, at least—has always gone lamentably amiss in his attempts to bridge the gulf that he sees yawning between mind and matter, between the rider and the horse, between the mason and the stone. It would be preposterous to view this failure as a sufficient demonstration of the soundness of a dualistic philosophy. All that we can infer from it is that science—at least for the time being—must adopt a dualistic approach, less as a philosophical explanation than as a methodological device. Methodological dualism refrains from any proposition concerning essences and metaphysical constructs. It merely takes into account the fact that we do not know how external events—physical, chemical, and physiological—affect human thoughts, ideas, and judgments of value. This ignorance splits the realm of knowledge into two separate fields, the realm of external events, commonly called nature, and the realm of human thought and action. Older ages looked upon the issue from a moral or religious point of view. Materialist monism was rejected as incompatible with the Christian dualism of the Creator and the creation, and of the immortal soul and the mortal body. Determinism was rejected as incompatible with the fundamental principles of morality as well as with the penal code. Most of what was advanced in these controversies to support the respective dogmas was unessential and is irrelevant from the methodological point of view of our day. The determinists did little more than repeat their thesis again and again, without trying to substantiate it. The indeterminists denied their adversaries’ statements but were unable to strike at their weak points. The long debates were not very helpful.

A ground-breaking look at the entire history of the Soviet Union, presenting a new kind of analysis of the history of the USSR: examining its birth, evolution, and death in class terms.

The twelve essays in this book demonstrate the importance of bringing history back into historical materialism. They combine the discussion of Marx's categories with historical work on a wide range of themes and periods (the early middle ages, 'Asiatic' regimes, agrarian capitalism, etc.).

This radical analysis of the role and importance of historiography interprets the philosophy and theory of history on the basis of historicity as a human condition. The book examins the norms and methods of historiography from a philosophical point of view, but rejects generalisations tht the philosophy of history can provide all the answers to contemporary problems. Instead it outlines a feasible theory of history which is still radical enough to apply to all social structures.

The second edition of this indispensable review of the emergence of the fields of history and social science and traces their tentative convergence as he reappraises the relations between them.

This book focuses on a central concept that “Theory is History”, as the theory of capitalism can only be formulated on the basis of an analysis of its history. In contrast, bourgeois thinking replaces the analysis of historical capitalism with an abstract theory without any links to reality. “Economics”, which is the theory of an imaginary system, then becomes an apologia intended to give legitimacy to the behaviour of the owners of capital. The author pays special attention to the globalization of the law of value. The individual chapters illustrate the author’s thesis by focusing on the links between capital and land ownership, between modernity and religious interpretation, and on questions of the global expansion of capitalism, particularly the ways it has evolved in certain countries, in this case Russia and China. This anthology supplements the author’s previous work, centred on the rise of the South—his reading of capitalism focusing on its imperialist nature.

Theory and History in International Relations is an eloquent plea to scholars of global politics to turn away from the "manufacture" of data and return to a systematic study of history as a basic for theory. While the modest use of empiricism will always be important, Puchala rejects the logical positivism of the so-called "scientific revolution" in the field in favor of a more complex, even intuitive, vision of global politics. He addresses the potential uses of history in studying some of the major debates of our time-the Cold War as a struggle between empires, the collision of civilizations, cultural encounters and colonies in the ancient world, and liberal approaches to the understanding of history and ethical contributions to the dialogue over theory.