Search

Marxism has an uncanny knack of reappearing when and where it is least expected. It has a boomerang-like character. Marxism's continuing appeal lies in its compelling account of capitalism, outlining possible challenges to capitalism and envisioning alternatives to capitalism. The magic of Marxism lies in somehow holding together these three contradictory elements, its objectivity, diagnosing capitalism as a totality riddled with contradictions, limits and insurgent social forces, its engagement, challenging capitalism on its own terrain and its imagination, daring to postulate a freer world beyond capitalism. The revival of Marxism depends on the reconfiguration of these three moments but without abandoning any one of them. The paper discusses possible fates of Marxism in general with a specific engagement with the emblematic "Communist Manifesto." It offers three readings of the text. The first is a literal reading in which it considers three theses as applied to nineteenth-century capitalism. The second reading draws on shadows lurking within "The Communist Manifesto" to address the twentieth century tripartite division into organized capitalism, its nemesis in state socialism and anti-colonial and postcolonial transformations of the peripheries. The third reading restores "The Communist Manifesto" for comprehending, challenging and envisioning alternatives to the transnational capitalism of today.

Over the past few years, the skepticism against the stance of value neutrality and the reception of the Frankfurt School in the wake of renewed attention to Marxism in a Critical Sociology has once again focused attention on the problem of the integration of theory and praxis in sociology. Bearing in mind social philosopher Karl Marx's famous statement, philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways, but the point is to change it, members of the Frankfurt School recognized the problem and perhaps difficulty, of praxis in sociology from the very beginning. This paper is primarily an attempt to present a critique of current approaches to field work and especially of participant observation. This particular focus is important for two reasons. First, ethnographic work has become of paramount importance given the sophisticated manipulation of people's lives today. The intricate organization of the work place, the divisive and paralyzing structure especially of the urban setting. The second reason for such an extended critique is that it would guide people to politically and methodologically adequate approaches to field work.