Válogatott tanulmányok

Summary for Marx & Ideology


All over the word, the debates in the 90s were focusing on the thought that through the collapse of the existing socialism, the loss of popularity of the Western communist parties, throwing away the intervening state, the „conflict of distribution” falling into the background in the countries of the central capitalism and the disappearance of the working class the game for the paradigm of Marx was also up. The followers of the liberal democracies and those who were committed to the capitalism (just like Francis Fukuyama) proclaimed proudly that the existing word had no other alternative left, therefore, the greatest critic, Karl Marx, could be regarded as a „dead dog” from that time. However, before the end of the first decade of the 2000s all these seemed to have been changed radically. As a result of the dangerous discrepancies of the globalisation, the ill success of the neoliberal and the third road social democrat policies, then, especially the international credit crisis, Marx got at the center of attention again. The Marx-fan intellectuals who were crowded into a political ghetto and guarding the fire, the new activists grown up on the ruins of the old movements are trying to realise the reorganisation and renaissance of the Left that has been awaited for decades by using this interest and popularity. The starting point of this book can be a little bit wet blanket for them.
Becoming uncertain, that has already inspired the attempts of the 70s too, led to the fact by the end of the 80s that, after the disappearance of the Marxist-Leninist phrases that became empty, simply no Marx remained that could replace the Marx-picture that has lost its worthiness and power—just the many-coloured and increased mass of thoughts of the „thousands of Marxism” (Wallerstein) that was born from the renewing projects. The same, even deeper crisis of interpretation of Marx enables the demand for Marx of today too that was also responsible for the recession of the 90s.  The relationship to Marx was until now determined by the position of interpretation that we can perhaps call as the „Marxian interpretation” of Marx.  Both the friends and the enemies of Marx, just one and all, regarded the Marxian way of interpretation as natural. So much so that, also the numbers of the post-modern writers determine their own positions accordingly – as the aggressive anti-Marxism of our region takes it for granted too that the Marxists and their master are consubstantial; especially the big dictators of the existed socialism: Lenin, Stalin, Mao… The Marxian way of interpretation is essentially built on three corner points. On the one hand it has taken the existence and the continuity of the central Marxian projects for granted; on the other hand it has hold that Marx was searching for the social subject that was suitable and defining for their fulfilment; finally, after this interpretation, Marx supposed to have created the „unit of practice and theory” through drafting and distributing the „scientific” facts that are suitable „to catch the mass” and without which the working class could not fight its own battle of class successfully, realise its highly important mission and chance. When we are talking about the fact that the Marx-picture becomes uncertain we refer to the process during which this point of view of interpretation cannot be continued and will be cut up through the internal discrepancies.
Today it is not the question how one can produce a canonized, unified, final and unrivalled, clear, what is more, in the political way of meaning also mobilizing Marx again – because presumably not any more. The question is whether we can talk about Marx clearly beyond the Marxian position of interpretation that came to a dead end for good and all.  This book attempts to do this when re-interpreting Marx from the problems of ideology taking into consideration the pieces of experience of the recent intellectual processes. After the belief of the writer, the „post-modern” Marx-reconstruction that puts the question of the ideology in the centre actually provides a possibility that the many-colouredness and genuineness of the theories of the philosopher, that were hidden until now, come out – changing Marx to a philosopher who inspires and one cannot avoid him even today.
Not only for the reason that the demoralisation of Marx and the cut up and crisis of the previous Marx-pictures may have amortized the reconstructions of Marx’s concept of ideology the least.  Still, because, according to the opinion of the social scientists searching for the ideologies, the Marx’s concept of ideology—as far as the idea history is concerned—belongs to the ideas of the „three big classics”, the sensualists: the science of thinking of Alexis de Tracy and the idol-theory of Bacon even today, only, if it is possible, making a bigger impression on the political-social-intellectual life of the succeeding generation. The non-Marxian Walter Carlsnaes explicitly puts in his book, The Concept of Ideology and Political Analysis: „The role of Marx in the history of the concepts of ideology cannot be overemphasized enough. Particularly, considering the fact that in the first part of his life work he was enthusiastically dealing with the ideas, especially, with their social functions. We can hardly find any more exciting question in his works, for the very reason that there are only few fields in his life work that are more unexplained than this.  He puts the problem of the ideology into the centre of the intellectual discussion, the analysis of the political happenings earlier than anyone else. The power of the thoughts, he drew up, has not decreased ever since either”.[1] Moreover, this problem—in spite of the fact that just all of the texts of Marx are dealing with it—always got into the centre of the attention when the entire re-considering of the life work of the philosopher cannot be kept postponing any longer. When it became clear for everybody: one cannot maintain a relation to Marx like before.


When we are trying to retrace the views of Marx in connection with the ideology we cannot ignore the fact that thinking about Marx, regarding both the content and the way, changed in the West in the past some decades fundamentally. The conflict between the Marxians and the non-Marxians, that sharpened extremely, has fatally lost its importance with the recession of the labour movement and the communist parties, the slow agony of the Soviet Union and its collapse. The dividing line between the Marxian and non-Marxian thinkers seems to lose colour and that was characterised by Steven Lukes in such a way that the Marx-picture of those who were thinking for and on Marx must have been inevitably different.[2] However, in our opinion, a deeper and more significant dimension of the change appears: from the beginning of the 50s and 60s we can be witness to three waves of re-interpretation, as a result of which (during the deterioration of the Marxian way of interpretation) the relation of interpretation in connection with Marx was re-worded fundamentally. These periods increased the number of the possible ways of interpretation of Marx to a great extent, thanks to the fact that they basically attacked all that again and again for which the texts and projects of Marx were earlier taken, that people previously thought about the way of thinking and methods of the philosopher, or the way how the succeeding generations updated and validated his thesis and theories. In the first part of this book we try to introduce how the three big re-wordings of the relation of interpretation in connection with Marx affected the reconstruction of the Marxian concepts of ideology, what the exact natural history of the „vacuum of interpretation” is that has developed after them and how they limit the „solutions” that can be chosen by the interpreter of today. As a result of the waves of re-interpreting Marx in the past decades, it became obvious that, while we have radically multiplied our pieces of knowledge in connection with what Marx may have said about the ideology, we only know so much, that one cannot think about the concepts of ideology of Marx any more like before.
In connection with the life work of Marx, people recognised relative early that the ideology, this central problem of the modern world, did not avoid the interest of the philosopher either. Because, just all of his followers and sympathizers were bound to face this circle of questions in their own situation: the relation of the movement to the intellectual processes of the society and the politics turns up in the works of Lukács, Lenin, Gramsci, Mannheim or just Mao Ce-Tung at every moment. „The Marxists and the Marx-fan intellectual class of the first part of the century attached a great importance to the concept of the ideology that [for them] notes the covering power of the false knowledge regarding the external, non-affected, non-discovered reality. … Already the concept of the ideology crystallized the scientific certainty that the images and the ways of speaking have to be read in the manner as the disguises of the reality that they mark and cover up. The tension between the reality and its dominant representation is standing in the middle of the standpoint” that determines the chances and duties of the politics.[3] This attitude performed its effect on a far bigger medium of course than the world of the Marxist movements or the communist political parties – it became unavoidable for the intellectual class and the whole of the social sciences too.
One could cite many analyses in connection with the classical Marxian reception of Marx’s concept of ideology – the presentation of the emphases and the complex intellectual-political processes would fill up a separate monograph. However, in our opinion, some theoretical tendencies can be raised from this reception that were defining and popular within the intellectual class of their own age, the organizations of the labour movement and the interpretations of Marx. The classical Marxism regarded four, in many respects contradictory, theoretical directions as deducible from the concepts of ideology of Marx. 1. The “epistemological” approach that was drafting the concept of the everyday, the positivistic scientific “false consciousness” or that one which is closed into the present. They are all lack of the superior intellectual means and truth that is the reason why the Marxists set them against the scientific objectivism of Marxism in some form or other.  2. The base/superstructure model that was popularised in the paraphrase of Marx: “It is the consciousness of men that determines their being”. 3. The representational or “critical” viewpoint according to which the world view of ideology: the systematized conceptual abstract and complex alter ego of the reality in the name of which the personalities perform their acts and they interpret themselves. According to the representational understanding, the purpose of the groups and participants in the constancy and operation of the existing one is to establish the kind of common interpretation of the reality with the subjugated majority of the society that assists the process of producing and selling and excludes the appearance of the real political-social radicalism. 4. Finally the descriptive, knowledge-sociological or class-approach that considered the ideology as a necessary consciousness and artistic-scientific product that is arisen from the position, one-sided feeling of the reality, traditions, experiences-preconceptions, own needs and culture of the a social group. The precondition of the revolution is the shaping of the consciousness of the labour class “in itself” into the one “for itself” that cannot happen “on its own” in the capitalism, say the most of the Marxists. The time of the neo-, post- and postmodern Marxisms could change everything around Marx for that very reason that these stable pillars faltered and the meanings of ideology fragmented and multiplied.
The present book also tries to reconstruct the thoughts of Karl Marx in connection with the ideology. On that occasion, it represents the main tendencies that, as a result of the wave of the neo-, post and postmodern Marxist re-interpretation, could be noticed in the past decades during the reconstruction of the Marx-picture and the concepts of ideology of Marx. The starting point of the research is determined by the belief that the notion of Marx about the ideology got into a special vacuum of interpretation in the period of the waves of reconstruction that passed in the past decades. We can state that the attempts after each other for finding the new and valid approach to Marx brought the concepts of ideology of Marx in a special situation. These turning points of the interpretation not simply “changed” or extended the previous interpretations by new elements. Their prominent persons usually thought that the notions about the ideology, that were previously attributed to Marx, were responsible for the misunderstanding of Marx and the failures of the Marxism, so, they needed a revision that could not be postponed. It means that the previous “false” approach of the theories of the ideology has to be changed as soon as possible to be able to solve the “Marxist” crisis situation that was established. Therefore, if we want to save Marx – they say  – the previous interpretations have to be refused on the most important points and new starting points have to be found; this, also for itself, can lead to the fact that we become uncertain.
A situation that is full of conflicts, also in double sense, has developed in connection with the Marx’s concept of ideology (and of course to some extent also regarding the whole lifework) by now.
First: we possess the endless number of pieces of the concepts of Marx in connection with the ideology, while people have already questioned, “replaced” just every single important pieces of the possible interpretations.
Secondly: during the interpretations, considered as valid, actual and usable, those elements became extremely predominant that play the marginal role in the texts and range of ideas of Marx or they can be assigned to the philosopher only on a derived way, when searching for the “roots or tracks” of the present viewpoints of the theories of the ideology – while the interpretations are shelved more and more that were formed on the basis of the central texts or a great number of analyses of Marx or the personal reports of Engels (many times of questionable value of course).
The extremely wide spectrum of the interpretations, that were composed in the circle of questions of Marx’s concept of ideology, is enabled by the fact that this subject lines up sketchy, unsystematic, in the different periods in many respects different viewpoints and axioms in the texts of Marx  – that is the reason why it is finally full of contradictions. As Marcello Musto puts: to tell to truth, Marx has never been uniform, only the Marxists wanted to let him seen so. „Marx has left far more manuscripts than he has published during his lifetime. Despite of the common approach, his oeuvre is consisting of broken, sometimes contradictory elements, and his lifework can be characterised by …….its incompletion.” Musto finds a spontaneous dread from all kinds of systematic social doctrines, his works can be rather characterised by they being curios and raising every phenomenon and ideas.   The records of Marx offer the unbelievable storehouse of concepts and thoughts, ideas and questions.[4] According to Musto, the reconstruction of every type of final, closed, uniform “Marx’s concept”, method, standpoint etc. fakes the lifework of Marx because it tries to enforce an additional organizing principle in connection with the, just in its disorder, deep, colourful and inspirative bequest of Marx.  It is not by chance that the postmodern is so creative today that is looking for the “living tradition” of Marx that is investigating in what we are arguing with him even today, in what respect we mention him unavoidably, what of our problems and questions lead to him necessarily, what kind of treasures we can find in his partial analyses and words – even if the old-fashioned Marxists criticise the deforming effects of this standpoint with good reason, for example that it is not acceptable either to mention Marx as the ancient resource of the gender researches.[5]
One has to face the fact that the texts of Marx are broken and full of contradictions that has its explicit reason: the continuously changing standpoints and emphases of the lifework of the philosopher. Those waves that can be hardly reconstructed and are distorted and evened up by all kinds of interpretations that reflect back their own retrospective standpoints of the “philosopher”, „sociologist”, „economist”, „anticapitalist-communist” or that of the „contemporary politics” or just the “ideology” on the lifework of Marx. Especially, in the case of those who are looking for the connection between the critiques of the existing socialism and the concepts of Marx.  In our opinion, during the reconstruction of the Marx’s concept of ideology we need a “multidimensional” interpretation in which the numbers of the previous interpretations that are often contradictory to each other. Only the kind of interpretation seems to be maintained that counts on the fact that Marx never aimed to form a uniform, systematic concept of ideology – for all that the circle of questions is of central importance in his texts.  Finally, one has to take into account that the Marx’s concepts of ideology are resulted from the coexistence of the numerous points of view, their combination, mutual effect  – of which importance and relation changes from time to time as a result of the current intellectual-practical challenges.  Three of them are worth emphasizing: the viewpoint of the „anti-philosophy”, the „political theory” and the „ theory of society”.
a.) On the basis of the standpoint of the anti-philosophy, Marx essentially considers the products of the speculative philosophy of his age as ideology and he regards the representatives of the usual philosophy as ideologists. He attacks the forms of mind that isolate and separate themselves from the reality. According to Etienne Balibar, Marx wants the kind of a new mind with which the reality cannot only be interpreted but one can also take part in its real change; that is effective, settles down from the heaven on the ground; that is the part of the reality. From this point of view, the concept of ideology means the critique of the forms of philosophy till then, an ambition of a non-philosophy that, however, inherits the achievements of the previous philosophy and fulfils the hopes of the philosophers.[6] Consequently, the philosopher is the part of the intellectual-practical processes of the reality, he receives his duties and compulsions from them, his concepts are built into them, they are operative within them. All these require new intellectual roles, new application of mind, the re-positioning of the status of mind from the philosophy that always failed earlier when meeting the reality.
b.) The second, the viewpoint of the „political theory” also grows up from the critiques of Marx regarding the intellectual class. He is focusing on the philosophers (mainly on the field of political economy and political theory) who accepted (without their knowledge or knowingly) the main conditions of the capitalism, the presuppositions and axioms of the ruling classes during the development of their concepts. In this respect, the ideology is a knowledge that serves the maintaining, the operation and survive of the existing power.  Those facts, coherences, practical establishments, scientific results that can help the political class to have the capitalism accepted, to overcome its crises and to form the (life)strategies within the capitalist society for all participants. This viewpoint derives its ideology-critical character from the fact that it puts the political existence of the intellectual production in the centre: it questions the „results of the science” because of their positiveness and prepossession towards the class in a critical and revolutionary period.  Its successor is the „critical concept” that criticizes the products of science and culture from the standpoint of exceeding the capitalism, emancipation, the basic problems of the system that cannot be avoided, from the positions of people who are oppressed, marginalized, exploited, made stupid and from that of the revolutionary groups. The critical concept that, in spite of its all retrospective distorting effects, can feel well that this viewpoint of Marx calls upon the rebuilding of knowledge.

  1. ) The third viewpoint of the concept of ideology is that of the “theory of society”.  Marx suggests that all ideas are parts of their ages: in the background of ideas ar economical and social circumstances, and society cant work without ideological mechanisms.  Marx has a critical relation to the social and historical philosophical works of his age from the very beginning; his interest rather turned to the social facts and processes. Just his roots of a philosopher and his education hinder him to get to the viewpoint of the “sociologists” in the modern meaning of the word. István Balogh states it well that this “being in between” makes Marx to one early representative of the theory of society.  However, the German philosopher is searching the system of the connections of the society-community but his assumption is related to the philosophy: he says that one has to search for the dynamics and coherences of the phenomenons beyond them, in the sphere of those that cannot be experienced directly. He still cannot be called a philosopher because he does not trace back the phenomenons to a universal, transcendent or ontological basis, he does not want to establish any total systems of thought  – he regards the contradictions, dynamics, coherences, phenomenons as a product of the society. According to Balogh, the “big concept”, that is searching the sphere behind the word of phenomenons, cannot be regarded as macro-sociology either.[7] On the one hand, because it basically uses the elements of the “economics”.[8] On the other hand, because, contrary to the sociology, it does not come to the hypotheses and coherences with the method of the sociology – it regards the facts of the word of phenomenons as the argumentation, test of the concept, the materials that serve the continuation of their consideration and deepening.  Thirdly, – we can add – the statements, called “scientific” by him, are built on theoretical starting points that are in many respects non-analytical and cannot be operationalized – but they are rather based on the “anticipation”, “assumption” of the processes, coherences, inconsistencies, on the “reverse”, “thinking-ahead”, “exceeding” of the still existing knowledge. The argumentation of Marx is characterised by essayistical, aesthetical, analogical, polemical or just by metaphorical elements that suit the theory of society. In our opinion this standpoint of the theory of society has significant importance for Marx, i.e., he looks just everything through this eyeglass:  both the anthropological analyses and the questions of the economics, politics, sociology  – and especially those of the ideology.

In this situation, it cannot be questionable: the new reconstruction of the Marx’s concepts of the ideology has to be born in the spirit of the intention, so that it can handle the discrepancies of the interpretation in connection with the ideology that has developed as a result of the neo-, post and postmodern change in the attitude to Marx. To our analyses, in relation to the previous one, we have chosen a modern starting point that gives hope for the fulfilment of the target. According to this: while, the previous interpretations started from the question: “What did Marx think about the ideology” (and in this frame it was just impossible to avoid the pitfall that we were looking for the present interesting, useful, current concepts – just like it was also unavoidable to reflect our paradigms of the “political science” of today on the philosopher living in the early modern age before the political science) – the present interpretation starts from raising the problems: “what was the role of the concepts of ideology, what were their place, functions in the range of ideas of Marx?”.
During the reconstruction, we use the method that is called contextual by Etienne Balibar. Balibar throws away both the systematic and the doctrinal viewpoint in his work with the title of The Philosophy of Marx. He says that one cannot produce an overall system of philosophy or a “main concept” either, just like for example the “concept of the battle of classes in the so-called dialectical materialism under which one can place the “economics, the anthropology, the politics and the epistemology too”.  According to Balibar, a reconstruction of the history of the concept also has to give up the intention to find big questions that precede everything, personal projects by Marx in the light of which every single rows of his works becomes an answer and find their own place clearly. Whereas, the contextual method “while explaining the problems of the ideology, tries to understand what moved Marx to raise it in an other concept, within other problems.” In our case, in one respect it means that one has to identify the meeting-points in the lifework where the questions in connection with the ideology appear with big importance. In parallel with it, we also need to identify why Marx pays, in this period, a bigger attention to the questions of the concept of ideology than usual, to which challenges and problems he is looking for the answer through them.
According to the main thesis of the present book, one can find three this kind of big meeting-points in the lifework of Marx – their presentation one by one marks the place of the further chapters.
I. The first one is the so-called period of the early works between 1841 and 1845 when the question of the ideology also emerges in several waves after each other. Their common character is that they receive their context from the interpretations of the political situations first of all – during the internal discussions of the new-Hegelian movement that becomes a rather political movement behind the disguise of philosophy. These political starting points are mostly constant right from the mid of the 30s – but their open political raising and re-thinking is started by the group that becomes radical after 1840. Marx, himself joins this crystallizing process. The starting point of our analyses, beyond the identification of the “big questions under discussion”, is also the fact that in connection with the early Marx we can talk about the ideology in double sense. The early Marx only calls the abstracts of the philosophers, the abstract intellectual creatures, doctrines as ideology that separate the philosopher from the real processes and are reduced to drive a “campaign against the reality”. But, while trying to get rid of this “false consciousness”, they face a numerous of processes and problems that we class among the range of subjects of ideology today. However, Marx did not call the latter ones so, we can with good reason regard his ideas for religion, the everyday consciousness, political concepts, alienation, fetishisms, spirit of the age, etc. as “concepts of the ideology”.  Later, we represent the concepts of ideology of the early Marx taking into consideration this duality.
II. The second big meeting-point is the period between 1845 and 1851 that was represented by the German Ideology in which the problem of ideology is the part of the kind of searching for the role of the intellectual class. The context of this period is the birth of the radicalism of the new German emigration and the meeting of Marx with the ideas of communism and the organisations of the labour movement that are producing and representing them as their own ones. Marx see that the radical intellectual class – from the philosophers and politicians of the Enlightenment to Feuerbach and the real socialism – misunderstood the role of the political ideas and the theoretical concepts in the process of the social-historical change – if he assigned the duty of “interpretation”, that establishes the change, to them. Marx believes that the intellectual class does not have to give up that its concepts are inspired by the shaping of the future – if it can join the real intellectual processes of the social-political practice that forms the future. The intellectual thoughts have to join the already running process of change.
III. Finally, the third period is that longer one between 1851 and 1871 in which  the question of the ideology is always attached to the hopes, expectations and illusions of the previous period. According to our statements, in this third period, the special image of the concepts of ideology is provided by the fact that Marx faces them: his “radical ideas” in connection with the problem of the ideology, that provided the basis of his hopes, started to become groundless in the new situation of the 50s, after the unsuccessful revolutions. These hopes already had direct ideology-theoretical grounds that offered the possibility of the alternative politics and that of the anti-politics. Marx had to inquire about these possibilities in his ideology-theoretical works of the period, for example in the The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon and in the Capital.
In each chapter as a constant framework of structure
(1)                                we represent at first why and how the interpreters usually “misunderstood” the context of the big meeting-point in connection with the concepts of ideology until now,
(2)                                later we explore the real context of the questions of the ideology what Marx could have been interesting to in the specific meeting-point (reading his texts again from the side of the ideology), which elements were in the centre of his range of ideas and what were his central programmes, the debates and the fundamental questions of his intellectual-political medium. In the course of this, we restore the fact what kind of problems and challenges Marx met when turning to the circle of questions of the ideology.
(3)                                finally, we represent what kind of concepts of ideology he worked out as an answer, how they contributed to his range of ideas in the specific period and how they resolved the problems and challenges that meant their grounds – and how they produced new problems of the concept.


After the reconstruction of the Marx’s concept of ideology, it cannot be a question that the overthrowing of the capitalism, the Utopia of the equality, the economics, the community, the description of the capitalism, the establishment of the scientific social world view of the proletarians or the elimination of the private ownership were not standing in the centre of the interest of Marx. Marx was concerned about the “spirit of the near future” and the chance of the emancipation of the knowledge in the revolutionary communist movement of the proletarians. According to his diagnosis, these movements can make the best of the communist capacities that are given objectively because the tearing of the reality not only enables them to act but they produce a “theoretical demand” too that can only be met by the new, own form and content of the individual and collective knowledge. The big part of the hopes of Marx for the anti-politics and alternative politics was based on this prediction too. Marx assumed that the proletarians establish a knowledge – exposing all foreign effects  – that enables them to act radically without any idealism; getting rid of the fatal illusions of the previous revolutions, the wrong ways and the disappointments. Moreover, he thought that the period of the political revolutions can come to an end that wanted to realise their own values and purposes with the assistance of the provisions of the “state”: an already existing contra-society (proto-society) extricates itself from the old world in the revolution of the society and establishes its own frames and institutions.
The original hopes of Marx are obviously extreme and groundless if we look back from the 21st century. The priority of the existing ideology in the modern Western societies was unquestionable just all the while, the always fresh techniques of the political and social integration nip even the thought of getting rid of it in the bud. The intellectual class and the world of the politics have also changed, the joint of the secret societies, the mass movements, the former publicity of the political mass media and the theoretical intellectual after Marx did not produce any universal historically new period.  What is more, the fact, about which Marx thought that it is settled, has not happened since then either: the conflicts, that establish the theoretical demands of the proletarians assumed by Marx, did not drive either to a revolution or to the establishment of a collective proto-society. The hopes of the “radical concepts” of Marx cannot be reacquired either: there is no autonomic consciousness of the workers or a proletarian-contra culture that means the basis of a social revolution. However, the rebellions, demonstrations, revolutions have been running within the framework of the existing one (at least, regarding the Western capitalist world) for long decades, the nationalism, the populism, the commercialism, the xenophobia, the closed post-fascism, the social Darwinism and the individualistic liberalism colonized the political radicalism. The last revolution, that could be celebrated as the return of the “radical concepts of Marx”, the year of 1968, was not fighted by the workers – they rather betrayed it.
What should we do with Marx and his colourful-inspirative concepts of ideology in this situation? The founders of the post-Marxism felt very much right from the beginning that the modern capitalism surpass the classical concepts of Marx, moreover, the lifework of Marx is separated from the way of thinking of his age. The analysis of the current phenomenons, the contemporary radical politics cannot be based on Marx any more.  The subjectivisation of Marx is based on the assumption that one can only find those starting points in Marx from which we can arrive at the concepts and politics that are valid under the current conditions but point beyond Marx and the Marxisms. In the past decades, this post-Marxian programme was undoubtedly sustained by the fact that it had to face new phenomenons just like the globalisation, damage to the environment, migration, the neo-liberalism, terrorism, the right-winger radicalism, the boom of the pieces of information, the practical use of the genetics, the international credit crisis; and we could get to know the kind of new policies of emancipation just like the anti-imperialism, the alterglobalisation movements, the religious fundamentalism, the new organisations of the human rights or just the  trade union movements in the defence of the welfare state.  However, it is ever more clear that the representatives of the post-modern Marxism saw it well that they are not capable for the political and intellectual organisation of a real historical alternative. In the medium and long run, its own radical alternative will probably rise from the existing one, the Establishment.  So, the duty is to recognise it intellectually, to establish the future critical mind in which Marx only receives a very indirect role. At the end of the first decade of the new thousand years, a kind of “post-leftist” situation develops. It means that one cannot maintain the radicalism, revolution, alternative, the traditional policies of the emancipation and the self-organisation, the correspondent intellectual narratives and roles, while we do not know what comes after them. The function, operation and status of the knowledge, the mind and the ideology changes in the new world, the previous Left loses the ground from under its feet for good and all. One has to give definitive priority to the concept of ideology in a period when one cannot get rid of the ideology in the name of the critical mind, the negatives of the oppression, the exploitation and the reality any more – because the blessings of the rationality, freedom, the mobility and the reality assume the reception and (in spite of all doubts) the protection of the ideology. They can only exist as a part of the reality of the ideology that is proved by them.  And what could inspire the mood of the age for “criticising the ideology” better than Marx who was the first to raise the conservative nature, role of the ideology in the social-political integration and sublimation?


Abercrombie, Nicholas: The Dominant Ideology Thesis. London-Boston, G. Allen & Unwin, 1980.
Adorno, Theodor W. és Horkheimer, Max: A felvilágosodás dialektikája: Filozófiai töredékek. Budapest, Gondolat-Atlantisz Kiadó, 1990.
Althusser, Louis and Balibar, Etienne: Reading Capital. London, Verso, 2009. (eredeti megjelenés: Lire le Capital. Paris, La Découverte, 1965)
Althusser, Louis: On Marxism. London, Verso. 1997.
Althusser, Louis: Reply to John Lewis. In: Althusser, Louis: On Ideology. London, Verso, 2007.
Althusser, Louis: Ideology and ideological state apparatus. In: Althusser, Louis: On Ideology. London, Verso, 2007. (eredeti megjelenés: Idéologie et Appareils d’Etat. La Pensée, n° 151, juin 1970)
Anderson, Perry: Considerations on Western Marxism. London, NLB, 1976.
Aptheker, Herbert: Introduction. In: MacIntyre, Alasdair C.: Marxism and Christianity: a symposium. London, Humanities Press International, 1968.
Aronson, Ronald: After Marxism. New York, The Guilford Press, 1994.
Avineri, Shlomo: The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Ágh Attila: „A német ideológia” történetfelfogása. Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó – Zrínyi Kiadó, 1976.
Badiou, Alain: A század. Budapest, Typotex Kiadó, 2009.
Badiou, Alain: The Communist Hypothesis. London, Verso, 2010.
Balibar, Etienne: The Philosophy of Marx. London, Verso, 2007. (eredeti megjelenés: La philosophie de Marx, La Découverte, Repères, 1993.)
Balibar, Etienne: In Sarch of the Proletariat. The Notion of Class Politics in Marx. In: Balibar, Etienne: Masses, Classes, Ideas: Studies on Politics and Philosophy Before and After Marx. New York, Routledge, 1994. 125-151. pp. (eredeti megjelenés: Race, Nation, Classe. (avec Immanuel Wallerstein) Paris, La Découverte, 1988.)
Balibar, Etienne: The Vacillation of Ideology. In: Nelson, Cary ed.: Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Urbana, University of Illinois Press – Lawrence Grossberg, 1988.
Balogh István: A forradalmi ész kritikája. Budapest, Magyar Szocialista Munkáspárt. Társadalomtudományi Intézet, 1990.
Balogh István: Globális klímaváltozás és formációelmélet. Fordulat, harmadik folyam, második szám 2008. tavasz
Balogh István-Karácsony András: Német társadalomelméletek: témák és trendek 1950-től napjainkig. Budapest, Balassi Kiadó, 2000.
Balogh István: Politikai társadalomelmélet. (Vázlat a társadalomelméleti paradigmák történeti változásáról) Politikatudományi Szemle XIX. 2010./1. 31–64. pp.
Bourdieu, Pierre: A gyakorlati észjárás. A társadalmi cselekvés elméletéről. Budapest, Napvilág kiadó, 2002.
Barrett, Michele: The Politics of Truth: From Marx to Foucault. Stanford Calif., Stanford University Press, 1991.
Baudrillard, Jean: Az utolsó előtti pillanat. A közönyös paroxista. Budapest, Magvető Kiadó, 2000.
Bayer József (szerk): Tükör által homályosan. Budapest, MTA Társadalomtudományi Intézet, 1990.
Berki K. N.: Though Marx and Though Hegel: Marx’s Road to Communism. Political Studies, 2006. december. Volume 38 Issue 4,
Best, Steven and Kellner, Douglas: Debord and the Postmodern Turn: New Stages of the Spectacle. Substance #90 (1999)
Best, Steven and Kellner, Douglas: Debord, Cybersituations, and the Interactive Spectacle. Substance 28(3), 129-156. pp.
Best, Steven and Kellner, Douglas: The Postmodern Turn. New York, The Guilford Press, 1997.
Best, Steven: The Politics of Historical Vision: Marx, Foucault, Habermas. New York, Guilford Press, 1995.
Bidet, Jacques: Exploring Marx’s Capital: Philosophical, Economic and Political Dimensions. Leiden; Boston, Brill Academic Publishers, 2007. (eredeti megjelenés: Que faire du Capital ?, Klincksieck. 1985.)
Breckman, Warren: Marx, the Young Hegelians, and the Origins of Radical Social Theory: Dethroning the Self. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Breckman, Warren: The Symbolic Dimension and the Politics in Left Helegianism. In: Moggach, Douglas: The New Hegelians: Politics and Philosophy in the Hegelian School. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Brenkert, George G.: Marx`s ethics of freedom. London-Boston, Routledge & K. Paul, 1983.
Buck-Morss, Susan: Origin of Negative Dialectics. New York, Free Press, 1979.
Callinicos, Alex: The Resources of Critique. New York, Polity Press, 2006.
Carlsnaes, Walter: The Concept of Ideology and Political Analysis: a Critical Examination of its Usage by Marx, Lenin and Mannheim. London, Greenwood Pr., 1981.
Carvel, Terrell: Re-Translating the Manifesto: New Histories, New Ideas. In: Cowling, Mark: The Communist Manifesto: New Interpretations. New York, NYU Press, 1998. 51.- pp.
Carver, Terrell: Marx and Engels: the Intellectual Relationship. Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1984.
Carver, Terrell: The Postmodern Marx. Manchester, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999.
Claeys, Gregory: „Individualism”, „Socialism” and „Critical Science”: Development of a Coneception 1800-1850. Journal of the History of Ideas. 1986. 1.
Clegg, John: Rereading Marx on Ideology. Presented to the Marx and Philosophy Society, Joe McCarney memorial conference, London Knowledge Lab. 25 October 2008.
Cohen, G. A.: Karl Marx’s Theory of History. A Defence. Princeton, NJ. Princeton University Press, 2000.
Daly, James: Marx and the Two Enlightenments. In: Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy. Boston, Massachusetts U.S.A.10-15 August. 1998.
Debord, Guy: A spektákulum társadalma. Budapest, Balassi – BAE Tartóshullám, 2006.
Derrida, Jacques: Marx kísértetei: az adósállam, a gyász munkája és az új Internacionálé. Pécs, Jelenkor Irodalmi és Művészeti Kiadó, 1995.
Derrida, Jacques: Marx&Sons. In: Ghostly Demarcations: A Symposium on Jacques Derrida’s Specters of Marx. London, Verso, 2008. (eredeti megjelenés: Marx & Sons. Presses Universitaires de France – PUF, 2002.)
Dijk, Teun A. van: Ideology: a Multidisciplinary Approach. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, 1998.
Donald, James and Hall, Stuart: Politics and Ideology: a Reader. Milton Keynes, Open University Press, 1986.
Drucker, H. M.: Marx’s Concept of Ideology. Philosophy, 1972 4.
Eagleton, Terry: After Theory. New York, Basic Books, 2004.
Eagleton, Terry: Ideology: An Introduction. London; New York, Verso, 1991./2007.
Eccleshall, Robert at all: Political Ideologies: An Introduction. New York, Routledge. 2003.
Elster, Jon: An Introduction to Karl Marx. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]; New York, Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Ertürk, Korkut A.: Marx, Postmodernity and Transformation of the Individual. Radical Political Economics, 1999/1.
Eyerman, Ron: False Consciousness and Ideology in Marxist Theory. Acta Sociologica, 1981. (Vol. 24,) 1-2, 43-56. pp.
Fehér Ferenc: The Sphinx of the revolution. In: Heller-Fehér: Grandeur and Twilight of Radical Universalism. New Brunswick, N.J., Transaction Publishers, 1991. (Magyarul: Marx és a modernitás, 275. p.)
Fehér Ferenc-Heller Ágnes: Marx és a modernitás. Budapest, Argumentum, Lukács Archívum, 2002.
Fine, Robert: Marx-Hegel Relationship: Revisionist Interpretations? Capital & Class, Autumn 2001.
Fuller, Steve: Az entellektüel: a negatív gondolkodás pozitív ereje. Budapest, Napvilág Kiadó, 2006.
Furet, François: Egy illúzió múltja: esszé a 20. század kommunista ideológiájáról. Budapest, Európa Kiadó, 2000.
Geuss, Raymond: The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt School. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Geyer, R. Felix: Alienation Theories: a General Systems Approach. Oxford;New York, Pergamon Pr., 1980.
Gibson-Graham, J. K.: The End of Capitalism (as we knew it) : a Feminist Critique of Political Economy. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 2006.
Gilbert, Alan: Marx’s Politics: Communists and Citizens. New Brunswick, N.J., Rutgers University Press – Martin Robertson & Co Ltd, 1981.
Goldstein, Philip: Post-Marxist Theory: an Introduction. Albany, State University of New York Press, 2005.
Goodwin, Barbara: Using political ideas. Chichester; Hoboken, NJ, Wiley, 2007.
Gouldner, Alvin W.: The Future of Intellectuals and The Rise of the New Class: a Frameof Reference, Theses, Conjectures, Arguments, and an Historical Perspective on the Role of Intellectuals and Intelligentsia In The International Class Contest of The Modern Era. London, Basinstoke – Macmillan, 1979.
Gouldner, Alvin W: Against Fragmentation: The Origins of Marxism and the Sociology of Intellectuals. New York, Oxford University Press, 1985.
Gouldner, Alvin W: Theory and Ideology. in.: Gouldner, Alvin W.: For Sociology: Renewal and Critique in Sociology Today. New York, Basic Books, 1973, chapter 4, The Politics of the Mind.
Gramsci, Antonio: Hegemony, Intellectuals, and the State. In: Storey, John: Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: a Reader. New York, Pearson Longman, 2009. 85.-92. pp.
Habermas, Jürgen: Válogatott tanulmányok. Budapest, Atlantisz Kiadó, 1994.
Hardt, Michael: Spinoza’s Democracy: The Passions of Social Assemblages. In: Callari, Antonio ed: Marxism in the Postmodern Age. New York, Guilford Press, 1994.
Harman, Chris: Base and Superstructure. International Socialism, No. 32, Summer 1986, 3-4.
Hartley, George: The Abyss of Representation: Marxism and the Postmodern Sublime. Durham, Duke University Press, 2003.
Hawkes, David: Ideology. London – New York, Routledge, 2003.
Held, David: Introduction to Critical Theory. London, Hutchinson, 1980.
Held, David: Models of Democracy. Cambridge, Polity Press, 2006.
Jameson, Fredric: Politics of Utopia. New Left Review, 2004. január-február
Jameson, Fredric: A posztmodern, avagy a késői kapitalizmus kulturális logikája. Budapest, Jószöveg Műhely, 1998.
Jameson, Fredric: Marxism and Postmodernity. In: Kellner, Douglas (ed.): Postmodernism / Jameson / Critique. New York, Maisonneuve Press, 1991.
Jameson, Fredric: Postmodern and Consumer Society. In: Jameson, Fredric: The Cultural Turn: Selected Writings on the Postmodern, 1983-1998. London, Verso, 2009.
Jameson, Fredric: Actually Existing Marxism in: Saree, Makdisi et all: Marxism beyond Marxism. New York, Routledge, 1996
Jameson, Fredric: The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. New York, Routledge, 2006.
Jessop, Bob: The Communist Manifesto as an Historical Document. Economy and Society (Japan) 1999. I.
Jones, Gareth Stedman: Engels and the Invention of the Catastrophic Conception of Industrial Revolution. In: Moggach, Douglas: The New Hegelians: Politics and Philosophy in the Hegelian School. Cambridge, Cambridge University Pres, 2006.
Jordan, Z. A.: The Evolution of Dialectical Materialism. London, Macmillan, 1967.
Kain, Philip J.: Marx and Modern Political Theory: From Hobbes to Contemporary Feminism. London, Rowman & Littlefield, 1993.
Kellner, Douglas: The End Of Ortodox Marxism. In: Callari, Antoino, and szts: Marxism in the Postmodern Age: Confronting the New World Order. New York, Guilford Press, 1994.
Kolakowski Leszek: Marxism and beyond: on Historical Understanding and Individual Responsibility. London, Pall Mall P., 1969.
Kolakowski, Leszek: Main Currents of Marxism: The Founders – The Golden Age – The Breakdown. London, W.W. Norton & Co., 2008.
Kramnick, Frederick Isaac: The Age of Ideology: Political Thought, 1750 to the Present. London, Prentice-Hall, 1979.
Laclau, Ernesto and Mouffe, Chantal: Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London, Verso, 2001.
Larrain, Jorge: The Concept of Ideology. London. Hutchinson, 1979.
Larrain, Jorge: Marxism and Ideology. London, Ashgate Publishing, 1983.
Lefebvre, Heri: Critique of Everyday Life. London;New York, Verso, 2000. (eredeti megjeneés: ritique de la vie quotidienne II, Fondements d’une sociologie de la quotidienneté, Paris: L’Arche, 1961.)
Lovell, Terry: Pictures of Reality: Aesthetics, Politics, Pleasure. London, BFI Publishing, 1980.
Löwy, Michael: The Poetry of the Past in: Jessop, Bob: Karl Marx’s Social and Political Thought. New York, Routledge. 1999.
Löwy, Michael: The Theory of Revolution in the Young Marx. Chicago, Haymarket Books, 2005. (eredeti megjelenés: La Théorie de la révolution chez le jeune Marx. Paris, Maspero, 1970.)
Lukács György: Történelem és osztálytudat. Budapest, Magvető Kiadó, 1971.
MacDonald, Bradley J.: Performing Marx: Contemporary Negotiations of a Living Tradition. Suny Series in Political Theory: Contemporary Issues. Albany, State University of New York Press, 2006.
MacKenzie, Iain: The Idea of Ideology. In: Eccleshall, Robert at all: Political Ideologies: An Introduction. New York, Routledge. 2003.
McCarney, J.: The Real World of Ideology. Brighton, Harvester, 1980.
Mah, E. Herold: The End of Philosophy, the Origin of „Ideology”: Karl Marx and the Crisis of the Young Hegelians. Berkley, Univ of California Press, 1987.
Malpas, Simon (ed): Postmodern Debates. New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2001.
Mannheim Károly: Ideológia és utópia. Budapest, Atlantisz Kiadó, 1995.
Marcuse, Herbert: Ész és forradalom. Hegel és a társadalomelmélet keletkezése. Budapest, Gondolat Kiadó, 1982.
McKinnon, A. M: Opium of The People. Expression, Protest and the Dialectic of Religion. Critical Sociology issue 31. 1996. 15.- pp.
McLellan, David: Marx Before Marxism. New York, Harper & Row, 1970.
McLellan, David: The Young Hegelians and Karl Marx. London, Macmillan, 1980.
McLellan, David: Ideology. Minneapolis, MN. University of Minnesota Press, 1986.
Mepham, John: The Theory of Ideology in Capital. In: Ruben, David-Hiller and Meppam, John: Issues in Marxism: Epistemology, Science, Ideology. New Jersey, NJ Humanities Press, 1979.
Mészáros, István: The Power of Ideology, Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, 1989.
Mészáros István: Marx’s Theory of Alienation. London, Harper Torchbooks, 1970.
Milliband, Ralph: Marxism and Politics. London, Merlin Press, 2003
Musto, Marcello: Korunknak címzett bírálat – Karl Marx újrafelfedezéséhez. Eszmélet, 76.
Nćss, Arne Main at all: Democracy, Ideology, and Objectivity: Studies in the Semantics and Cognitive Analysis of Ideological Controversy. Oslo, Norwegian Research Council for Science and the Humanities, 1956.
Neil, Davidson: Enlightenment and Anti-capitalism. International Socialism, 2006. Issue 110.
Ollman, Bertell: Alienation: Marx’s Conception of Man in a Capitalist Society. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 2001.
Papp Zsolt: A válság filozófiájától a konszenzus szociológiájáig. Budapest, Kossuth Kiadó, 1980.
Parekh, Bhikhu C: Marx’s Theory of Ideology. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982.
Pines, Christopher L.: Ideology and False Consciousness: Marx and His Historical Progenitors. Albany, State University of New York Press, 1993.
Rees, John: Engels’ Marxism. International Socialism, Winter 1994., issue 65.
Richter, Melvin: A Family of Political Concepts: Tiranny, Despotism, Bonapartism, and Dictatorship, 1750-1917. European Journal of Political Theory, 2005/4.
Rockmore, Tom: Marx After Marxism. London, Wiley-Blackwell, 2002.
Rubel, Maximilien: Marx without Myth: a Chronological Study of His Life and Work. New York, Harper & Row, 1975.
Sartre, J.-P.: Marxizmus és egzisztencializmus. In: Sartre, Jean-Paul: Módszer, történelem, egyén: Válogatás Jean-Paul Sartre filozófiai írásaiból. Budapest, Gondolat Kiadó, 1976.
Saxton, Alexander: Marxism, Labor, and the Failed Critique of Religion. Science & Society, Jul2006, Vol. 70 Issue 3
Seliger, Martin: The Marxist Conception of Ideology: a Critical Essay. Cambridge; New York, Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Sim, Stuart: Post-Marxism. London, Taylor & Francis, 2002.
Skidelsky, Robert: What’s Left of Marx? New York Review of Books, 2000/11
Solomon, Robert C. and Higgins, Kathleen Marie: The Age of German Idealism. New York,Routledge, 1993.
Taylor, R (ed.): Aesthetics and Politics: Debates Between Bloch, Lukacs, Brecht, Benjamin, Adorno. London, Verso, 2008.
Thatcher, Jan D: Past Receptions of the Coummunist Manifesto. In: Cowling, Mark: The Communist Manifesto: New Interpretations. New York, NYU Press, Historial Materialism Series, 1998. 63- p.
Therborn, Göran: From Marxism to Post-Marxism? London, Verso, 2008. (Magyar kiadása a L’Harmattan Kiadónál jelenik meg)
Thompson, John B.: Studies in the Theory of Ideology. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1984.
Thompson, John B: Ideology and Modern Culture: Critical Social Theory in the Era of Mass Communication. Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1991.
Tormey, Simon and Townshend, Jules: Key Thinkers from Critical Theory to Post-Marxism. London, SAGE, 2006.
Tormey, Simon: Agnes Heller: Socialism, Autonomy and the Postmodern. Manchester, New York, Manchester University Press, 2001.
Torrance, John: Karl Marx’s Theory of Ideas. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Touraine, Alan: What Is Democracy? London, Boulder, CO . Westview Press, 1997.
Townshend, Jules: Laclau and Mouffe’s Hegemonic Project: The Story So Far. Political Studies, Volume 52, Number 2, June 2004.
Tralau, Johan: The Effaced Self in the Utopia of the Young Karl Marx. European Journal of Political Theory, 2005/4
Tucker, David F. B.: Marxism and Individualism. Oxford, Blackwell, 1980.
Tucker, Robert C: Philosophy & Myth in Karl Marx. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1972.
Williams, Raymond: Base and Superstructure. In: Williams, Raymond: Marxism and Literature. London, Oxford University Press, 1978. 75-90. p.
Wolff, Jonathan: Why Read Marx Today? New York, Oxford University Press, 2003.
Wood, Allen, W: Hegel és a marxizmus. Fordulat, harmadik folyam hatodik szám 2009/2.
Zizek, Slavoj: Plague of Fantasies. London, Verso, 1997.
Zizek, Slavoj: In Defense of Lost Causes. London, Verso, 2008.
Zizek, Slavoj: Egyszer mint tragédia, másszor mint bohózat. Szeptember 11. tragédiájától a pénzügyi összeomlás bohózatáig. Az Eszmélet különszáma, 2010.


Kiss Viktor: A baloldaliság „kísértetei”. Budapest, Új Mandátum Kiadó, 2004.
Kiss Viktor: Leértékelt társadalom. Budapest, Új Mandátum Kiadó, 2009.
Kiss Viktor: Kritikai gondolkodás és politika. Világosság, 2006/6–7.
Kiss Viktor: Hét kérdés az Indymédián. Indymedia.hu, 2010. áperilis 9.
Kiss Viktor: Előszó. Művelődéselmélet szöveggyűjtemény. Bevezetés a kritikai gondolkodásba. Budapest, Zsigmond Király Főiskola, 2007.
Kiss Viktor: A lázadó- és a forradalmi hatvannyolc. A megkettőzött Marx és a forradalom új öntudata. In: Barcsi Tamás-Szabó Gábor: 68 kísértése. Írások az ellenkultúráról és a diáklázadásokról. Pécs, Jószöveg Műhely Kiadó, 2008.
Kiss Viktor: A hunédszer – a kapitalizmus legitimációs foirdulata és az ifjúság új ideológiái. Kultúra és Közösség, 2005/1-2.
Kiss Viktor: Forradalom és humanizmus, az idős Lukács ideológia-elméletéhez. Köz-politika – Új folyam 5. 2002.
Kiss Viktor: Egy másik marxi elmélet – a politikus és a filozófus marxizmus dialektikája. Eszmélet, 50. 2001.

[1]     Carlsnaes, Walter: The concept of ideology and political analysis: a critical examination of its usage by Marx, Lenin and Mannheim. London. Greenwood Pr., 1981. 23. p.
[2]     Lukes, Steven: Marxism and morality. Oxford; New York.  Oxford University Press, 1988.
[3]     Badiou, Alain: A század. Budapest, Typotex Kiadó, 2009. 90.-91. pp.
(Badiou, Alain: The Century. Budapest, Typotex Publishing, 2009. 90.-91. pp.)
[4]     Musto, Marcello: Korunknak címzett bírálat – Karl Marx újrafelfedezéséhez. Eszmélet, 76.
(Musto, Marcello: Critique addressed to our time – rediscovery of  Karl Marx. Eszmélet, 76.)
[5]     MacDonald, Bradley J.: Performing Marx: Contemporary Negotiations of a Living Tradition. Albany. State University of New York Press, SUNY Series, 2006.
[6]     Balibar Etiene: The Philosophy of Marx. London. Verso, 2007.
[7]     Balogh István-Karácsony András:  Német társadalomelméletek : témák és trendek 1950-től napjainkig. Budapest : Balassi Kiadó, 2000.
(István Balogh-András Karácsony: German concepts of society: themes and trends from 1950 to our days. Budapest: Balassi Publishing, 2000)
[8]     Balogh István: Politikai társadalomelmélet (Vázlat a társadalomelméleti paradigmák történeti változásáról) Politikatudományi Szemle XIX. 2010./1. 31–64. pp.
(István Balogh: Political concept of society (Sketch about the historical change of the paradigms of the concept of society)
Politikatudományi Szemle XIX. 2010./1. 31–64. pp.)