ComradeMan
14th November 2010, 19:02
Found some stuff on various sites and wondered how people feel about post-marxism? Is it progressive or is it dangerously revisionist?
http://libcom.org/library/post-marxism-without-apologies
http://www.marxsite.com/Marxist%20Critique%20of%20Post-Marxism.htm
Components of post-Marxism (from link above)
The intellectual proponents of post-Marxism in most instances are “ex-Marxists” whose point of departure is a “critique” of Marxism and the elaboration of counterpoints to each basic proposition as the basis for attempting to provide an alternative theory or at least a plausible line of analysis. It is possible to more or less synthesise ten basic arguments that are usually found in the post-Marxist discourse:
Socialism was a failure and all “general theories” of societies are condemned to repeat this process. Ideologies are false (except post-Marxism!) because they reflect a world of thought dominated by a single gender/race culture system.
The Marxist emphasis on social class is “reductionist” because classes are dissolving; the principle political points of departure are cultural and rooted in diverse identities (race, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference).
The state is the enemy of democracy and freedom and a corrupt and inefficient deliverer of social welfare. In its place, “civil society” is the protagonist of democracy and social improvement.
Central planning leads to and is a product of bureaucracy which hinders the exchange of goods between producers. Markets and market exchanges, perhaps with limited regulations, allow for greater consumption and more efficient distribution.
The traditional left’s struggle for state power is corrupting and leads to authoritarian regimes which then subordinate civil society to its control. Local struggles over local issues by local organisations are the only democratic means of change, along with petition/pressure on national and international authorities.
Revolutions always end badly or are impossible: social transformations threaten to provoke authoritarian reactions. The alternative is to struggle for and consolidate democratic transitions to safeguard electoral processes.
Class solidarity is part of past ideologies, reflecting earlier politics and realities. Classes no longer exist. There are fragmented “locales” where specific groups (identities) and localities engage in self-help and reciprocal relations for “survival” based on cooperation with external supporters. Solidarity is a cross-class phenomena, a humanitarian gesture.
Class struggle and confrontation does not produce tangible results; it provokes defeats and fails to solve immediate problems. Government and international cooperation around specific projects does result in increases in production and development.
Anti-imperialism is another expression of the past that has outlived its time. In today’s globalised economy, there is no possibility of confronting the economic centres. The world is increasingly interdependent and in this world there is a need for greater international cooperation in transferring capital, technology and know-how from the “rich” to the “poor” countries.
Leaders of popular organisations should not be exclusively oriented toward organising the poor and sharing their conditions. Internal mobilisation should be based on external funding. Professionals should design programmes and secure external financing to organise local groups. Without outside aid, local groups and professional careers would collapse.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/research/gramsci-journal/articles/MikeDonaldson-article_first_issue.pdf
The reason I ask is that I read a lot of the different views here and it reminds me of this quote:-
Baudrillard (1990: 206) in http://econgeog.misc.hit-u.ac.jp/icgg/intl_mtgs/RGSmith.pdf
“ The daughter of the famous Winchester ... heard a prediction that she would
die when her house was completed – just revenge for the thousands of victims
which the only too famous carbine had created in the West over a century.
Then, like Penelope, she began to build a house without end, interminably
adding bedrooms, staircases, annexes. She died in the end, in the 1930s,
leaving behind a monstrous 150-bedroom house as a memorial to the
holocaust of the nineteenth century.”
http://libcom.org/library/post-marxism-without-apologies
http://www.marxsite.com/Marxist%20Critique%20of%20Post-Marxism.htm
Components of post-Marxism (from link above)
The intellectual proponents of post-Marxism in most instances are “ex-Marxists” whose point of departure is a “critique” of Marxism and the elaboration of counterpoints to each basic proposition as the basis for attempting to provide an alternative theory or at least a plausible line of analysis. It is possible to more or less synthesise ten basic arguments that are usually found in the post-Marxist discourse:
Socialism was a failure and all “general theories” of societies are condemned to repeat this process. Ideologies are false (except post-Marxism!) because they reflect a world of thought dominated by a single gender/race culture system.
The Marxist emphasis on social class is “reductionist” because classes are dissolving; the principle political points of departure are cultural and rooted in diverse identities (race, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference).
The state is the enemy of democracy and freedom and a corrupt and inefficient deliverer of social welfare. In its place, “civil society” is the protagonist of democracy and social improvement.
Central planning leads to and is a product of bureaucracy which hinders the exchange of goods between producers. Markets and market exchanges, perhaps with limited regulations, allow for greater consumption and more efficient distribution.
The traditional left’s struggle for state power is corrupting and leads to authoritarian regimes which then subordinate civil society to its control. Local struggles over local issues by local organisations are the only democratic means of change, along with petition/pressure on national and international authorities.
Revolutions always end badly or are impossible: social transformations threaten to provoke authoritarian reactions. The alternative is to struggle for and consolidate democratic transitions to safeguard electoral processes.
Class solidarity is part of past ideologies, reflecting earlier politics and realities. Classes no longer exist. There are fragmented “locales” where specific groups (identities) and localities engage in self-help and reciprocal relations for “survival” based on cooperation with external supporters. Solidarity is a cross-class phenomena, a humanitarian gesture.
Class struggle and confrontation does not produce tangible results; it provokes defeats and fails to solve immediate problems. Government and international cooperation around specific projects does result in increases in production and development.
Anti-imperialism is another expression of the past that has outlived its time. In today’s globalised economy, there is no possibility of confronting the economic centres. The world is increasingly interdependent and in this world there is a need for greater international cooperation in transferring capital, technology and know-how from the “rich” to the “poor” countries.
Leaders of popular organisations should not be exclusively oriented toward organising the poor and sharing their conditions. Internal mobilisation should be based on external funding. Professionals should design programmes and secure external financing to organise local groups. Without outside aid, local groups and professional careers would collapse.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/research/gramsci-journal/articles/MikeDonaldson-article_first_issue.pdf
The reason I ask is that I read a lot of the different views here and it reminds me of this quote:-
Baudrillard (1990: 206) in http://econgeog.misc.hit-u.ac.jp/icgg/intl_mtgs/RGSmith.pdf
“ The daughter of the famous Winchester ... heard a prediction that she would
die when her house was completed – just revenge for the thousands of victims
which the only too famous carbine had created in the West over a century.
Then, like Penelope, she began to build a house without end, interminably
adding bedrooms, staircases, annexes. She died in the end, in the 1930s,
leaving behind a monstrous 150-bedroom house as a memorial to the
holocaust of the nineteenth century.”