Most Important Marxist Thinkers Post-Mao?

[Lee Van Cleef]

I know a few names like Althusser, Zizek, and the like, but I don't really know much about them, or whether they have really made any major contributions to Marxist theory.

So, in order to facilitate the continuing relevancy of Marxist thought in modern times, I think it would be great to create a list of thinkers from the latter half of the twentieth century, up to the present day, who have made significant advances in Marxist theory and it's applications to the present-day. If possible, along with the names, it would be great to also include a brief overview of their most important new ideas and contributions.

Thank you.

[red cat]

The most important one is probably Gonzalo, for recognizing Maoism as the qualitatively highest stage of Marxism so far, and advocating peoples' war as the correct line of revolutionary struggle all over the world as opposed to reformism and tercerismo.

[Widerstand]

If by post-Mao you mean a category of time, then Antonio Negri (and other operaists such as John Holloway or Steve Wright), Guy Debord (and other Situationists, like Raoul Vaneigem), as well as David Harvey and Howard Zinn come to mind.

You could count critical theorists a la Marcuse, Adorno and Horkheimer, too. Maybe even Habermas.

[Sasha]

I would say negri, love dubord but for me he is an bigger influence on my thinking about art than my economical-political.

[red cat]

As the OP said, it will be good to briefly sketch their main contributions.

[Sasha]

Or you can tap them into Wikipedia

[ed miliband]

Would Zinn really count as a Marxist? I thought that his position on Marx was pretty similar to Chomsky's - he might have had some good ideas but ultimately he was "totalitarian" / "authoritarian".

[Widerstand]

Would Zinn really count as a Marxist? I thought that his position on Marx was pretty similar to Chomsky's - he might have had some good ideas but ultimately he was "totalitarian" / "authoritarian".

I'm not too sure on Zinn and Harvey to be honest.

[scarletghoul]

The Nepali revolutionaries, centred around Prachanda, have made practical advances which are ongoing and still developing. Though I do not know of any major theoretical works by them.

The Black Panthers made some very important contributions and advances in theory and practise of revolutionary communism. They led the most successful revolutionary movement in the modern first world so I am convinced there are important lessons to be learned from studying them. Technically they were not 'post-Mao' but you know what I mean. They built an organisation that deeply rooted itself in urban communities, mobilised the USA's huge lumpenproletariat, explored the use of violence both above ground and underground, and analysed the global situation with the US empire etc. Huey P Newton was the Party's chief theoretician, and his work should be read by everyone as far as I'm concerned. Aside from his obvious practical contributions, another important idea of his is Intercommunalism, which he elaborates on in a number of texts in the early 70s, and which has become more and more relevant since. I also like his idea of 'revolutionary suicide' and think its a great psychosocial concept for today's alienated youth. George Jackson is worth reading too.

I think a distinction must be made between 'advances' and 'contributions'. There have been many contributions but few advances. Althusser and Zizek have both contributed to Marxist theory but not really advanced it qualitatively.. Althusser tried to defend Marxism philosophically and enrich our understanding of it, he also came up with structuralist ideas like the 'ideological state apparatus'. Zizek uses a Marxist understanding of things combined with Lacanian and Hegelian ideas to analyse the contemporary world and its culture and ideology. Definitely worth reading.

Badiou is pretty interesting and has some prestige, though I do not yet understand him.

[Sosa]

I'm not too sure on Zinn and Harvey to be honest.

Harvey is a self-described Marxist last time I checked

[Widerstand]

Harvey is a self-described Marxist last time I checked

He made a Marxist analysis of Gentrification as far I know. I said I'm not sure because I've never read a full work or interview of either.

[Ravachol]

- Negri (in his pre-Empire/Multitude years) together with Oreste Scalzone, Franco Piperno. Class Composition, the primacy of resistance before reaction and re-establishing the idea of communism as a living movement are all important ideas.

- Gilles Dauvé, especially his texts 'Eclipse and Re-emergence of the Communist Movement' as well as the reviving of the idea of communization.

- Freddy Perlman, especially his text 'the reproduction of daily life'

- Paul Mattick as a neo-councilist.

- Contemporary groups like: Aufheben, TPTG, Theorie Communiste, Kamunist Kranti, Kampsa Tillsammens

[Red Commissar]

He made a Marxist analysis of Gentrification as far I know. I said I'm not sure because I've never read a full work or interview of either.

David Harvey is a Marxist afaik, but I'm not sure if he can be considered to be the most important. I remember watching an interesting lecture of his on the current economic crisis and he approached it from a Marxist perspective. He's more important though I think by showing that a Marxist perspective is still relevant in modern day for many fields, despite pundits who say Marxism is a dead and irrelevant ideology.

Howard Zinn is definitely not a Marxist thinker though. He leans more towards Anarchism, but I generally put him in the same category of American radicals such as Chomsky. Though in his younger days he seemed to have tinkered with Marxism for awhile.

[Os Cangaceiros]

- Freddy Perlman, especially his text 'the reproduction of daily life'

I don't think that Perlman was a Marxist, was he?

[Ravachol]

I don't think that Perlman was a Marxist, was he?

Well, Perlman translated works by Rubin, Camatte and Debord. Despite being closer to Anarchism, his theories and analysis are heavily indebted to Marxism. The same goes for Autonomism (especially the movement of '77), for example. Drawing the line between 'Anarchism' and some currents of libertarian Marxism gets pretty hard at times when the question of the State or the primacy of domination vs. exploitation isn't discussed.

[Sixiang]

Harvey is a self-described Marxist last time I checked

I'm pretty sure he is a Marxist. He's definitely critical of capitalism and talks about Marx in a positive light.

Well, here's a quote from him that makes me think he is self-described:


You suddenly find yourself called a Marxist. I had no idea what a Marxist was and I really didn't care too much initially. But suddenly, just because you're reading the book and taking it seriously, and you want to know more about how to understand the world through these lenses, you suddenly find yourself in this political corner. After a bit you say, 'Oh well I guess if that's who I am, then that's who I am."

"the book" is Capital.

[Devrim]

I don't think that Perlman was a Marxist, was he?

Yes, self described as the dailies would say.


Drawing the line between 'Anarchism' and some currents of libertarian Marxism gets pretty hard at times when the question of the State or the primacy of domination vs. exploitation isn't discussed.

Libertarian Marxism is a description used by anarchists to describe marxists they like.

Devrim

[ZeroNowhere]

I tend not to hold the Frankfurt School in high regard, except for Henryk Grossman. On the other hand, I'm not sure to what extent Grossman is post-Mao, although he's definitely an important thinker. Other than that, the ones that come to mind are Lucio Colletti (although I don't necessarily agree with him as regards Engels) and Paul Mattick Snr. I suppose that Derek Sayer also deserves a place here. In terms of economics, probably Kliman, Freeman and the rest of the TSSI school, with Kliman also being distinguished by his important research on the rate of profit.

[Die Neue Zeit]

On my political list are Paul Cockshott and his immediate co-thinkers, as well as the likes of Mike Macnair (when not contributing to law and legal frameworks himself). I don't hold the philosophers in high regard.

The likes of Kliman would have been OK had their politics been less loopy (i.e., not "workers councils" tirades but on steroids).

[penguinfoot]

The most important one is probably Gonzalo, for recognizing Maoism as the qualitatively highest stage of Marxism so far, and advocating peoples' war as the correct line of revolutionary struggle all over the world as opposed to reformism and tercerismo.

How exactly are Mao or Gonzalo major Marxist theorists? I'll admit to a fondness for Les Maos, but largely for reasons that have nothing to do with Mao himself. If you're going to try and present a Maoist as a major Marxist theorist, go for someone like Samir Amin, not a cult leader like Gonzalo.

*******

As for other theorists who have been raised in this thread, I would question whether the Frankfurt School and Hardt/Negri are Marxist theorists in a meaningful sense, not because I think they're not interesting and insightful theorists (they are, and they're different from Mao in that respect, who is not insightful) but because I'm struggling to see whether it is possible to put all of them into the Marxist tradition in a straightforward and unproblematic way, mainly because they are all characterized by the belief that the working class alone can no longer function as the main vehicle of social transformation. Marcuse was of the view that the working class had been co-opted by the development of modern consumer society, this being a development that he saw as being more or less common to the whole of the developed world, including the Soviet Union, and that, because of this development, the focus of revolutionary strategy had to shift towards the lumpenproletariat, the institutionalized, and other disenfranchised groups, including Third World liberation movements, due to these groups being excluded from the co-opting mechanisms that otherwise help to integrate individuals into the status quo, whereas Hardt/Negri, as is well-known, subsume the working class within the multitude, which, to the extent that they define it with any degree of precision or consistency, is an amorphous and shifting coalition of different strata, thereby depriving it of any leading strategic role - and yet it was precisely Marx's ability to recognize the strategic importance of the working class, and to articulate this importance in terms other than the working class simply being the most numerous or the most suffering class, that allowed him to distinguish himself from other elements of the socialist tradition, above all utopian socialism. I suppose the question is: can you reject the strategic importance of the working class and still be legitimately considered a Marxist?

I think Draper deserves a mention, and I agree that Sayer and Colletti are also highly important. I think Blackledge is also significant due to his re-articulation of historical materialism.

[Amphictyonis]

We're the most important thinkers.

[28350]

The most important one is probably Gonzalo, for recognizing Maoism as the qualitatively highest stage of Marxism so far, and advocating peoples' war as the correct line of revolutionary struggle all over the world as opposed to reformism and tercerismo.

What's tercerismo?

[ZeroNowhere]

We're the most important thinkers.
You're not.

:closedeyes:

[red cat]

What's tercerismo?

Small group of guerrilla bands enjoying popular support, but not mass-participation, seizing power.

[Hit The North]

The most important one is probably Gonzalo, for recognizing Maoism as the qualitatively highest stage of Marxism so far, and advocating peoples' war as the correct line of revolutionary struggle all over the world as opposed to reformism and tercerismo.

I wouldn't consider Mao to be important as a Marxist theorist, as much of his thinking was banal. He was massively important as a revolutionary leader, adapting novel approaches to the circumstances he operated in.

But for Gonzalo to argue that Maoism represents the "qualitatively highest stage of Marxism" is nonsense and requires that we generalise Mao's theory and practice to all conditions, irrespective of their location in time and space, which is, of course, the basis of dogmatism.

As for who the most important Marxist theorists have been since Mao, it is somewhat of a scholastic question; and one that cannot be proved beyond mere opinion.

[red cat]

I wouldn't consider Mao to be important as a Marxist theorist, as much of his thinking was banal. He was massively important as a revolutionary leader, adapting novel approaches to the circumstances he operated in.

But for Gonzalo to argue that Maoism represents the "qualitatively highest stage of Marxism" is nonsense and requires that we generalise Mao's theory and practice to all conditions, irrespective of their location in time and space, which is, of course, the basis of dogmatism.

As for who the most important Marxist theorists have been since Mao, it is somewhat of a scholastic question; and one that cannot be proved beyond mere opinion.

There are certain aspects of Maoism which are globally applicable. The most prominent among them is a series of revolutions till communism is reached.

[Amphictyonis]

You're not.

:closedeyes:

Yes you are :) The working class isn't so stupid as to not be able to read Marx/Engels in order to figure it out ourselves. Especially in the west with access to education and internet (albeit capitalist education).

[Hit The North]

There are certain aspects of Maoism which are globally applicable. The most prominent among them is a series of revolutions till communism is reached.

So after the working class have overthrown the rule of capital, what other revolutions should follow according to Mao, and through what magical insight was he privy to the conditions in which future revolutions would take place?

[bailey_187]

So after the working class have overthrown the rule of capital, what other revolutions should follow according to Mao, and through what magical insight was he privy to the conditions in which future revolutions would take place?

whats even the point in this? You know you both have a massive disagreement on the class nature of the Chinese revolution so u cant really discuss Mao's contributions to Marxism

[chegitz guevara]

All of you are clearly counter-revolutionary Trotskyite revisionists. It should be obvious to all that Robert Avakian is the most important Marxist thinker Evar!!!111!!!!!!!

[Hit The North]

whats even the point in this? You know you both have a massive disagreement on the class nature of the Chinese revolution so u cant really discuss Mao's contributions to Marxism

The point is that red cat is making universalistic claims for Mao's approach and I'm interrogating them.

It's called a debate, mate. :)

[red cat]

So after the working class have overthrown the rule of capital, what other revolutions should follow according to Mao, and through what magical insight was he privy to the conditions in which future revolutions would take place?

As a vanguard party is maintained until communism is reached, there is always the risk of that party becoming bureaucratized, which would result in capitalist restoration. Mao had witnessed capitalist restoration in the USSR and similar counter-revolutionary elements rising within the CPC itself.

I think the posts related to this debate should be moved to a separate thread.

[Palingenisis]

The point is that red cat is making universalistic claims for Mao's approach and I'm interrogating them.

It's called a debate, mate. :)

Read Mao's four philosophical essays...Especially the one on contradiction. Also his work on the mass line (among other things). Its simply silly to say that Mao's work was not of universal significance.

[RED DAVE]

The most important one is probably Gonzalo, for recognizing Maoism as the qualitatively highest stage of Marxism so far, and advocating peoples' war as the correct line of revolutionary struggle all over the world as opposed to reformism and tercerismo.:eek:

Maoist thought is extremely important: if you want to know how to establish capitalism in a third-world country. :D

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

The led the most successful revolutionary movement in the modern first world so I am convinced there are important lessons to be learned from studying them.Considering that they suystematically avoided the working class, and never had more than about 1000 members, that's an iffy statement at best. What's certain is that they got a lot of attention in the Press.


Technically they were not 'post-Mao' but you know what I mean.Actually, rhetoric aside, they weren't Marxists at all.


They built an organisation that deeply rooted itself in urban communitiesIt is extremely arguable how deeply rooted they were. For example, in New York, which had by far the largest black population in the United States, they had virtually no presence whatsoever.

[The Panthers] mobilised the USA's huge lumpenproletariat[.]Again very arguable as to exactly how much mobilization they actually accomplished.


[They] explored the use of violence both above ground and underground, and analysed the global situation with the US empire etc.Most of what they said was already in the air in the US in black and white circles. The Panthers showed a distressing opportunistic tendency to move from strategy to strategy, ideology to ideology.


Huey P Newton was the Party's chief theoretician, and his work should be read by everyone as far as I'm concerned. Aside from his obvious practical contributions, another important idea of his is Intercommunalism, which he elaborates on in a number of texts in the early 70s, and which has become more and more relevant since. I also like his idea of 'revolutionary suicide' and think its a great psychosocial concept for today's alienated youth. George Jackson is worth reading too.No argument that Newton, Jackson, even Cleaver, are worth reading. But how relevant they are to Marxism and political organizing in the US is arguable.

Personally, and organizationally, I had a fair amount of contact with the Panthers and other revolutionary black organizations. It is absolutely clear, from a Marxist point of view, that the Panthers rejected organizing in the working class and, instead, substituted either a classless notion of "community organizing" or actively tried to organize the lumpenproletariat.

[B]RED DAVE

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Most recently, there are two works by The Invisible Committee, an anonymous French group, that have been highly influential: The Call and The Coming Insurrection. The former is an elaboration of their idea of the party - not as in a formal organization, but in the french sense of the tendency, or social force - the party of insurrection. It sketches out their ideas on building the party, and ties in nicely to TCI - something of an inflammatory rant sketching out the necessity of autonomous insurrectionary communist practice and the immediate forming of communes. Both are pretty readable (as far as French communist theory goes), and are available online.
The Invisible Committee owe pretty obvious debts to Agamben (Italian philosopher) and Debord. The former is incredibly dense, but, I've been told basically says: (a) Law operates on the basis of its exceptions, and the power of the sovreign to dictate the limits of the law (thus, the inherent limits of law/democracy/etc.), and (b) the coming communities will be based on the realization of whatever-subjectivity (the realization of the common kernal of subjectivity that exists beyond the specificities of various identities/subject-positions). The latter also has his dense moments, but doesn't require a grasp of Greek or Latin - Debord elaborates the concept of the spectacle wherein relations between people are increasingly replaced by relationships between commodities to the point that reality is experienced as the commodity relationship. It's kinda like a filling-out of the ideas of commodity fetishism and alienation for the era of more truely "mass" society. Think Baudrillard + revolutionary commitments.

Also, the latest batch of CrimethInc. theory represents an incredible leap from their earlier "Ride freight trains! Never wear deoderant!" era of writings. Expect Resistance is an artistic triumph, as well as containing some penetrating insights, and their level of serious on-the-ground involvement in struggle lends an urgency to a lot of their writings. The short "Fighting On The New Terrain", in particular, certainly warrants a close reading.

[Hit The North]

Read Mao's four philosophical essays...Especially the one on contradiction. Also his work on the mass line (among other things). Its simply silly to say that Mao's work was not of universal significance.

I have a better idea. Why don't you save me the bother and outline the essential universalistic truth of Mao's thinking.

[Hit The North]

As a vanguard party is maintained until communism is reached, there is always the risk of that party becoming bureaucratized, which would result in capitalist restoration. Mao had witnessed capitalist restoration in the USSR and similar counter-revolutionary elements rising within the CPC itself.


Is it at all Marxist (or even socialist) to argue that the vanguard party is maintained until communism is reached? We might find it in Mao's writing, but we won't find it in either Marx's or Engels' or Lenin's. In this sense - if this is actually Mao's position - he is a revisionist. Besides, the bureaucracy arises on the basis of the expropriation of the working class from control over the means of production and exchange and proceeds towards the elimination of workers political democracy.

[mosfeld]

Considering that they suystematically avoided the working class, and never had more than about 1000 members, that's an iffy statement at best.


[...] Membership reached 5,000 and their newspaper, under the editorial leadership of Eldridge Cleaver, had a circulation of 250,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party

[bailey_187]

The point is that red cat is making universalistic claims for Mao's approach and I'm interrogating them.

It's called a debate, mate. :)

yeah but to debate whether or not Mao's theory of class struggle continuing under socialism is correct u will need to agree that Maoist China was socialist, which u dont, so whats the point

[RED DAVE]

I have a better idea. Why don't you save me the bother and outline the essential universalistic truth of Mao's thinking.SUMMARY: There is no universal truth in Mao's thinking. :D

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

All of you are clearly counter-revolutionary Trotskyite revisionists. It should be obvious to all that Robert Avakian is the most important Marxist thinker Evar!!!111!!!!!!!Bob is actually Mao's secret love child with Anna Louise Strong

RED DAVE

[red cat]

Is it at all Marxist (or even socialist) to argue that the vanguard party is maintained until communism is reached? We might find it in Mao's writing, but we won't find it in either Marx's or Engels' or Lenin's. In this sense - if this is actually Mao's position - he is a revisionist.

By the same logic, since we don't find the mention of many concepts and conclusions that Lenin came up with, the vanguard party itself for example, along with democratic centralism, labour aristocracy etc, in Marx's works, Lenin was also a revisionist.


Besides, the bureaucracy arises on the basis of the expropriation of the working class from control over the means of production and exchange and proceeds towards the elimination of workers political democracy.

Yes. The goal is to prevent that from happening.

[Hit The North]

By the same logic, since we don't find the mention of many concepts and conclusions that Lenin came up with, the vanguard party itself for example, along with democratic centralism, labour aristocracy etc, in Marx's works, Lenin was also a revisionist.


Maybe so, although I think you're overstressing the novelty of many of Lenin's ideas, which have their roots in the Second International. But there's a difference between developing the core ideas of Marxism and running contrary to basic principle. The idea that you attribute to Mao, that socialism will be built by the vanguard and not directly by the proletariat - that is, socialism from above, rather than from below - runs contrary to Marxism.

As does the central issue here, which is your assertion that a political strategy (Mao's) can be universally applied to the whole world.


Yes. The goal is to prevent that from happening.


And yet Mao didn't prevent this - and neither did his ideas when taken up by others. So what now, for Mao's "qualitatively highest stage of Marxism"?

[RED DAVE]

Besides, the bureaucracy arises on the basis of the expropriation of the working class from control over the means of production and exchange and proceeds towards the elimination of workers political democracy.
Yes. The goal is to prevent that from happening.Maoists/Stalinists are not good at that considering that the Maoist/Stalinist parties are the basis of bureaucratic rule over the working class.

RED DAVE

[Hit The North]

yeah but to debate whether or not Mao's theory of class struggle continuing under socialism is correct u will need to agree that Maoist China was socialist, which u dont, so whats the point

Not at all. If red cat is correct and Mao's strategy can be universally applied, it doesn't matter on how we view China, as it would make sense in any context. The question isn't the nature of China, it is whether the idea of a centralised state exhorting the masses to cultural revolution or a political oligarchy acting as the self-appointed constructors of communism makes any sense within the tradition of Marxism.

[red cat]

Maybe so, although I think you're overstressing the novelty of many of Lenin's ideas, which have their roots in the Second International. But there's a difference between developing the core ideas of Marxism and running contrary to basic principle. The idea that you attribute to Mao, that socialism will be built by the vanguard and not directly by the proletariat - that is, socialism from above, rather than from below - runs contrary to Marxism.

Then so do Lenin's ideas. The very need of a vanguard party arises from the fact that the proletariat needs a vanguard party to win the revolutionary war and construct socialism.


As does the central issue here, which is your assertion that a political strategy (Mao's) can be universally applied to the whole world.The universal nature of Maoism is quite logical. Revolutionary struggles must go on till all remnants of the class structure have been eliminated.


And yet Mao didn't prevent this - and neither did his ideas when taken up by others. So what now, for Mao's "qualitatively highest stage of Marxism"?As far as I know, the liberated zones of central India have been holding out against imperialist attacks for the last three decades, and haven't suffered any capitalist restorations from within either.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bailey:


whats even the point in this? You know you both have a massive disagreement on the class nature of the Chinese revolution so u cant really discuss Mao's contributions to Marxism

Well, we already know that Mao was a rubbish theorist:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mao-zedong-t121784/index4.html

So, he does not even make the bottom of reserve list of leading Marxist theorists.

[Hit The North]

Then so do Lenin's ideas. The very need of a vanguard party arises from the fact that the proletariat needs a vanguard party to win the revolutionary war and construct socialism.


The theory of the vanguard is based on the idea that, on this side of the revolution, the working class has uneven consciousness and therefore a vanguard of the most class conscious workers needs to be organised. As far as I know, nowhere does Lenin argue that the working class need a vanguard on the other side of a successful workers revolution.


The universal nature of Maoism is quite logical. Revolutionary struggles must go on till all remnants of the class structure have been eliminated.
This is just common sense. In what sense is it a unique contribution of Mao Tse Tung? The only innovation is that he, according to you, argues that this is the task of the centralised state, rather than the armed and organised working class.


As far as I know, the liberated zones of central India have been holding out against imperialist attacks for the last three decades, and haven't suffered any capitalist restorations from within either.So we move from the un-Marxist shibboleth of "socialism in one country" to the even more absurd formulation of "socialism in one territory"? Even more absurd, these territories of "socialism" are not characterised by their advanced industrial mode of production and burgeoning cities but by their dense forestation and rural villages. The only thing these territories are "liberated" from is economic development. This gets more unMarxist by the minute!

[red cat]

The theory of the vanguard is based on the idea that, on this side of the revolution, the working class has uneven consciousness and therefore a vanguard of the most class conscious workers needs to be organised. As far as I know, nowhere does Lenin argue that the working class need a vanguard on the other side of a successful workers revolution.

So why didn't Lenin dissolve the CP after 1917 ?




This is just common sense. In what sense is it a unique contribution of Mao Tse Tung?Every scientific proposal is common sense. Just that we can't deduce them before someone makes the statement and possibly proves it.


The only innovation is that he, according to you, argues that this is the task of the centralised state, rather than the armed and organised working class.This has nothing to do with my post at least.


So we move from the un-Marxist shibboleth of "socialism in one country" to the even more absurd formulation of "socialism in one territory"? Even more absurd, these territories of "socialism" are not characterised by their advanced industrial mode of production and burgeoning cities but by their dense forestation and rural villages. The only thing these territories are "liberated" from is economic development. This gets more unMarxist by the minute!1) Socialism in one country is not un-"Marxist", it is just un-"Trotskyite". If you want to prove that it is un-Marxist, then do so in one of the dozens of threads named after it.

2) Socialism is not characterized by "advanced industrial" mode of production or burgeoning cities. It is characterized by the relations of production involved.

3) This one :
The only thing these territories are "liberated" from is economic development.
Strikingly similar to the most right-wing anti communist statements in India. Please prove your claim, otherwise you will establish yourself as a disguised right-winger. First of all explain how the liberation of these territories contributed to the halt of economic development there, and what sort of economic development was going on there before they were liberated. In details please. Either do this or withdraw your statement.

[el_chavista]

What do you think about Michael Lebowitz (professor emeritus of economics at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, and the author of Beyond Capital: Marx’s Political Economy of the Working Class, winner of the Isaac Deutscher Memorial Prize for 2004, and Build It Now: Socialism for the Twenty-First Century. He is Director, Program in Transformative Practice and Human Development, Centro Internacional Miranda, in Caracas, Venezuela) dealing with the workers side of Das Kapital analysis?


That book [Das Kapital] looks at things from the side of capital and not from the side of the working class. It articulates and develops the goal and impulse of capital, its drive for surplus value, but it does not articulate and develop the alternative goal, what Marx called the worker's own need for development.

Thus, we can see that there is a whole set of alternative categories which are not developed which we need to think about. The concept of productive labour introduced, for example, is productive labour for capital -- labour which produces surplus value. What is not explored is productive labour for the worker -- labour which supports the education, health and the nurturing of human beings, and which aids in the development of human capacities. The concept of wealth introduced is wealth from the perspective of capital -- an accumulation of commodities, an accumulation of money. What is not considered, though, is wealth from the perspective of workers -- the full development of their capacities, the creation of what Marx called rich human beings.

However, we do get little glimpses of that alternative political economy of which Marx spoke -- the political economy of the working class, the political economy which points to a society in which people are able to develop all their capacities. In that society, ``all means for the development of production’’ do not cripple workers and turn them into fragments of human beings, ``alienated from the intellectual potentialities of the labour process’’. That is a society in which productive forces are not infected by capital's need to divide workers; that is a society in which ``the original sources of wealth’’, human beings and nature, are not destroyed because they are only means to capital's goal.
...
Here, then, is what I call the key link -- human development and practice. People transform themselves through their activity. The particular kind of activity in which people function within capitalism produces a particular kind of person: when you work under capital's direction for capital's goal, you are capital's product. Understand this key link, and you recognise that the full development of human capacities cannot occur without producers functioning as collective subjects under their own direction with their own goals. This concept of the key link of human development and practice, which is Marx's concept of revolutionary practice, thus points to the importance for the development of socialist human beings of democratic practices and protagonism at the level of neighbourhoods, communities, workplaces and society as a whole. It points to the necessity for the simultaneous development of socialist productive forces and socialist human beings -- that concept of which Che Guevara spoke.

Can we have the full development of human capacities without protagonism? Without democracy from below? I suggest that Karl Marx speaks to us today and that he is very relevant to the reality we face -- the task of going beyond capital and building socialism for the 21st century.http://links.org.au/node/921

[RED DAVE]

What do you think about Michael Lebowitz (professor emeritus of economics at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, and the author of Beyond Capital: Marx’s Political Economy of the Working Class, winner of the Isaac Deutscher Memorial Prize for 2004, and Build It Now: Socialism for the Twenty-First Century. He is Director, Program in Transformative Practice and Human Development, Centro Internacional Miranda, in Caracas, Venezuela) dealing with the workers side of Das Kapital analysis?

http://links.org.au/node/921Sounds like he just discovered that Marxism is about socialism.

RED DAVE

[Hit The North]

So why didn't Lenin dissolve the CP after 1917 ?


The revolution didn't end with the seizure of power in October: there was also the small matter of a civil war to fight. After that, the reconstruction of Russia which was necessary and the failure of the international revolution, meant that centralisation was perhaps necessary. But given Lenin died in 1924, we do not know if he would have endorsed the central, single party state as a normal part of a socialist society (as Stalin and his successors did). But I don't want to get into that here. What I would say is that what the Bolsheviks were forced to adopt by the circumstances, was later turned into dogma by later figures.


1) Socialism in one country is not un-"Marxist", it is just un-"Trotskyite". If you want to prove that it is un-Marxist, then do so in one of the dozens of threads named after it. Then why did Marx and Engels decide there needed to be an absolute commitment to founding a workers international? Why, in the April Theses, did Lenin call for the urgent convocation of a new international? I guess the answer lies in the resolutions of the 7th (April) All-Russian Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.) where Lenin writes:


The Russian revolution is only the first stage of the first of the proletarian revolutions which are the inevitable result of war.

... Operating as it does in one of the most backward countries of Europe amidst a vast population of small peasants, the proletariat of Russia cannot aim at immediately putting into effect socialist changes.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/7thconf/29h.htm#v24zz99h-309-GUESS


2) Socialism is not characterized by "advanced industrial" mode of production or burgeoning cities. It is characterized by the relations of production involved. Wrong. The peasant commune or the tribal society may have similar relations of production - that is, common ownership over the means of production - but these are not socialist. Socialism - at least for Marxists - demands that the means of production reach a higher stage than those of capitalism. This must be the material condition in which the relations persist.


3) This one : Strikingly similar to the most right-wing anti communist statements in India. Please prove your claim, otherwise you will establish yourself as a disguised right-winger. First of all explain how the liberation of these territories contributed to the halt of economic development there, and what sort of economic development was going on there before they were liberated. In details please. Either do this or withdraw your statement.
Actually, I do take back the claim as it was unfortunately formulated, conceding to the notion that these areas were being developed by the Indian capitalism when they were not. For all I know, the Maoists might have improved the conditions of the people and modernized agricultural production. But this is a far cry from calling these territories socialist and there is little evidence that they could become so in isolation.

[red cat]

The revolution didn't end with the seizure of power in October: there was also the small matter of a civil war to fight. After that, the reconstruction of Russia which was necessary and the failure of the international revolution, meant that centralisation was perhaps necessary. But given Lenin died in 1924, we do not know if he would have endorsed the central, single party state as a normal part of a socialist society (as Stalin and his successors did). But I don't want to get into that here. What I would say is that what the Bolsheviks were forced to adopt by the circumstances, was later turned into dogma by later figures.

Similar circumstances are bound to occur after every revolution. The bourgeoisie won't leave the proletariat in peace after the initial victory. It has to be suppressed to the point of extinction as a class.


Then why did Marx and Engels decide there needed to be an absolute commitment to founding a workers international? Why, in the April Theses, did Lenin call for the urgent convocation of a new international? I guess the answer lies in the resolutions of the 7th (April) All-Russian Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.) where Lenin writes:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/7thconf/29h.htm#v24zz99h-309-GUESSTo me it seems that Lenin was using socialism to refer to communism in that article, because he does not give any concrete reasons why socialism cannot be constructed in one country.


Wrong. The peasant commune or the tribal society may have similar relations of production - that is, common ownership over the means of production - but these are not socialist. Socialism - at least for Marxists - demands that the means of production reach a higher stage than those of capitalism. This must be the material condition in which the relations persist.Do you seriously mean that an ancient peasant commune or tribal society is holding out against the mighty Indian state ?


Actually, I do take back the claim as it was unfortunately formulated, conceding to the notion that these areas were being developed by the Indian capitalism when they were not. For all I know, the Maoists might have improved the conditions of the people and modernized agricultural production. But this is a far cry from calling these territories socialist and there is little evidence that they could become so in isolation.Thank you for taking the claim back. If you mean socialism in the classical Marxist sense, which is identical to communism, then these are not socialist. But as far as the properties of the intermediate stages ( that we collectively call socialism ) between capitalism and communism are concerned, these do display a great many of them.

[Hit The North]

Similar circumstances are bound to occur after every revolution. The bourgeoisie won't leave the proletariat in peace after the initial victory. It has to be suppressed to the point of extinction as a class.


The circumstacnes in Russia occured because of two decisive factors: firstly, the backward conditions of Russia and, secondly, the international isolation of the revolution. These factors are not endemic or inevitable to workers revolution.


To me it seems that Lenin was using socialism to refer to communism in that article, because he does not give any concrete reasons why socialism cannot be constructed in one country.
But it is more likely that in accordance with 2nd international usage he was referring to socialism as the lowest stage of communism. Elsewhere, he gives concrete reasons why it can't be built in an isolated Russia.


Do you seriously mean that an ancient peasant commune or tribal society is holding out against the mighty Indian state ? This is a strange question to ask. Have I suggested anything of the sort? Nevertheless, history is crowded with examples of people in lower modes of production resisting the encroachment of higher modes of production: the Germanic tribes holding out against the Romans; the Zulu against the British; the Sioux against the Americans. The question is how long the resistance can be maintained. Besides, I'm not even claiming that the liberated zones represent a different mode of production from Indian capital - that is your argument. My comparison between the liberated zones with tribal society and the peasant commune was analagous, and used to demonstrate a point about relations of production taken in isolation from the material means of production.

[red cat]

The circumstacnes in Russia occured because of two decisive factors: firstly, the backward conditions of Russia and, secondly, the international isolation of the revolution. These factors are not endemic or inevitable to workers revolution.

Maoists do not consider the world revolution taking place at once in all countries, or the revolutions in developed countries preceding those in developing countries as a logical possibility. So, yes; the conjecture that the vanguard party will be maintained till communism might be subject to these constraints.


But it is more likely that in accordance with 2nd international usage he was referring to socialism as the lowest stage of communism. Elsewhere, he gives concrete reasons why it can't be built in an isolated Russia.What do you mean by the lowest stage of communism ? Communism is a classless society and it would require the dissolution of the state. Clearly this is not possible without revolutions happening in every country. But I do not see how and where Lenin shows that the transitional stage between capitalism and communism cannot be achieved without the world revolution.


This is a strange question to ask. Have I suggested anything of the sort? Nevertheless, history is crowded with examples of people in lower modes of production resisting the encroachment of higher modes of production: the Germanic tribes holding out against the Romans; the Zulu against the British; the Sioux against the Americans. The question is how long the resistance can be maintained. Besides, I'm not even claiming that the liberated zones represent a different mode of production from Indian capital - that is your argument. My comparison between the liberated zones with tribal society and the peasant commune was analagous, and used to demonstrate a point about relations of production taken in isolation from the material means of production.These examples cannot be compared to the modern situation. Any such primitive society would be defeated by the smallest of states within days at present.

[Hit The North]

Maoists do not consider the world revolution taking place at once in all countries, or the revolutions in developed countries preceding those in developing countries as a logical possibility. So, yes; the conjecture that the vanguard party will be maintained till communism might be subject to these constraints.

No one's talking about world revolution taking place all at once. Nevertheless, the global nature of capitalism necessarily means that the crises which underpin revolution will be generalised internationally. As for where it happens first, it is a big claim to say that something is a "logical impossibility", but this is more evidence of the dogmatic nature of Maoism, I suppose.


These examples cannot be compared to the modern situation. Any such primitive society would be defeated by the smallest of states within days at present.

Again, you seem to be missing the point of my analogy. But, anyway, I draw your attention to the failing imperialist plans of the super-massive USA in Afghanistan. How long have they been there, attempting to subdue the Taliban? Perhaps you will now argue that the successful resistance of the Taliban must mean that they represent a higher mode of production than the USA?

[red cat]

No one's talking about world revolution taking place all at once. Nevertheless, the global nature of capitalism necessarily means that the crises which underpin revolution will be generalised internationally. As for where it happens first, it is a big claim to say that something is a "logical impossibility", but this is more evidence of the dogmatic nature of Maoism, I suppose.

Or may be that it follows from Lenin's notion of the labour aristocracy.



Again, you seem to be missing the point of my analogy. But, anyway, I draw your attention to the failing imperialist plans of the super-massive USA in Afghanistan. How long have they been there, attempting to subdue the Taliban? Perhaps you will now argue that the successful resistance of the Taliban must mean that they represent a higher mode of production than the USA?

The victory of the Taliban would certainly imply the end of direct colonialism in Afghanistan. Even if that is replaced by something as reactionary as a neo colony, it would be better than what Afghanistan is now. If the Taliban stood for anything worse than direct US imperialism, they would have been defeated long ago.

[el_chavista]

Among the recipients of the Isaac Deutscher prize for best book about Marxism in English language there should be some fine Marxists, eh?


Year


Author



Title


Publisher
2009 D Milonakis and B Fine
From Economics Imperialism to Freakonomics (http://www.routledgeeconomics.com/books/From-Economics-Imperialism-to-Freakonomics-isbn9780415423236)
http://www.deutscherprize.org.uk/Images/MilonakisFine.jpg (http://www.routledgeeconomics.com/books/From-Economics-Imperialism-to-Freakonomics-isbn9780415423236)
Routledge (http://www.routledgeeconomics.com/) 2008 K. Van Der Pijl
Nomads, Empires, States: Modes of Foreign Relations and Political Economy (https://www.plutobooks.com/cgi-local/main.pl)
http://www.deutscherprize.org.uk/Images/Pijl.jpg (https://www.plutobooks.com/cgi-local/main.pl)
Pluto Press (https://www.plutobooks.com/cgi-local/main.pl) 2007 R. Kuhn
Henryk Grossman and the Recovery of Marxism (http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/83sns6qb9780252031076.html)
http://www.deutscherprize.org.uk/Images/Kuhn.jpg (http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/83sns6qb9780252031076.html)
U. of Illinois (http://www.press.uillinois.edu/) 2006 C. Wickham
Framing the Early Middle Ages, Europe and the Mediterranean, 400-800 (http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780199212965)
http://www.deutscherprize.org.uk/Images/wickham.gif (http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780199212965)
OUP (http://www.oup.co.uk/) 2005 K. Murphy
Revolution and Counterrevolution, Class Struggle in a Moscow Metal Factory (http://www.berghahnbooks.com/title.php?rowtag=MurphyRevolution)
http://www.deutscherprize.org.uk/Images/MurphyRevolution.jpg (http://www.berghahnbooks.com/title.php?rowtag=MurphyRevolution)
Berghahn Books (http://www.berghahnbooks.com/) 2004
M. A. Lebowitz
Beyond Capital. Marx's Political Economy of the Working Class (2nd Edition) (http://www.palgrave.com/products/Catalogue.aspx?is=0333964306)

http://www.deutscherprize.org.uk/Images/Lebowitz%20Final.jpg (http://www.palgrave.com/products/Catalogue.aspx?is=0333964306)
Palgrave Macmillan (http://www.palgrave.com/)
2003
(joint award)
N. Davidson Discovering the Scottish Revolution (http://www.plutobooks.com/cgi-local/nplutobrows.pl?chkisbn=0745320538&main=&second=&third=&foo=../ssi/ssfooter.ssi)
http://www.deutscherprize.org.uk/Images/Davidson.jpg (http://www.plutobooks.com/cgi-local/nplutobrows.pl?chkisbn=0745320538&main=&second=&third=&foo=../ssi/ssfooter.ssi)
Pluto (http://www.plutobooks.com/) B. Teschke
The Myth of 1648 (http://www.versobooks.com/books/tuvwxyz/tuv-titles/teschke_b_myth_1648.shtml)

http://www.deutscherprize.org.uk/Images/teschke_b_1648.jpg (http://www.versobooks.com/books/tuvwxyz/tuv-titles/teschke_b_myth_1648.shtml)
Verso (http://www.versobooks.com/)
2002
B. Kelly
Race, Class and Power in the Alabama Coalfields (http://www.press.uillinois.edu/s01/kelly.html)

http://www.deutscherprize.org.uk/Images/Kelly.jpg (http://www.press.uillinois.edu/s01/kelly.html)
U. of Illinois (http://www.press.uillinois.edu/)
2001
J. Holstun
Ehud’s Dagger (http://www.versobooks.com/books/ghij/h-titles/holstun_ehuds_dagger.shtml)

http://www.deutscherprize.org.uk/Images/holstun_ehud.jpg (http://www.versobooks.com/books/ghij/h-titles/holstun_ehuds_dagger.shtml)
Verso (http://www.versobooks.com/)
2000
P. Gowan
The Global Gamble (http://www.versobooks.com/books/ghij/g-titles/gowan_global.shtml)

http://www.deutscherprize.org.uk/Images/gowan_global_gamble.gif (http://www.versobooks.com/books/ghij/g-titles/gowan_global.shtml)
Verso (http://www.versobooks.com/)
1999
F. Wheen
Karl Marx (http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/books/default.aspx?id=19706&subject=Fourth%20Estate)
Fourth Estate (http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/imprints/default.aspx?subject=Fourth%20Estate)
1998
Not Awarded
1997
R. Blackburn
The Making of New World Slavery (http://www.versobooks.com/books/ab/b-titles/blackburn_making_slavery.shtml)
http://www.deutscherprize.org.uk/Images/blackburn_making.gif (http://www.versobooks.com/books/ab/b-titles/blackburn_making_slavery.shtml) Verso (http://www.versobooks.com/)
1996
D. Sassoon
One Hundred Years of Socialism (http://www.ibtauris.com/ibtauris/display.asp?K=181021307625100&sf_01=CAUTHOR&st_02=One+Hundred+Years+of+Socialism&sf_02=CTITLE&sf_03=KEYWORD&m=1&dc=1)
http://www.deutscherprize.org.uk/Images/Sasoon.jpg (http://www.ibtauris.com/ibtauris/display.asp?K=181021307625100&sf_01=CAUTHOR&st_02=One+Hundred+Years+of+Socialism&sf_02=CTITLE&sf_03=KEYWORD&m=1&dc=1) IB Tauris (http://www.ibtauris.com/)
1995
E.J. Hobsbawm
Age of Extremes (http://www.randomhouse.com/vintage/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780679721758)
http://www.deutscherprize.org.uk/Images/Hobsbawm.png (http://www.randomhouse.com/vintage/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780679721758) M. Joseph
1994
J. Rosenberg
The Empire of Civil Society (http://www.versobooks.com/books/nopqrs/r-titles/rosenberg_empire_civil.shtml)
Verso (http://www.versobooks.com/)
1993
H. Kaye
The Education of Desire
Routledge (http://www.routledge.com/)
1992
I. Gough./L. Doyal
A Theory of Human Need (http://www.palgrave.com/products/catalogue.aspx?is=0333383257)
Macmillan (http://www.palgrave.com/home/index.asp)
1991
M. Davis
City of Quartz (http://www.randomhouse.com/vintage/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780679738060)
http://www.deutscherprize.org.uk/Images/Davis.png (http://www.randomhouse.com/vintage/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780679738060) Verso (http://www.versobooks.com/)
1990
A.J. Mayer
Why Did the Heavens not Darken?
Verso (http://www.versobooks.com/)
1989
T. Eagleton
The Ideology of the Aesthetic (http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/book.asp?ref=0631163026)
Blackwell (http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/)
1988
B. Kagarlitsky
The Thinking Reed
Verso (http://www.versobooks.com/)
1987
T. Shanin
Russia 1905/7 etc.
Macmillan (http://www.palgrave.com/home/index.asp)
1986
E. Meiksins Wood
The Retreat from Class (http://www.versobooks.com/books/tuvwxyz/w-titles/wood_e_retreat_vc.shtml)
http://www.deutscherprize.org.uk/Images/wood_retreat_class.gif (http://www.versobooks.com/books/tuvwxyz/w-titles/wood_e_retreat_vc.shtml) Verso (http://www.versobooks.com/)
1985
R. Brenner
The Brenner Debate (http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521349338)
CUP (http://www.cambridge.org/)
1984
M. Rose
Marx’s Lost Aesthetic (http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521369797)
http://www.deutscherprize.org.uk/Images/Rose.gif (http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521369797) CUP (http://www.cambridge.org/)
1983
B. Taylor
Eve and the New Jerusalem
Virago
1982
G. de Ste Croix
Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World (http://www.duckw.com/academic/title.php?titleissue_id=60)
Duckworth (http://www.duckw.com/)
1981
N. Harding
Lenin’s Political Thought
Macmillan (http://www.palgrave.com/home/index.asp)
1980
B. Rowthorn
Capitalism, Conflict and Inflation
Lawrence & Wishart
1979
G.A. Cohen
Karl Marx’s Theory of History (http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/320.html)
http://www.deutscherprize.org.uk/Images/j320.gif (http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/320.html) OUP (http://www.oup.co.uk/)
1978
R. Bahro
The Alternative in Eastern Europe
NLB
1977
S.S. Prawer
Karl Marx and World Literature
OUP (http://www.oup.co.uk/)
1976
W. Brus
Socialist Ownership and Political Systems
RKP
1975
M. Liebman
Leninism under Lenin (http://www.merlinpress.co.uk/acatalog/EUROPE.html)
http://www.deutscherprize.org.uk/Images/liebman.jpg (http://www.merlinpress.co.uk/acatalog/EUROPE.html) Cape
1974
M. Rodinson
Marxism and Islam
Allen Lane
1973
L. Colletti
From Rousseau to Lenin
NLB
1972
P. Walton/A. Gamble
From Alienation to Surplus Value
Macmillan
1971
Not Awarded
1970
I. Meszaros
Marx’s Theory of Alienation (http://www.merlinpress.co.uk/acatalog/MARX_S_THEORY_OF_ALIENATION.html)
http://www.deutscherprize.org.uk/Images/marxs_theory_alienation.jpg (http://www.merlinpress.co.uk/acatalog/MARX_S_THEORY_OF_ALIENATION.html) Merlin (http://www.merlinpress.co.uk/)
1969
M. Nicolaus
The Unknown Marx
New Left Review

[Zanthorus]

Francis Wheen's biography of Marx is an irritating tabloid style 'expose' of Marx which makes some hilariously false assertions. The only reason I haven't burnt it is it's the only thing I have to hand with any indepth facts about Marx's life. Wheen himself has openly pro-imperialist politics and is in no way, shape or form a 'Marxist'. His being awarded the Deutscher prize is an absolute disgrace.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Killer:


In terms of their impact on Marxism-Leninism, no one has advanced the science to the degree that Mao did.

Except, his core theory does not work (that is, what little sense can be made of it) -- as I have shown:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1957304&postcount=48

So, if anything, he set Marxist theory back a couple of parsecs (http://www.answers.com/topic/parsec).

The other dictators you mention are a collective slur on the workers' movement, so I do not know what they are doing in this thread.

[penguinfoot]

LOL Remember folks, every person who actually made revolutions

Leaving aside the implicit premise that it is actually individual persons who make revolutions, rather than social classes, overturning the relations of production when those relations inhibit the effective growth and utilization of the production forces, would you care to explain in what way individuals like Mao and Castro made revolutions, i.e. what changes in the relations of production occurred as a result of the political movements they led coming to power? What mode of production existed in China before 1949, for example, and what mode of production was it replaced with in the years that followed the victory of the CPC in that year? It's not immediately clear that either Mao or Castro or any other "Marxist-Leninist" leader actually led a social revolution in the Marxist sense, i.e. a revolution that replaced an outdated mode of production with a higher one.


Workers really get a lot out of these dense theory essays

They do - I don't understand why there's a need for sarcasm here. I think workers do get a lot out of essays on philosophy, politics, and economics, because it is "essays" of these kinds that enable them to better understand their place in capitalist society and the historically contingent nature of the capitalist mode of production. As Lenin put it: "it is necessary that the workers do not confine themselves to the artificially restricted limits of “literature for workers” but that they learn to an increasing degree to master general literature. It would be even truer to say “are not confined”, instead of “do not confine themselves”, because the workers themselves wish to read and do read all that is written for the intelligentsia, and only a few (bad) intellectuals believe that it is enough “for workers” to be told a few things about factory conditions and to have repeated to them over and over again what has long been known."

Or do you think that workers are too stupid to understand and debate "dense theory"?

[RATM-Eubie]

I would say Hugo Chavez, Noam Chomsky, or Martin Luther King

[Widerstand]

You think anyone gives two shits, let alone one, about most--or even any--of the shit written on here? Anti-dialectics? Seriously?

Yeah I'm pretty sure the majority of people in the world don't give a fuck about dianetics.

[Ned Kelly]

I would say Hugo Chavez, Noam Chomsky, or Martin Luther King
None are Marxists?