Post-Marxist Discourse Theory

[maskerade]

I'm quite interested in the ideas of a lot of neo/post-marxists, in particular the conception of class as a process that is continuously articulated rather than an essential category of deterministic material and economic forces. Thus I was wondering if someone could point the way toward some good literature on post-marxist (discourse) theory, like Ernesto Laclau, Negri and Hardt, or anyone else who may be considered to be in such a theoretical tradition.

Also anything else that diverts quite markedly from orthodox marxism and structuralist dynamics would be appreciated, as long as it still has some sort of emancipation outlook

[Comrade Jandar]

I'm currently reading Empire by Negri and Hardt, but I assume you are familiar with it.

[maskerade]

I'm currently reading Empire by Negri and Hardt, but I assume you are familiar with it.

I'm waiting for it to be delivered to me, though I suppose i'm familiar with it on a superficial level. I'm quite interested in their conceptualization of the multitude, is this something that is thoroughly described in Empire or something I should look for in the 'sequels'?

[Book O'Dead]

Is that fiction or non-fiction?

[maskerade]

Is that fiction or non-fiction?

the latter.

but considering the work is mostly post-structuralist, maybe it dissolves the violent hierarchy between fiction and non fiction by exposing the underlying political strategies that shape both as rigid objects opposed to each other.

[Jimmie Higgins]

To be frank I find a lot of these ideas to be unconvincing and they haven't held up well over in the short time they've been popular IMO. But I'm interested in hearing what people find attractive about these arguments.


in particular the conception of class as a process that is continuously articulated rather than an essential category of deterministic material and economic forces.

^Do you mind expanding on this a bit?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I've been reading a lot of Tiqqun lately, I feel that a lot of it is intentionally obtuse like most French theory but is rewarding if you keep pushing at it. Check out this thread for a lot of good reading suggestions, http://www.revleft.com/vb/tiqqun-introduction-civil-t171513/index.html

Time For Revolution is a good Negri book, It's a couple of essays that are helpful in understanding some of the ideas he expands upon (poorly imo) in Empire and Multitude.

[maskerade]

To be frank I find a lot of these ideas to be unconvincing and they haven't held up well over in the short time they've been popular IMO. But I'm interested in hearing what people find attractive about these arguments.



^Do you mind expanding on this a bit?

Are you wondering why I find it interesting? I suppose it's because it goes beyond mechanistic explanations of class dynamics. Ownership of private property is perhaps the most significant characteristic of class position/relations, but the condition of a given class and one's belonging to such a class seems to be more complicated than that. i'd contend that as subjects in a capitalist structure our positions are continuously being made aware to us, though not explicitly as oppressed/oppressor but rather through complex hegemonic discourses that serve the ends of the dominant class.

another reason would be that I'm not particularly impressed by certain Marxists obsession with 'the material'. perhaps i'm fundamentally misunderstanding everything, but surely the relations to the means of production are merely a reflective ideation of material conditions. so an owner and a worker can exist, along with the means of production, but the relation that governs the hierarchy between the three does not 'exist', but rather is continuously expressed and articulated in order to ensure its continued functioning.

[Teacher]

You are going down the path of academic masturbation.

[Book O'Dead]

You are going down the path of academic masturbation.

With an emphasis on fictional lubrication.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

If this thread needs anything its a stalinist and a liberal telling us about how irrelevant what we're doing is.

[Book O'Dead]

If this thread needs anything its a stalinist and a liberal telling us about how irrelevant what we're doing is.

Who is "we" and what exactly is it you're "doing"?

[RedMaterialist]

i'd contend that as subjects in a capitalist structure our positions are continuously being made aware to us, though not explicitly as oppressed/oppressor but rather through complex hegemonic discourses that serve the ends of the dominant class.

I think post-structuralism is also interesting as a dialectical project: dissolution of the subject, structure, etc. However the language of post-structuralism is sometimes so dense as to be unreadable. What, for instance, does the above sentence mean, in plain English?

It seems to be saying: The working class is continuously made aware, indirectly and implicitly, that it is a suppressed class. This awareness is imposed by complicated and dominating forms of propaganda and political expression.

Is there a concrete example of this indirect, hegemonic discourse? What about, in the U.S., the television broadcast of professional football games?

Certainly a hegemonic discourse; how do these broadcasts indirectly impose on the working class the awareness that it is suppressed? Is this awareness then subconscious?

[maskerade]

I think post-structuralism is also interesting as a dialectical project: dissolution of the subject, structure, etc. However the language of post-structuralism is sometimes so dense as to be unreadable. What, for instance, does the above sentence mean, in plain English?

It seems to be saying: The working class is continuously made aware, indirectly and implicitly, that it is a suppressed class. This awareness is imposed by complicated and dominating forms of propaganda and political expression.

Is there a concrete example of this indirect, hegemonic discourse? What about, in the U.S., the television broadcast of professional football games?

Certainly a hegemonic discourse; how do these broadcasts indirectly impose on the working class the awareness that it is suppressed? Is this awareness then subconscious?

Sorry, perhaps I lost myself in what I was saying. I meant to say that the discourses serve to strengthen the position of the dominant class. I agree that the phrase I used - 'made aware to us' - is problematic and should be rephrased. I meant more that the position is being flaunted, or displayed, and whether we have conscious knowledge of this is another matter. So, in the football game example, as a hegemonic discourse I'd say it works on multiple levels, perhaps most importantly as a way to establish gendered patterns of behavior and consumption, but maybe also as a way to embellish exclusions (discourses work through the power of exclusion - rival football team fans hate each other? self/other; i don't know this is mostly my own conjecture).

I guess the reason why I find this important - rather than just academic masturbation - is that the rhetoric and language of bourgeoisie politics creates the parameters of 'realistic' political action. The reason why I was asking specifically about post-marxists rather than other post-structuralists is that i'd like to learn more about counter-hegemony and how it relates to dominant discourses, for example. surely one doesn't have to be an academic wanker to see some sort of importance in that?

[Hit The North]

Are you wondering why I find it interesting? I suppose it's because it goes beyond mechanistic explanations of class dynamics. Ownership of private property is perhaps the most significant characteristic of class position/relations, but the condition of a given class and one's belonging to such a class seems to be more complicated than that. i'd contend that as subjects in a capitalist structure our positions are continuously being made aware to us, though not explicitly as oppressed/oppressor but rather through complex hegemonic discourses that serve the ends of the dominant class.

another reason would be that I'm not particularly impressed by certain Marxists obsession with 'the material'. perhaps i'm fundamentally misunderstanding everything, but surely the relations to the means of production are merely a reflective ideation of material conditions. so an owner and a worker can exist, along with the means of production, but the relation that governs the hierarchy between the three does not 'exist', but rather is continuously expressed and articulated in order to ensure its continued functioning.

But there's no reason to suppose that any of this would be news to Marx. Maybe it's at odds with a mechanical interpretation of Marxism, but that's another question.

[maskerade]

But there's no reason to suppose that any of this would be news to Marx. Maybe it's at odds with a mechanical interpretation of Marxism, but that's another question.

True. But the intention of this thread wasn't to exclaim 'AHA something Marx didn't consider!" but rather to find some literature that explores the aforementioned issues in more depth. I'd like to think that solely the works of Marx himself isn't the end all be all of Marxist studies, but rather a springboard from which both better and worse analysis of society can be made.

[L.A.P.]

Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory by Ernesto Laclau is an interesting book. Though I think his rejection of class struggle in favor of "radical democracy" where antagonisms are somehow openly acknowledged is disagreeable, I like Laclau's theory of ideology and antagonism. Antagonism as an impossible-real kernel, a certain limit which is in itself nothing, and which is constructed from a series of its effects, as the traumatic point that prevents a closure of the social field. Laclau is a Lacanian, Foucauldian, and a Derridian but not an obscure writer at all.

[maskerade]

Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory by Ernesto Laclau is an interesting book. Though I think his rejection of class struggle in favor of "radical democracy" where antagonisms are somehow openly acknowledged is disagreeable, I like Laclau's theory of ideology and antagonism. Antagonism as an impossible-real kernel, a certain limit which is in itself nothing, and which is constructed from a series of its effects, as the traumatic point that prevents a closure of the social field. Laclau is a Lacanian, Foucauldian, and a Derridian but not an obscure writer at all.

thanks a lot this is exactly the type of response i was looking for!

[pluckedflowers]

I'm quite interested in the ideas of a lot of neo/post-marxists, in particular the conception of class as a process that is continuously articulated rather than an essential category of deterministic material and economic forces. Thus I was wondering if someone could point the way toward some good literature on post-marxist (discourse) theory, like Ernesto Laclau, Negri and Hardt, or anyone else who may be considered to be in such a theoretical tradition.

Also anything else that diverts quite markedly from orthodox marxism and structuralist dynamics would be appreciated, as long as it still has some sort of emancipation outlook

You seem to be describing one of the central contentions of the historical work of E.P. Thompson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._P._Thompson#The_Making_of_the_English_Working_C lass), though I wouldn't consider him a "neo-" or "post-" Marxist in any meaningful sense.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Who is "we" and what exactly is it you're "doing"?

We would account for just about anyone without a stick up their ass and acknowledging that the year is 2012 and not 1917 is revolutionary enough to account for the what when compared to most leftists. Substitute something witty about the democrats for you and the other liberals hiding out on this site.

[Book O'Dead]

We would account for just about anyone without a stick up their ass and acknowledging that the year is 2012 and not 1917 is revolutionary enough to account for the what when compared to most leftists. Substitute something witty about the democrats for you and the other liberals hiding out on this site.

Um...What?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Um...What?

It was written on a phone but I think it's somewhat coherent. In any case it was dumb and I dont want to pull this off track with a bunch of "your politics are boring" idiocy.

My point was that Stalinists and liberals are not in a position to judge relevancy at this point and I would argue that the vast majority of both groups do nothing but practice academic masturbation, so it's unusual to see that charge leveled. Although I do agree with it in certain circumstances, particularly with Derrida.

[Hit The North]

True. But the intention of this thread wasn't to exclaim 'AHA something Marx didn't consider!" but rather to find some literature that explores the aforementioned issues in more depth. I'd like to think that solely the works of Marx himself isn't the end all be all of Marxist studies, but rather a springboard from which both better and worse analysis of society can be made.

Well you're the one who presented this as post-Marxism, i.e. beyond Marxism. I'm merely pointing out that classical Marxism accommodates a dialectic between consciousness and exteriorised material relations or between process and structure - and usually without resorting to the extreme academic obscurantism practiced by post-structuralist/modernists.

[Hit The North]

Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory by Ernesto Laclau is an interesting book. Though I think his rejection of class struggle in favor of "radical democracy" where antagonisms are somehow openly acknowledged is disagreeable, I like Laclau's theory of ideology and antagonism. Antagonism as an impossible-real kernel, a certain limit which is in itself nothing, and which is constructed from a series of its effects, as the traumatic point that prevents a closure of the social field. Laclau is a Lacanian, Foucauldian, and a Derridian but not an obscure writer at all.

Not obscure at all? So what is an "impossible-real kernel" and how can something that is "nothing" impose "limits" on anything, including itself (given that is is nothing and so has no "self")? Also how can something be
"constructed by its own effects" unless it is its own cause, and then what is "it" before it has caused those effects? I'd also like to know what a "social field" is and how it can be traumatised and whether a social field is usually closed or open?

Thing about Laclau is that he sets out to negate the salience of class struggle in favour of other struggles (such as gender, the body, ethnicity &c., which can easily be accommodated by capitalism) and this is his entire project. In that respect he is a counter-revolutionary.

[Teacher]

Let me be a little less flippant than my original comment.

All of this "post-Marxist" stuff -- critical theory, postmodernism, whatever other trendy new thing academia is obsessed with now -- it all serves a very useful purpose for the bourgeoisie. It channels inquiring minds who are interested in social change into meaningless, abstract philosophical and literary pursuits. This is why postmodernism became such a major trend in academia (ideas do not become popular in the academy unless the ruling class wants them to).

As an undergraduate I was a political activist on my campus, and I was constantly trying to get professors to help out with our political work on campus. These are professors who would wax poetic about the Zapatistas and rail against global capitalism in class.. yet when you try to get them to actually DO SOMETHING.. they become oddly passive.

I confronted one professor of Latin American studies about this, because she obviously had very radical politics from our conversations together. Yet she was very timid when it came to doing basic things like making copies of leaflets for our political group. After some prodding, she basically told me that she believed real change was impossible because Americans are too brainwashed by the media, and that she saw her "role" in bringing about social change primarily through engaging in "counter-hegemonic" activities in class.

In other words, I really want tenure so I'm gonna just stick to writing, publishing, and teaching and worry about changing the world after I've won my golden ticket.

Some books about "post-Marxist" stuff that I would suggest:

In Defence of History: Marxism and the Post-Modern Agenda
The Seduction of Unreason: The Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to Postmodernism
The Postmodern Prince: Critical Theory, Left Strategy, And The Making Of A New Political Subject
Postmodernism, Reason and Religion

The other day I was trashing Foucault with one of my professors -- he and I both share a mutual disdain for the type of thinking Foucault brought into the academy. But I mentioned to my professor that the one thing I respected about Foucault is that he was out there in the streets, doing something. Marx said we don't just want to understand the world, we want to change it.

[Clifford C Clavin]

Gotta love the "post-Marx" people who ascribe positions to Marx that he never held, then make a living out of tearing them down.

"Post-Marxist Discourse Theory"

Seriously?

That sounds like some kind of painful sexual disease :laugh:

[Homo Songun]

I'm quite interested in the ideas of a lot of neo/post-marxists, in particular the conception of class as a process that is continuously articulated rather than an essential category of deterministic material and economic forces. Thus I was wondering if someone could point the way toward some good literature on post-marxist (discourse) theory, like Ernesto Laclau, Negri and Hardt, or anyone else who may be considered to be in such a theoretical tradition.

Also anything else that diverts quite markedly from orthodox marxism and structuralist dynamics would be appreciated, as long as it still has some sort of emancipation outlook

Marx is the very last person in the world who would call class an "essential category"!

If you honestly believe that Marxists consider social categories as something other than "continuously articulated", I strongly suggest coming to terms with Marxism as such before reading another word of this latter-day "theoretical tradition" you've been wasting your time on!

[islandmilitia]

Marx is the very last person in the world who would call class an "essential category"!

If you honestly believe that Marxists consider social categories as something other than "continuously articulated", I strongly suggest coming to terms with Marxism as such before reading another word of this latter-day "theoretical tradition" you've been wasting your time on!

Yeah, pretty much agree with this. The main way of defining post-structuralism as a school is to oppose it to Kantian philosophy by emphasizing the ways in which post=structuralists refuse to accept the subject as given or transcendental, and instead look at the ways the subject is constituted in history through discursive practices and ongoing processes of articulation - but as far as I can tell, Marx also views the subject (and especially the revolutionary subject) as constituted rather than given, because the proletariat does not exist and cannot have meaning outside of its opposite, the bourgeoisie, and the capital relation that ultimately defines the two. So in terms of whether the subject is constituted or given I don't think there is that big a difference between post-structuralism and Marxism, or even post-structuralism and Hegel, given that there are obvious parallels between Marx's conception of class struggle and Hegel's slave-master dialectic, namely the centrality of mutual constitution in both thinkers.

[maskerade]

Marx is the very last person in the world who would call class an "essential category"!

If you honestly believe that Marxists consider social categories as something other than "continuously articulated", I strongly suggest coming to terms with Marxism as such before reading another word of this latter-day "theoretical tradition" you've been wasting your time on!

ok. thanks for showing me the true path, wise one.

[maskerade]

Yeah, pretty much agree with this. The main way of defining post-structuralism as a school is to oppose it to Kantian philosophy by emphasizing the ways in which post=structuralists refuse to accept the subject as given or transcendental, and instead look at the ways the subject is constituted in history through discursive practices and ongoing processes of articulation - but as far as I can tell, Marx also views the subject (and especially the revolutionary subject) as constituted rather than given, because the proletariat does not exist and cannot have meaning outside of its opposite, the bourgeoisie, and the capital relation that ultimately defines the two. So in terms of whether the subject is constituted or given I don't think there is that big a difference between post-structuralism and Marxism, or even post-structuralism and Hegel, given that there are obvious parallels between Marx's conception of class struggle and Hegel's slave-master dialectic, namely the centrality of mutual constitution in both thinkers.

Yes, that makes sense to me, thank you. but if I want to read more about the constitution of the revolutionary subject and how the capital relation that defines the two is articulated in cultural and political discourse, what would you suggest I read?

Or, if someone wants to do all the work for me, does anyone want to explain how a revolutionary movement is going to create it's own discursive space within which a feasible challenge to capitalist hegemony can be made?

[islandmilitia]

Yes, that makes sense to me, thank you. but if I want to read more about the constitution of the revolutionary subject and how the capital relation that defines the two is articulated in cultural and political discourse, what would you suggest I read?

Or, if someone wants to do all the work for me, does anyone want to explain how a revolutionary movement is going to create it's own discursive space within which a feasible challenge to capitalist hegemony can be made?

Though I haven't read it yet, the reviews I've encountered suggest that Zizek's new book on Hegel, Less Than Nothing, is very much concerned with re-reading the Marxist project through a Hegelian lens, and looking at Hegel's project as a critique of formal logic. I may well buy it for myself as a present at some point in the near future.

On the latter question, though, if there is one critique that can and should be made of much post-structuralist thought (I'm thinking particularly of Foucault here) it is that, through its emphasis on the constitution of the subject, and the power-laden character of knowledge, there is a tendency in post-structuralist thought to downgrade the agency of the subject and to make it seem almost impossible for us to break out of the discursive practices and power relations in which we are embedded. In its extreme form, which you arguably get with thinkers like Kristeva, this line of argument says that even to make an utterance (to speak) is to reinforce certain power relations because our language itself is imbued with power, which is why certain kinds of feminist practice have historically involved attempts to articulate resistance without resorting to human speech. With Marxism, I think you get a different and more liberating understanding of agency and consciousness, in that, for Marxist thinkers, like Marx himself, as well as Gramsci, you have an understanding that consciousness is, under the conditions of capitalist society, always contradictory, which means there is a constant tension between the ideas and possibilities which are thrown up in the course of resistance, and the disempowering ideas which arise spontaneously from the organization of capitalist society itself. This has important implications for how we understand the process of challenging capitalist hegemony, because it suggests that the task of revolutionaries is to give articulate expression to those incipient ideas which are already present in the consciousness of the working class. What that means in concrete terms is a matter of strategy and tactics, of course, but I think that as far as theory is concerned, the notion of contradictory consciousness is a really important starting-point.

[Teacher]

does anyone want to explain how a revolutionary movement is going to create it's own discursive space within which a feasible challenge to capitalist hegemony can be made?

There have been many revolutionary movements, some of which succeeded. How did they "create their own discursive space within which a feasible challenge to capitalist hegemony" was made?

I was going to make a list of suggestions but this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/) and here (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/Index.html) and here (http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/Index.html) probably have plenty of stuff about the topic.

[maskerade]

There have been many revolutionary movements, some of which succeeded. How did they "create their own discursive space within which a feasible challenge to capitalist hegemony" was made?

I was going to make a list of suggestions but this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/) and here (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/Index.html) and here (http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/Index.html) probably have plenty of stuff about the topic.

Yea, there have been lots of revolutionary movements, though why you'd call any of these a success I don't know. That's not to say they didn't accomplish things or lacked achievements, but considering they are remnants of the past I'm not sure I'd call them successful.

I'd also contend that in today's circumstances potential revolutionaries need to engage in sources more eclectic than just Mao, Lenin and Stalin.


Though I haven't read it yet, the reviews I've encountered suggest that Zizek's new book on Hegel, Less Than Nothing, is very much concerned with re-reading the Marxist project through a Hegelian lens, and looking at Hegel's project as a critique of formal logic. I may well buy it for myself as a present at some point in the near future.

On the latter question, though, if there is one critique that can and should be made of much post-structuralist thought (I'm thinking particularly of Foucault here) it is that, through its emphasis on the constitution of the subject, and the power-laden character of knowledge, there is a tendency in post-structuralist thought to downgrade the agency of the subject and to make it seem almost impossible for us to break out of the discursive practices and power relations in which we are embedded. In its extreme form, which you arguably get with thinkers like Kristeva, this line of argument says that even to make an utterance (to speak) is to reinforce certain power relations because our language itself is imbued with power, which is why certain kinds of feminist practice have historically involved attempts to articulate resistance without resorting to human speech. With Marxism, I think you get a different and more liberating understanding of agency and consciousness, in that, for Marxist thinkers, like Marx himself, as well as Gramsci, you have an understanding that consciousness is, under the conditions of capitalist society, always contradictory, which means there is a constant tension between the ideas and possibilities which are thrown up in the course of resistance, and the disempowering ideas which arise spontaneously from the organization of capitalist society itself. This has important implications for how we understand the process of challenging capitalist hegemony, because it suggests that the task of revolutionaries is to give articulate expression to those incipient ideas which are already present in the consciousness of the working class. What that means in concrete terms is a matter of strategy and tactics, of course, but I think that as far as theory is concerned, the notion of contradictory consciousness is a really important starting-point.

I can definitely agree with such a criticism of post-structuralism.

While I don't think it's reasonable to assume that all speech is useless because it is embedded in certain power relations, I'd still think that our political language is reflective of capitalist relations. So, I guess the question is, how would one go about balancing between the need to articulate the ideas and possibilities from/of resistance without resorting to the parameters imposed by liberal democratic discourse? I mean this in the sense that such a discourse defines the limits of what is within, thus acceptable, and what is outside, thus unacceptable, political reality.

If that doesn't make any sense: what are your ideas on how this can be used in concrete terms, ie tactics and strategy?

[Book O'Dead]

We would account for just about anyone without a stick up their ass and acknowledging that the year is 2012 and not 1917 is revolutionary enough to account for the what when compared to most leftists. Substitute something witty about the democrats for you and the other liberals hiding out on this site.

Who sez I'm hiding out? And who says I'm a liberal? You?

This may not be 1917 but there still are important lessons to be drawn from that and other past revolutionary periods even if you yourself wish to remain obstinately ignorant about them.

[Clifford C Clavin]

Anyone who indulges in this crap and dares to call themselves a "Marxist" should be forced to get a real job for at least six months.

[Sasha]

Anyone who indulges in this crap and dares to call themselves a "Marxist" should be forced to get a real job for at least six months.


verbal warning for flaming, cut it out, if you dont have anything usefull to add to the discussion stay out of it...

[Teacher]

Yea, there have been lots of revolutionary movements, though why you'd call any of these a success I don't know. That's not to say they didn't accomplish things or lacked achievements, but considering they are remnants of the past I'm not sure I'd call them successful.

I'd also contend that in today's circumstances potential revolutionaries need to engage in sources more eclectic than just Mao, Lenin and Stalin.

But if you are genuinely interested in answering these questions and creating social change then the most logical place to begin is by studying history. What went wrong? What went right? How could it be done differently? You seem far more interested in having an abstract philosophical debate.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Who sez I'm hiding out? And who says I'm a liberal? You?

This may not be 1917 but there still are important lessons to be drawn from that and other past revolutionary periods even if you yourself wish to remain obstinately ignorant about them.

I think you made your position pretty clear by yourself in the 2012 election thread.

I don't think I've said anything about ignoring the organization methods or the theory of past movements, we should instead be brave enough to decide which parts still fit and which parts have become dogma.

The idea of a world where Marx is not applicable is distressing for me for a lot of different reasons, primarily because of the damage to my general outlook it would cause. However, that shouldn't be enough to restrict me from pursuing subjects that could possibly lead in that direction, not that I think they will.

[Book O'Dead]

I think you made your position pretty clear by yourself in the 2012 election thread.

I don't think I've said anything about ignoring the organization methods or the theory of past movements, we should instead be brave enough to decide which parts still fit and which parts have become dogma.

The idea of a world where Marx is not applicable is distressing for me for a lot of different reasons, primarily because of the damage to my general outlook it would cause. However, that shouldn't be enough to restrict me from pursuing subjects that could possibly lead in that direction, not that I think they will.

I didn't make my "position" clear in the thread you allude to. That's the main reason I met so much heated opposition.

As to the other stuff you write above. I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Your last post suggested I was ignoring past thinkers and models, my response was "I'm not" I'm not sure I can clarify more than that. Feel free to stop responding if this is going over your head.

[Lucretia]

"Post-marxist" discourse theory is really postmodern theory that talks a lot about "class" while meaning by it something fundamentally different than Marx did. For Marx class was how people related to one another through the means of production as a result of how those means of production were used and who controlled them. So for him, "class" was an objective process -- objective not in the sense of being totally divorced from human consciousness, but objective in the sense that people did not need to be class conscious or aware of the existence of classes in order to participate in or reproduce their structures.

Class for "post-marxists" is NOT an objective process because, for them, you can never arrive at knowledge of the objective world. Everything is overdetermined by discourse, and it is discourse that channels and explains the use of power. Class is just one "discourse" (read: NOT objective process) through which power operates, along with race, gender, sexuality, nationality, etc. It should therefore enjoy no privileged position in any social movement to transform society (post-marxists don't like to use the word "liberation" because they think it is passe and indicates the possibility of eliminating power, of discovering a true human nature). This was basically the main theme of Laclau and Mouffe's absurdist Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, which was humorously and effectively critiqued by Norm Geras in a series of brilliant articles published first in the New Left Review, then republished in an edited volume called Discourses of Extremity.

Post-modernism and post-structuralism have been useful in drawing much-needed scrutiny to certain concepts and issues of epistemology and ontology. But if left on their own, unchecked by a connection to real-world activity (political or otherwise), these theories have a certain tendency to become obscurely useless exercises in intellectual self-pleasure. In other words, "post-marxism" is fine in very small doses, but only to draw out issues that are frequently ignored by Marxists, not as an effective way of actually grappling with those issues.

[Book O'Dead]

"Post-marxist" discourse theory is really postmodern theory that talks a lot about "class" while meaning by it something fundamentally different than Marx did. For Marx class was how people related to one another through the means of production as a result of how those means of production were used and who controlled them. So for him, "class" was an objective process -- objective not in the sense of being totally divorced from human consciousness, but objective in the sense that people did not need to be class conscious or aware of the existence of classes in order to participate in or reproduce their structures.

Class for "post-marxists" is NOT an objective process because, for them, you can never arrive at knowledge of the objective world. Everything is overdetermined by discourse, and it is discourse that channels and explains the use of power. Class is just one "discourse" (read: NOT objective process) through which power operates, along with race, gender, sexuality, nationality, etc. It should therefore enjoy no privileged position in any social movement to transform society (post-marxists don't like to use the word "liberation" because they think it is passe and indicates the possibility of eliminating power, of discovering a true human nature). This was basically the main theme of Laclau and Mouffe's absurdist Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, which was humorously and effectively critiqued by Norm Geras in a series of brilliant articles published first in the New Left Review, then republished in an edited volume called Discourses of Extremity.

Post-modernism and post-structuralism have been useful in drawing much-needed scrutiny to certain concepts and issues of epistemology and ontology. But if left on their own, unchecked by a connection to real-world activity (political or otherwise), these theories have a certain tendency to become obscurely useless exercises in intellectual self-pleasure. In other words, "post-marxism" is fine in very small doses, but only to draw out issues that are frequently ignored by Marxists, not as an effective way of actually grappling with those issues.

Kudos!

[Mr. Natural]

maskerade, Thanks for what has been a fertile discussion so far. My first thought is that Marxism has been "post-Marxist" for a century. Marx and Engels and the materialist dialectic understood life and society as organic, systemic processes. Clearly to me, Marx came to view capitalism as a systemic process that manufactured two classes that were destined to clash with socialism/communism as the result. It didn't happen, and I believe capitalism as a system has now moved beyond this particular concept of class-based revolution.

Now to your reference to "class as a process continually articulated." It sure is: life and capitalism are dynamic, systemic processes. So what is the "new revolutionary class" if there is one? Does capitalism still produce its own gravediggers?

Yes, it does, but it is not the old, classic Marxist proletariat. We are all proles now. Capitalist globalization means that the human species has been enveloped and captured by capitalism--its organization, institutions and values--and that we all now live degraded caplives and face extermination whether we own the company, work for it, or are unemployed.

"Class" refers to one's relations to the means of production. Hasn't Earth become a giant company store where capitalism owns and shapes both human and non-human life?

So the "continually articulated class process" I see has produced the entire human species (and life) as capitalism's "new proletariat." The organization of capitalism as a system is opposed to the organization of life. Capitalism produces for profit; life generates a sustainable, ecological "profit" to create and maintain community.

So the entire human species as capitalism's doomed working class must wake up and develop revolutionary processes out of capitalism into anarchism/communism, and the initial revolutionaries will come from all current social categories. Comrades who find this approach outrageous might reflect that historically, the leading revolutionaries have usually come from positions of relative privilege.

maskerade also asked, "Does anyone want to explain how a revolutionary movement is going to create its own discursive space within which a feasible challenge to capitalist hegemony can been made?"

Sure. I've been working out a viable red-(Marxist) green (new sciences of organization) theory of life, community, and revolution for a dozen years, but this theory is based in a science (it's science, Comrades!) the left has been assiduously avoiding. This is a synthetic, organizational science as opposed to the dominant reductionist science of the day, and there is almost no mention of it in Revleft's Science and Environment Forum, for one example of revolutionaries avoiding the science of revolutionary organizing.

I won't go further into "scientific revolution" at this time, other than to say the science I'm promoting would enable regular people to design and develop revolutionary grassroots communties and processes within The System. Instead, I want to leave comrades with the original "heretical" but revolutionary concept I introduced: that the entire human species is now the Marxist working class.

What would Marx and Engels have done after the failure of classic proletarian revolutionary theory? Capitalism has progressed. Can the human species be the new proletariat and the basis for anarchist/communist revolution?

My red-green best.

[maskerade]

But if you are genuinely interested in answering these questions and creating social change then the most logical place to begin is by studying history. What went wrong? What went right? How could it be done differently? You seem far more interested in having an abstract philosophical debate.

What i'm interested in is learning. Please don't presume that I haven't already explored history and the theories of previous communist movements. also, lot's of people here have pointed out flaws and potential advantages with a 'post-marxist discourse theory', most of which I was unaware of before I started this thread. Hence why it's in the learning section.

Circumstances have changed, and so has theory. Why are so many people so keen to attack someone for being curious rather than just explaining their own viewpoints on the matter (like you did in your second post)? I don't understand, is the combination of words that make up this thread subject really so venomous?


"Post-marxist" discourse theory is really postmodern theory that talks a lot about "class" while meaning by it something fundamentally different than Marx did. For Marx class was how people related to one another through the means of production as a result of how those means of production were used and who controlled them. So for him, "class" was an objective process -- objective not in the sense of being totally divorced from human consciousness, but objective in the sense that people did not need to be class conscious or aware of the existence of classes in order to participate in or reproduce their structures.

Class for "post-marxists" is NOT an objective process because, for them, you can never arrive at knowledge of the objective world. Everything is overdetermined by discourse, and it is discourse that channels and explains the use of power. Class is just one "discourse" (read: NOT objective process) through which power operates, along with race, gender, sexuality, nationality, etc. It should therefore enjoy no privileged position in any social movement to transform society (post-marxists don't like to use the word "liberation" because they think it is passe and indicates the possibility of eliminating power, of discovering a true human nature). This was basically the main theme of Laclau and Mouffe's absurdist Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, which was humorously and effectively critiqued by Norm Geras in a series of brilliant articles published first in the New Left Review, then republished in an edited volume called Discourses of Extremity.

Post-modernism and post-structuralism have been useful in drawing much-needed scrutiny to certain concepts and issues of epistemology and ontology. But if left on their own, unchecked by a connection to real-world activity (political or otherwise), these theories have a certain tendency to become obscurely useless exercises in intellectual self-pleasure. In other words, "post-marxism" is fine in very small doses, but only to draw out issues that are frequently ignored by Marxists, not as an effective way of actually grappling with those issues

Thanks for this post. i've never "believed", if I can use that word, in post-modernism because it seems to be quite problematic, as you have rightly pointed out. I also don't think that class can solely be viewed as a discursive process even though i still believe that it is discursively constituted. I always figured that 'post-marxist' meant that a Marxist framework was used to go beyond the normal parameters of Marxist inquiry, so I just thought that post-marxist discourse theory would be an analysis of discourse as political strategies, influenced by the works of Marx and other marxists. But ok, it isnt.

I also agree with fellow posters that a lot of these PS/PM theories don't do anything to 'challenge' capitalist hegemony, but i'd contend that neither do contemporary Marxists in Western academia.

[Book O'Dead]

maskerade, Thanks for what has been a fertile discussion so far. [...]

What would Marx and Engels have done after the failure of classic proletarian revolutionary theory? Capitalism has progressed. Can the human species be the new proletariat and the basis for anarchist/communist revolution?

My red-green best.

This discussion has been anything but 'fertile'. In fact, I think It's been a sterile attempt at doing what has been tried since at least the days of Eduoard Bernstein; Confuse the meaning of class and disorient workers from their true objective.

This "classic proletarian revolutionary theory" you refer to exist only in your imagination.

[maskerade]

This discussion has been anything but 'fertile'. In fact, I think It's been a sterile attempt at doing what has been tried since at least the days of Eduoard Bernstein; Confuse the meaning of class and disorient workers from their true objective.

This "classic proletarian revolutionary theory" you refer to exist only in your imagination.

how has anyone tried to confuse the meaning of class? I was originally interested in how class is manifested in different ways, and i guess also how it becomes performed through various discourses. Could you explain to me how that detracts from the definition of class as the relations to the means of production?

[Book O'Dead]

how has anyone tried to confuse the meaning of class? I was originally interested in how class is manifested in different ways, and i guess also how it becomes performed through various discourses. Could you explain to me how that detracts from the definition of class as the relations to the means of production?

C'mon, don't be so fucking disingenuous!
You mention class as a function of the relationship to the means of production only because Lucretia rightly pointed it out in a subsequent post.

If the OP had had its shit together it would not have omitted such a definition and would not have preceded exclusively under a different assumption.

Get real, man! This thread, while promising much to the uninformed has turned out to be is what someone else correctly deduced: One big mental jerk-off!

[Mr. Natural]

Book O'Dead, You wrote, "The 'classic proletarian revolutionary theory' you refer to exists only in your imagination."

Huh? I thought this theory existed in Marx's and Engels' minds, too, and that much of the Manifesto elaborated this theme: "What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."

This is an interesting quotation, for it not only emphasizes the classic revolutionary conflict between bourgeoisie and proletariat, but claims the victory of the workers and socialism is "inevitable." I recall Marx and Engels made this latter claim in several places, and they were wrong. Indeed, I find this concept of socialist inevitability to be mechanical, perhaps teleological, and quite un-Marxian. Perhaps Marx and Engels were trying to rally the troops, but ....

My red-green best.

[RedMaterialist]

Or, if someone wants to do all the work for me, does anyone want to explain how a revolutionary movement is going to create it's own discursive space within which a feasible challenge to capitalist hegemony can be made?



Well, first of all, I think we need to translate this sentence: How can a revolutionary movement change its thinking so as to challenge capitalism?

I think it is impossible to challenge or destroy anything just by changing the way you think about it or by changing the way you think in general. If there is one thing Marx made clear it is that consciousness, mind or discursive practice, is formed and determined by real, actual human activity. Our discursive space is changed and expanded by our real day to day lives.

Occupy Wall Street is, I think, an example of this. As long as OWS remained in its own space capitalist hegemony did not really worry about it. The "human mike" was more ridiculous than revolutionary. The Occupy movement, however, was very careful never to expand its discursive space into the lobby of a Federal Reserve Bank.

You want to challenge capitalist hegemony? Literally occupy the federal reserve. But then, you have to ask. Are you willing to go to jail for a long time? Even Marx left Germany, France and Belgium rather than go to jail. And when he moved to London his revolutionary activity consisted mostly of making speeches to trades unions. I don't think he ever wrote a newspaper article demanding the overthrow of Queen Victoria. Of course, his economic writing in London changed the world.

[Book O'Dead]

Book O'Dead, You wrote, "The 'classic proletarian revolutionary theory' you refer to exists only in your imagination."

Huh? I thought this theory existed in Marx's and Engels' minds, too, and that much of the Manifesto elaborated this theme: "What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable."

This is an interesting quotation, for it not only emphasizes the classic revolutionary conflict between bourgeoisie and proletariat, but claims the victory of the workers and socialism is "inevitable." I recall Marx and Engels made this latter claim in several places, and they were wrong. Indeed, I find this concept of socialist inevitability to be mechanical, perhaps teleological, and quite un-Marxian. Perhaps Marx and Engels were trying to rally the troops, but ....

My red-green best.

The statement you attribute to Marx can hardly be described as a "classic proletarian revolutionary theory".

Moreover, while asserting that the inevitability of the collapse of capitalism and the capture of power on the part of the working class is wrong, you offer no proof to support it.

[maskerade]

C'mon, don't be so fucking disingenuous!
You mention class as a function of the relationship to the means of production only because Lucretia rightly pointed it out in a subsequent post.

If the OP had had its shit together it would not have omitted such a definition and would not have preceded exclusively under a different assumption.

Get real, man! This thread, while promising much to the uninformed has turned out to be is what someone else correctly deduced: One big mental jerk-off!

I'm not being disingenuous. I believe I said something similar in my first or second post, perhaps not as eloquently as Lucretia, but still something with a similar meaning. But I suppose we all have our own interpretations (or is that too post-modern for you?)

I don't understand what you're getting from this thread other than some smug satisfaction that you're obviously very happy to share with the rest of us.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've at least learned something from this thread, and in case you didn't notice, I'd be one of those uninformed individuals.


Well, first of all, I think we need to translate this sentence: How can a revolutionary movement change its thinking so as to challenge capitalism?

I think it is impossible to challenge or destroy anything just by changing the way you think about it or by changing the way you think in general. If there is one thing Marx made clear it is that consciousness, mind or discursive practice, is formed and determined by real, actual human activity. Our discursive space is changed and expanded by our real day to day lives.

Occupy Wall Street is, I think, an example of this. As long as OWS remained in its own space capitalist hegemony did not really worry about it. The "human mike" was more ridiculous than revolutionary. The Occupy movement, however, was very careful never to expand its discursive space into the lobby of a Federal Reserve Bank.

You want to challenge capitalist hegemony? Literally occupy the federal reserve. But then, you have to ask. Are you willing to go to jail for a long time? Even Marx left Germany, France and Belgium rather than go to jail. And when he moved to London his revolutionary activity consisted mostly of making speeches to trades unions. I don't think he ever wrote a newspaper article demanding the overthrow of Queen Victoria. Of course, his economic writing in London changed the world.

It was actually the OWS movement that got me interested in this type of thing, especially the notion that a new political language needed to be developed. But I have to say I'd agree with most of what you've said so far - there is definitely a danger in assuming that ideas can somehow hold precedence over the human activity that forms said ideas.

And to answer your question: no, I am not willing to go to jail for a long time, I have a very delicate bone structure.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

maskerade, Thanks for what has been a fertile discussion so far. My first thought is that Marxism has been "post-Marxist" for a century. Marx and Engels and the materialist dialectic understood life and society as organic, systemic processes. Clearly to me, Marx came to view capitalism as a systemic process that manufactured two classes that were destined to clash with socialism/communism as the result. It didn't happen, and I believe capitalism as a system has now moved beyond this particular concept of class-based revolution.

Now to your reference to "class as a process continually articulated." It sure is: life and capitalism are dynamic, systemic processes. So what is the "new revolutionary class" if there is one? Does capitalism still produce its own gravediggers?

Yes, it does, but it is not the old, classic Marxist proletariat. We are all proles now. Capitalist globalization means that the human species has been enveloped and captured by capitalism--its organization, institutions and values--and that we all now live degraded caplives and face extermination whether we own the company, work for it, or are unemployed.

"Class" refers to one's relations to the means of production. Hasn't Earth become a giant company store where capitalism owns and shapes both human and non-human life?

So the "continually articulated class process" I see has produced the entire human species (and life) as capitalism's "new proletariat." The organization of capitalism as a system is opposed to the organization of life. Capitalism produces for profit; life generates a sustainable, ecological "profit" to create and maintain community.

So the entire human species as capitalism's doomed working class must wake up and develop revolutionary processes out of capitalism into anarchism/communism, and the initial revolutionaries will come from all current social categories. Comrades who find this approach outrageous might reflect that historically, the leading revolutionaries have usually come from positions of relative privilege.

maskerade also asked, "Does anyone want to explain how a revolutionary movement is going to create its own discursive space within which a feasible challenge to capitalist hegemony can been made?"

Sure. I've been working out a viable red-(Marxist) green (new sciences of organization) theory of life, community, and revolution for a dozen years, but this theory is based in a science (it's science, Comrades!) the left has been assiduously avoiding. This is a synthetic, organizational science as opposed to the dominant reductionist science of the day, and there is almost no mention of it in Revleft's Science and Environment Forum, for one example of revolutionaries avoiding the science of revolutionary organizing.

I won't go further into "scientific revolution" at this time, other than to say the science I'm promoting would enable regular people to design and develop revolutionary grassroots communties and processes within The System. Instead, I want to leave comrades with the original "heretical" but revolutionary concept I introduced: that the entire human species is now the Marxist working class.

What would Marx and Engels have done after the failure of classic proletarian revolutionary theory? Capitalism has progressed. Can the human species be the new proletariat and the basis for anarchist/communist revolution?

My red-green best.

What. The. Fuck...
You just pulled a bunch of shit out of your ass, mischaracterized just about every term you used, then topped it off by calling it science. Make a bunch of wild claims without even supporting it with much of an argument.

Like how are we all proles now? The capitalists don't live under the same oppression as real proles. And why is "class-based" revolution off the table now? Capitalism hasn't ended, the antagonisms haven't been resolved, etc, and nowhere did Marx say you can't be communist if you're rich...

[blake 3:17]

But if you are genuinely interested in answering these questions and creating social change then the most logical place to begin is by studying history. What went wrong? What went right? How could it be done differently? You seem far more interested in having an abstract philosophical debate.

On these issues I'd tend towards considering the writings of EP Thompson, Raymond Williams and Stewart Hall, not that they are the be all and end all.

I don't see any harm in people exploring the "Fancy French" and friends.

Teacher has given some suggestions of some very good readings critical of post-________ stuff.

I'd be wary of silly intellectual dogmatism. For years I dismissed a lot of interesting and important ideas because they weren't Marxist or Marxist enough.

[Clifford C Clavin]

verbal warning for flaming, cut it out, if you dont have anything usefull to add to the discussion stay out of it...

You should get a real job too.

[Book O'Dead]

You should get a real job too.

And you should buy a brain.

[Teacher]

Frederic Jameson is a big time name in postmodernism and Marxism somehow at the same time. I have a book of his called Postmodernism which is supposed to somehow be a classic of postmodernism yet also a critique of postmodernism. Same thing with David Harvey's The Condition of Postmodernity. Perry Anderson also has a book about postmodernism.

I have not been able to dive into either one too much. Jameson is supposed to be notoriously hard to understand but I read a section of his book and it didn't seem bad at all.


I don't see any harm in people exploring the "Fancy French" and friends.

I agree to an extent. With Zizek for example, I love listening to him talk. I can listen to him for hours and not get bored. And sometimes he even says some insightful things. At the end of the day though I think a lot of this cultural criticism type stuff is more about making clever analogies and witty insights than offering something that has strong explanatory force or relevance to activists/cadre (much less ordinary working people).

[islandmilitia]

While I don't think it's reasonable to assume that all speech is useless because it is embedded in certain power relations, I'd still think that our political language is reflective of capitalist relations.

I completely agree, though, based on what you say after that about breaking from liberal-democratic discourse, I think in a way you don't push the point hard enough - not only is it true that we incorporate certain discursive assumptions into the way we talk politics, unless we consciously critique those assumptions, it is also true in a more fundamental sense that the language we use in almost all contexts is marked by our membership of capitalist society and our historical situation. Eagleton, who is certainly not a post-structuralist, makes this point in Criticism and Ideology, when he says that language, rather than being beyond politics and history, "is in reality a terrain scarred, figured and divided by the cataclysms of political history, strewn with the relics of imperialist, nationalist, regionalist and class combat." As far as language as such is concerned, it is, I think, a basic feature of our social existence that we cannot think and act outside of that historically-formed language, and we are to that extent constrained by our linguistic context, and in concrete terms that means we speak through a language which bears the marks of capitalist society. On the more specific issue of the prevailing political discourse - which, I think, has as one of its central components a particular understanding of what counts as political, through the definition of politics as that which occurs within formal political institutions, and the separation of the political and the economic - I would argue that remaining autonomous from that discourse depends on a continuous sensitivity to practices of resistance, whether they be strikes or insurgencies, because it is those practices which expose the failings of the prevailing discourse, by, for example, revealing to their participants the existence of the political and the economic as a unity, rather than as separate spheres. That is vague, but it needs to be emphasized as an alternative to the solely intellectual or theoretical critique of prevailing discourse.


Everything is overdetermined by discourse, and it is discourse that channels and explains the use of power.

I think, with statements like this, you are in danger of suggesting that for post-structuralists (and post-marxists) power operates through discourse alone, and that by discourse we should understand simply ideas and narratives which are wholly separate from material existence. This is not a fair characterization of the post-structuralist project because post-structuralists have also been concerned with looking at the institutions and practices which generate discourses, such that, even whilst they might not acknowledge the basic form of power which enables certain strata to control and manage discourse (that basic form of power being ownership of the means of production and control of the state) they are, at least in some ways, aware of how discourse arises from forms and sites of power which are themselves non-discursive in nature. With Foucault, for example, everyone can tell you that Foucault was interested in historicizing and deconstructing the categories through which we think about sex, because we normally think of those categories as natural and given, but as part of that same project he was also concerned with the specific kinds of practices which were responsible for changing the discourse of sex, such as the practices of the psychiatric profession, and research enterprises like the Kinsey Reports. In simple terms, I would say there is an important space with post-structuralism for the material, and even the objective.

Whilst I am sympathetic to your latter point, where you say that post-Marxism and post-sturcturalism should have a supportive and auxiliary role in relation to the Marxist tradition, I also find that this attitude can blunt the edge of much critical theory and prevent us from engaging with the real biases and epistemological failings within Marxism. I think this is particularly true of post-colonialism, which I would see as having some relation to post-structuralism and post-marxist thought. I've found that the attitude of critics like Ahmad is often one which says that there are individual arguments and observations from Said (and others) that we can find valuable and that we should integrate into the existing framework of leftist politics, maybe as an antidote to some of the most explicitly or unavoidably Eurocentric strains in Marxist thought - but this attitude, for me, represents a piecemeal approach to postcolonial analysis, and one that sets out to bestow on individuals like Said the "honor" of being partly compatible with Marxism, and "one of us". As such it seems to be expressive of orientalist discourse in itself, insofar as it a way of making Said and post-colonialism "safe", by ignoring the ways in which Said is concerned not (or not solely) with highly specific arguments within Marx's writings, such as his journalistic writings on India, but instead with the much more fundamental ways in which Marxism is penetrated by the broader discourses of nineteenth-century European society, not to mention the contemporary manifestations of those same discourses. When post-colonialism is understood as having an auxiliary role, you ignore the real point of Said's critique, and you also obstruct the possibility of a really radical evaluation of (Western) Marxism's continued complicity in orientalist discourse.

[Lucretia]

I completely agree, though, based on what you say after that about breaking from liberal-democratic discourse, I think in a way you don't push the point hard enough - not only is it true that we incorporate certain discursive assumptions into the way we talk politics, unless we consciously critique those assumptions, it is also true in a more fundamental sense that the language we use in almost all contexts is marked by our membership of capitalist society and our historical situation. Eagleton, who is certainly not a post-structuralist, makes this point in Criticism and Ideology, when he says that language, rather than being beyond politics and history, "is in reality a terrain scarred, figured and divided by the cataclysms of political history, strewn with the relics of imperialist, nationalist, regionalist and class combat." As far as language as such is concerned, it is, I think, a basic feature of our social existence that we cannot think and act outside of that historically-formed language, and we are to that extent constrained by our linguistic context, and in concrete terms that means we speak through a language which bears the marks of capitalist society. On the more specific issue of the prevailing political discourse - which, I think, has as one of its central components a particular understanding of what counts as political, through the definition of politics as that which occurs within formal political institutions, and the separation of the political and the economic - I would argue that remaining autonomous from that discourse depends on a continuous sensitivity to practices of resistance, whether they be strikes or insurgencies, because it is those practices which expose the failings of the prevailing discourse, by, for example, revealing to their participants the existence of the political and the economic as a unity, rather than as separate spheres. That is vague, but it needs to be emphasized as an alternative to the solely intellectual or theoretical critique of prevailing discourse.



I think, with statements like this, you are in danger of suggesting that for post-structuralists (and post-marxists) power operates through discourse alone, and that by discourse we should understand simply ideas and narratives which are wholly separate from material existence. This is not a fair characterization of the post-structuralist project because post-structuralists have also been concerned with looking at the institutions and practices which generate discourses, such that, even whilst they might not acknowledge the basic form of power which enables certain strata to control and manage discourse (that basic form of power being ownership of the means of production and control of the state) they are, at least in some ways, aware of how discourse arises from forms and sites of power which are themselves non-discursive in nature. With Foucault, for example, everyone can tell you that Foucault was interested in historicizing and deconstructing the categories through which we think about sex, because we normally think of those categories as natural and given, but as part of that same project he was also concerned with the specific kinds of practices which were responsible for changing the discourse of sex, such as the practices of the psychiatric profession, and research enterprises like the Kinsey Reports. In simple terms, I would say there is an important space with post-structuralism for the material, and even the objective.

Whilst I am sympathetic to your latter point, where you say that post-Marxism and post-sturcturalism should have a supportive and auxiliary role in relation to the Marxist tradition, I also find that this attitude can blunt the edge of much critical theory and prevent us from engaging with the real biases and epistemological failings within Marxism. I think this is particularly true of post-colonialism, which I would see as having some relation to post-structuralism and post-marxist thought. I've found that the attitude of critics like Ahmad is often one which says that there are individual arguments and observations from Said (and others) that we can find valuable and that we should integrate into the existing framework of leftist politics, maybe as an antidote to some of the most explicitly or unavoidably Eurocentric strains in Marxist thought - but this attitude, for me, represents a piecemeal approach to postcolonial analysis, and one that sets out to bestow on individuals like Said the "honor" of being partly compatible with Marxism, and "one of us". As such it seems to be expressive of orientalist discourse in itself, insofar as it a way of making Said and post-colonialism "safe", by ignoring the ways in which Said is concerned not (or not solely) with highly specific arguments within Marx's writings, such as his journalistic writings on India, but instead with the much more fundamental ways in which Marxism is penetrated by the broader discourses of nineteenth-century European society, not to mention the contemporary manifestations of those same discourses. When post-colonialism is understood as having an auxiliary role, you ignore the real point of Said's critique, and you also obstruct the possibility of a really radical evaluation of (Western) Marxism's continued complicity in orientalist discourse.

I conceded where post-structuralism turns the attention of Marxists to blind spots in the theory. I am not dogmatically declaring post-structuralism to be totally useless. I do, however, think that its value comes as a supplement to other theories. On its own, it is deeply problematic both intellectually and as a guide to action.

As for your other point about how I am wrongly insinuating that for post-structuralists, power always operates through discourse, I advise you to keep in mind that for post-structuralists like Foucault, sexuality is a discourse. The practice of imperialism, the practice of imprisoning "sodomites" -- all these things are extensions of discourse and changes in discursive regimes which are never rooted in deeper structures of power. Where does the power to imprison sodomites (the state) actually come from? Who has the power to order armies to destroy a colonial village, and where does that power ultimately come from? As I said, post-structuralist memes about "power apparatuses" and "epistemes" will only take you so far before you reach the limit to analysis of humans qua thinkers and producers of discourse, and you need to consider humans qua animals with certain biological features and needs.

[maskerade]

I completely agree, though, based on what you say after that about breaking from liberal-democratic discourse, I think in a way you don't push the point hard enough - not only is it true that we incorporate certain discursive assumptions into the way we talk politics, unless we consciously critique those assumptions, it is also true in a more fundamental sense that the language we use in almost all contexts is marked by our membership of capitalist society and our historical situation. Eagleton, who is certainly not a post-structuralist, makes this point in Criticism and Ideology, when he says that language, rather than being beyond politics and history, "is in reality a terrain scarred, figured and divided by the cataclysms of political history, strewn with the relics of imperialist, nationalist, regionalist and class combat." As far as language as such is concerned, it is, I think, a basic feature of our social existence that we cannot think and act outside of that historically-formed language, and we are to that extent constrained by our linguistic context, and in concrete terms that means we speak through a language which bears the marks of capitalist society. On the more specific issue of the prevailing political discourse - which, I think, has as one of its central components a particular understanding of what counts as political, through the definition of politics as that which occurs within formal political institutions, and the separation of the political and the economic - I would argue that remaining autonomous from that discourse depends on a continuous sensitivity to practices of resistance, whether they be strikes or insurgencies, because it is those practices which expose the failings of the prevailing discourse, by, for example, revealing to their participants the existence of the political and the economic as a unity, rather than as separate spheres. That is vague, but it needs to be emphasized as an alternative to the solely intellectual or theoretical critique of prevailing discourse.

I think something which fits neatly into what you're describing is the necessity of leftist support for events like the London riots. I don't think that looting is a feasible political strategy to achieve revolutionary ends - and of course, it isn't - but the event itself showed how outside the neatly made boxes of political power there is another reality that doesn't fit into the desired model of British society. In many ways the prevailing discourses completely failed to understand such an insurgency and thus had to resort to narratives of exclusion; 'social exclusion' being more acceptable within liberal democratic politics than class categories, even though I'd contend that both are the result of the same process: capitalism and its 'acquisition through dispossession'.

There's been some talk of Zizek as well. I think he is an interesting example of attempting to break down the parameters imposed by academic discursive communities. He says in some interview that he has no desire to 'be taken seriously' as that would entail acquiescence to the academic subject, and consequently would inhibit him from saying what he thinks needs to be said. Of course, many people don't take him seriously as a result.


As for your other point about how I am wrongly insinuating that for post-structuralists, power always operates through discourse, I advise you to keep in mind that for post-structuralists like Foucault, sexuality is a discourse. The practice of imperialism, the practice of imprisoning "sodomites" -- all these things are extensions of discourse and changes in discursive regimes which are never rooted in deeper structures of power. Where does the power to imprison sodomites (the state) actually come from? Who has the power to order armies to destroy a colonial village, and where does that power ultimately come from? As I said, post-structuralist memes about "power apparatuses" and "epistemes" will only take you so far before you reach the limit to analysis of humans qua thinkers and producers of discourse, and you need to consider humans qua animals with certain biological features and needs.

But doesn't Foucault at least map how a lot of these changes in discursive regimes took place along with the onset of capitalist industrialization? For example the whole ordeal about controlling workers/soldiers/pupils through space and time by ritualizing certain practices - like scheduled activities, spatial arrangements to emphasize the individual etc - with the ultimate effect being that the bodies of these workers/soldiers/pupils reflect the contemporary power-knowledge regimes at work, most of which stem from the changes in productive relations.

I'm quite fond of Foucault but I agree 100% with you that the use of his works should complement more substantial critiques of capitalism, as other wise one would get lost in the 'power, power is everywhere...' type of analysis. I say this because from my understanding of Foucault (at least his earlier work), power doesn't originate from anywhere, but is rather found in relations between people where there is some sort of knowledge about a subject involved.

[Mr. Natural]

A Revolutionary Tool, You quoted my post, but you didn't read it. Yours was a highly emotional response to my deeply radical post. I stand by all I wrote--which already answers most of your questions/objections--and wish you and the many others like you would explore new, radical ideas rather than going into immediate hyper-rejection.

I won't call you "Reactionary Scum" (your self-description), but you certainly reacted to my post with a conservative mindset.

[Positivist]

I think that what the OP was basically asking was how "the ruling ideas of each age are the ideas of the ruling class", or basically how the bourgiose imposes their ideology/authority on the proletariat despite the systemic oppression of proletarians perpretrated by capitalism. This a very much Marxian conflict. The workers will naturally oppose capitalism, and develop counter-ideologies like communism, yet many workers take in reactionary positions instead that are more compatible with bourgiose class interests. I believe that the OP is asking why.

From here he also seems to be asking how this can be overcome, or in other words, how class conscioussness can be developed in the proletarait.

[maskerade]

I think that what the OP was basically asking was how "the ruling ideas of each age are the ideas of the ruling class", or basically how the bourgiose imposes their ideology/authority on the proletariat despite the systemic oppression of proletarians perpretrated by capitalism. This a very much Marxian conflict. The workers will naturally oppose capitalism, and develop counter-ideologies like communism, yet many workers take in reactionary positions instead that are more compatible with bourgiose class interests. I believe that the OP is asking why.

From here he also seems to be asking how this can be overcome, or in other words, how class conscioussness can be developed in the proletarait.

Well, if you put it that way...

Hmm. Yes.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

A Revolutionary Tool, You quoted my post, but you didn't read it. Yours was a highly emotional response to my deeply radical post. I stand by all I wrote--which already answers most of your questions/objections--and wish you and the many others like you would explore new, radical ideas rather than going into immediate hyper-rejection.

I won't call you "Reactionary Scum" (your self-description), but you certainly reacted to my post with a conservative mindset.

Lol if you're radical then I'll gladly be reactionary scum. Your view of what class is is not scientific, it literally says there is only one class(proles). Now if I look around the world today or just my everyday experience at work, I'll see that this is wildly untrue and totally distorts what science is. What you're saying is some pseudo science shit. Capitalism has become some uncontrollabe evil that hovers over all people, including the capitalists, and we all have to band together to defeat the beast. Everyday people labor to create the conditions within which we live, to create food and shelter and things to entertain ourselves with, etc, and in capitalism that labor is directed by the capitalist class who own the means to continually reproduce life. Now you probably know this already but you seem to think the capitalist class doesn't exist. Do the capitalists continually reinforce capitalism with various types of manipulation to try and keep their position in society? Yes. But the point is it's humans actively participating in this process to hold onto their power and privilege, not some capitalism which has "trapped" the capitalist class.

[Mr. Natural]

A Revolutionary Tool, You deny my radicalism, but it's genuine. As Marx wrote, "To be radical is to grasp things by the root," and Marx's historical materialism and his analysis of capitalism searched for and revealed root organizational relations. These deep organizational relations are my focus, and I have the new sciences that explore these relations at my disposal, unlike Marx and Engels.

Life (and society) consist of organized "things." What is that organization? It would seem that the organization the things of life would be of the greatest significance to leftists who have been unable to get organized, but this is not the case. Life's organization is invisible to human perception/consciousness, and working with the unseen but essential organizational relations of life and society as Marx, Engels, the materialist dialectic (and I) do tends to elicit heated charges of "Mysticism!" from most leftists.

Marx and Engels were not mystics, however. Marx clearly viewed capitalism as a systemic process that manufactured its own gravediggers. This analyis came 150 years ago, though, and capitalism has since "gone global" and blanketed all forms of life with its systemic values and institutions.

Do comrades really think that Marx and Engels would have conservatively stayed put with their original analysis of systemic contradictions and revolutionary classes as capitalism progressed beyond the classic proletariat versus bourgeoisie conflict to establish global hegemony? Hell, no, they wouldn't: Marx and Engels were revolutionaries, not effete historians.

So, your comment "Your view of what class is is not scientific" is doubly wrong. The view I'm attempting to present is both scientific and Marxist, and Marxism was to be a scientific socialism.

My red-green, scientific, Marxist, revolutionary best.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

It doesn't change anything one bit if capitalism has gone global, that is something Marx indeed saw as an inevitability. How does the market encompassing the globe change social relations between prole and bourgoeis, nationally or internationally. At what point did the capitalist class itself transform into proles and how? You can sit here and tell us that capitalisms grave diggers is everybody including the capitalists themselves and that we're all proles now, but let's not kid around and call that Marxism or scientific. That's just a distortion of Marxism and a wild mischaracterization of what class is.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

This discussion has been anything but 'fertile'. In fact, I think It's been a sterile attempt at doing what has been tried since at least the days of Eduoard Bernstein; Confuse the meaning of class and disorient workers from their true objective.

This "classic proletarian revolutionary theory" you refer to exist only in your imagination.
If anything, these true objectives that you describe have been distorted by forces way beyond the words of intellectuals in the postmodern period, surely any 'true' Marxist would understand that.

The objectives you refer to, as defined by Marx I suppose, haven't genuinely been on the cards for workers for a very long time in the western world, at least in any fashion that was met with a qualitatively significant change in any socio-economic structure. Would you be as bold as to blame this on intellectuals? You'd probably find that most of the thinkers you attack were trying, in some instances, to find out why workers didn't do as Marx expected they would do, rather than engage in some kind of counter-revolutionary conspiracy.

This shows the fallacy of so many aspects of the left. This kind of rigidity is more what puts off so many of the people who's liberation is in their interests. To me, this dilemma, if reduced to a simple scenario, equates to a group of old, bearded commies waving hammer and sickle flags and shouting 'death to the bourgeoisie', meanwhile, the working class is shopping on Oxford Street or browsing their iPads, not paying any slight interest to those that are shouting. To me, this illustrates the idea that many aspects of the revolutionary left are stuck in the past and that they don't have the theoretical or practical ability to understand and inform the masses. There are many other factors to this obviously, and I was being slightly tongue-in-cheek but I think that some serious self-criticism is needed by those who consider themselves revolutionaries but refuse to acknowledge anything outside of their own dogmatic theoretical framework.

Postmodernism is just a perceived period of time (perhaps correctly or incorrectly) with features that are different to the features identified in the modernist period - for me, the most strikingly postmodern feature is the plurality in society which, in the many instances of this plurality, challenges the reductionist Marxist approach to class as an either conscious or unconscious body, and also that the forces in society go beyond economic forces considerably (not even against Marxist thinking if we consider people like Althusser and his work on ideologies which correspond quite well with some of Foucault's work on knowledge, power and discourse). These are just a couple of those features and they can surely be assessed with Marxist thinking - as in an analysis based on the key components of Marxist discourse - but before that can happen, some Marxists need to be able to address that things are different now than to when Marx was writing. Marx is to modernism as Foucault is to postmodernism, and I think that the most intellectually honest people would recognize the merits and limitations of both thinkers in a wide range of contexts in which their ideas apply. To write anything off that isn't 'Marxist' (in inverted commas because, despite Marxian claims to scientific materialism etc, it is sometimes hard to know what a Marxist is! Is it a Trot? A Stalinist? etc.) is basically dogma, and the equivalent of a dogmatic Marxist might as well be one of those fanatical Christians who stand on highstreets shouting 'the end is nigh' and denouncing anyone who wont accept their pamphlets.

[Mr. Natural]

Mahmoud Ahmadinnerjacket, I haven't seen you around for awhile. Thanks for a post rich in radical understanding and your "handle," which is a hoot.

I just want to state that the only major problem I see in Marx's and Engels' overall analysis of life and society (Marxism) is that Marx and Engels died. They were not only on the right track but had revealed it, and subsequent Marxists were to continue on this revolutionary path as conditions and information developed.

This hasn't happened, as you point out so well, and now it must happen. I've been hoping that pointing out to comrades just how stuck we all obviously are would challenge some to open their minds to new, radical, revolutionary ideas. I'm especially dismayed that the new sciences of organization are so resolutely ignored by we who must but cannot organize.

Kennelize your dogma, Comrades! Marx and Engels would approve.

My red-green best.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Mahmoud Ahmadinnerjacket, I haven't seen you around for awhile. Thanks for a post rich in radical understanding and your "handle," which is a hoot.

I just want to state that the only major problem I see in Marx's and Engels' overall analysis of life and society (Marxism) is that Marx and Engels died. They were not only on the right track but had revealed it, and subsequent Marxists were to continue on this revolutionary path as conditions and information developed.

This hasn't happened, as you point out so well, and now it must happen. I've been hoping that pointing out to comrades just how stuck we all obviously are would challenge some to open their minds to new, radical, revolutionary ideas. I'm especially dismayed that the new sciences of organization are so resolutely ignored by we who must but cannot organize.

Kennelize your dogma, Comrades! Marx and Engels would approve.

My red-green best.
Nice dodge there. We should be open minded and not dogmatic. But that doesn't mean we should believe every stupid thing someone says because it's new(aka, what you are saying).

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Maybe he's doing some ironic trolling, trying to recruit people to a discursive, grand theory he's promoting in a thread about postmodern/poststructural theory. If so then a slow clap is in order.

[Comrade #138672]

Nice dodge there. We should be open minded and not dogmatic. But that doesn't mean we should believe every stupid thing someone says because it's new(aka, what you are saying).He didn't say that. Opening your mind to new ideas does not mean you believe all of those ideas. He wants us to put more effort in considering new ideas. Some may be bad, others may be worthwhile. I agree with him on that.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

He didn't say that. Opening your mind to new ideas does not mean you believe all of those ideas. He wants us to put more effort in considering new ideas. Some may be bad, others may be worthwhile. I agree with him on that.
Like I said, we should be open-minded. But when people say x theory and then say "be open-minded about it, not dogmatic about it" it usually means just accept it without critical thought. I am open-minded, I don't care if you quote Marx in your defense, if I disagree with it I will disagree with it. Marx is not my God.

What he is saying is just blatantly bull shit, and all he can say in defense of it is "be open-minded about it". I read what he wrote and smelt bs, I put some criticism forth, his reaction is "don't be dogmatic". If he has a response to people's criticism of how he just raped Marxism, then he should respond to it, not dodge people's inquiries. I keep an open-mind and asked him questions, he has yet to respond to them. Which leads me to believe his "be open-minded" rhetoric is just a poor excuse for "I can't answer those questions".

[L.A.P.]

Not obscure at all? So what is an "impossible-real kernel" and how can something that is "nothing" impose "limits" on anything, including itself (given that is is nothing and so has no "self")? Also how can something be
"constructed by its own effects" unless it is its own cause, and then what is "it" before it has caused those effects? I'd also like to know what a "social field" is and how it can be traumatised and whether a social field is usually closed or open?

Obscurantism is a writing style, not an engagement with philosophical concepts. Basically, Laclau equates class antagonism with the Lacanian Real, the materiality of the world that is outside the expression of language except through its effects.


Thing about Laclau is that he sets out to negate the salience of class struggle in favour of other struggles (such as gender, the body, ethnicity &c., which can easily be accommodated by capitalism) and this is his entire project. In that respect he is a counter-revolutionary.

lol, you're waaaay off. Laclau explains in the very book I referenced how ideology obfuscates the Real of class antagonism in favor of false antagonisms.


Let me be a little less flippant than my original comment.

All of this "post-Marxist" stuff -- critical theory, postmodernism, whatever other trendy new thing academia is obsessed with now -- it all serves a very useful purpose for the bourgeoisie. It channels inquiring minds who are interested in social change into meaningless, abstract philosophical and literary pursuits. This is why postmodernism became such a major trend in academia (ideas do not become popular in the academy unless the ruling class wants them to).

As an undergraduate I was a political activist on my campus, and I was constantly trying to get professors to help out with our political work on campus. These are professors who would wax poetic about the Zapatistas and rail against global capitalism in class.. yet when you try to get them to actually DO SOMETHING.. they become oddly passive.

I confronted one professor of Latin American studies about this, because she obviously had very radical politics from our conversations together. Yet she was very timid when it came to doing basic things like making copies of leaflets for our political group. After some prodding, she basically told me that she believed real change was impossible because Americans are too brainwashed by the media, and that she saw her "role" in bringing about social change primarily through engaging in "counter-hegemonic" activities in class.

In other words, I really want tenure so I'm gonna just stick to writing, publishing, and teaching and worry about changing the world after I've won my golden ticket.

Some books about "post-Marxist" stuff that I would suggest:

In Defence of History: Marxism and the Post-Modern Agenda
The Seduction of Unreason: The Intellectual Romance with Fascism from Nietzsche to Postmodernism
The Postmodern Prince: Critical Theory, Left Strategy, And The Making Of A New Political Subject
Postmodernism, Reason and Religion

The other day I was trashing Foucault with one of my professors -- he and I both share a mutual disdain for the type of thinking Foucault brought into the academy. But I mentioned to my professor that the one thing I respected about Foucault is that he was out there in the streets, doing something. Marx said we don't just want to understand the world, we want to change it.

lol, Richard Wolin is a reactionary Platonist hack. Cool story though, bro.

[Mr. Natural]

Yes, I'm trolling. I'm trolling without success for revolutionary comrades on what purports to be a revolutionary site.

Science is bullshit, huh? Then I suppose Marx, Engels, and scientific socialism are bullshit, too. Well, there goes my grand theory by which revolutionaries who cannot organize would learn to apply the organization of life to their lost spirit, minds, and projects.

The current conservatism of the left is obvious and appalling.