Any new Marxist theories out there?

[Comrade Jacob]

Are there any fairly new Marxist theories? Post Mao? late 70's onwards that really stand out? (No, not Bob Avakian or Prachanda path.)

About what? This is looking like a filler thread...

On capitalism but anything else would be interesting.

[Q]

About what? This is looking like a filler thread...

[tachosomoza]

Dead men don't get around to theorizing and writing that much.

[Comrade Jacob]

Dead men don't get around to theorizing and writing that much.

I'm talking about today, mate, or at least more recently.

[Sinister Intents]

I'm talking about today, mate, or at least more recently.

To answer my way: I have no idea sorry

[The Feral Underclass]

When you say 'Marxist theory', what do you mean?

[Dodo]

There is a lot...and one of the theories is that there should not be any Marxist "theory".

There is a bunch of neo-marxist theories, starting from western Marxism(critical school, analytical marxism), thirdworldism, linguistic marxists, post-marxists and a bunch of crucial famous debates of Marxist theory. Such as Poulantzas/Althusser vs Miliband, the Brenner Debate in the 70s.
In addition there are "open" Marxists and a whole lot of Marxists which reject the whole tradition of "scientific marxism" and believes dialectics is the only way to go.

[Remus Bleys]

"10. Marxism itself isn’t a doctrine which can be moulded and remoulded each day by adding and changing “bits” of it (patching it up more like) because it is still counted amongst those doctrines (even if the final one) which function as a weapon of a dominated and exploited class which needs to overturn social relations; in the process of which it is subjected, in a thousand and one ways, to the conservative influences of the traditional forms and ideologies of the enemy classes."

[G4b3n]

There is a lot...and one of the theories is that there should not be any Marxist "theory".

There is a bunch of neo-marxist theories, starting from western Marxism(critical school, analytical marxism), thirdworldism, linguistic marxists, post-marxists and a bunch of crucial famous debates of Marxist theory. Such as Poulantzas/Althusser vs Miliband, the Brenner Debate in the 70s.
In addition there are "open" Marxists and a whole lot of Marxists which reject the whole tradition of "scientific marxism" and believes dialectics is the only way to go.

How could a dialectical analysis of history possibly lead to anything other than scientific socialism?

[ComradeYakov]

There are many good leftist thinkers. You may have heard of Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who is at least an "abstract anti-capitalist."

He deals largely with Hegelian philosophy, Lacanian psychoanalysis, Christian theology and Marxist theory of ideology. He often has numerous (and often humorous) insights about the functioning of capitalism and postmodernism.

His work is a bit dense, but very entertaining and (depending on who you ask) filled with innovative analysis of capitalism. He has also claimed to be a Marxist, but he certainly seems to be critical of Marx and the countries thought to have been socialist.

I am currently unable to post links due to my low post count, but if you look up his video "First as Tragedy, Then as Farce" by RSA Animate, it makes for an interesting watch.

[Q]

"10. Marxism itself isn’t a doctrine which can be moulded and remoulded each day by adding and changing “bits” of it (patching it up more like) because it is still counted amongst those doctrines (even if the final one) which function as a weapon of a dominated and exploited class which needs to overturn social relations; in the process of which it is subjected, in a thousand and one ways, to the conservative influences of the traditional forms and ideologies of the enemy classes."

Yes, Marx' texts are holy scripture that can never be adapted to today's situation. Sod the scientific method

I think the work of Lars Lih is interesting, but that is more of a scholarly research than novel theory. Mike Macnair has written a bit on theory, he's currently working on a book regarding imperialism which I'm anticipating eagerly. Last year he held a talk on it at Communist University which was edited to be an article to be read here.

[Dodo]

How could a dialectical analysis of history possibly lead to anything other than scientific socialism?

Because of the main themes of dialectics is that everything changes and nothing is absolute.
The moment you turn Marxism into a "positive" science rather than a critique of existing totality, you take a positive approach to phenomena and this can lead to fall into the same trap bourgeouisie scientists does. Aka, "reason becomes unreason".
There are a lot of people that call themselves Marxists and are stuck with "laws of history" in a rigid historical materialist understanding here for instance.

Or people like wallerstein, due to this positive approach explained underdevelopment and imperialism through pretty much Smithian positive economics.
Structuralists and Althusser also tried to turn Marxism into a "science".
Early Marxists that are most cherished here from even Engels to Lenin to Trotsky were larlgely motivated by this "scientific" tradition.
And yet Marxism is in a way a critique of science.

While this all depends on how we define science, a Marxist should be extra careful with the word. Besides, bourgeouisie scientists within their analytical frameworks actually get the upper-hand if you try to reduce Marxism to science.
Because the "application" of the science did not get Marxists anywhere and Marxists kept "changing" their position by expanding which turns into pseudo-scientific after a while.

[synthesis]

There's a lot of "post-leftism" stuff, also Tiqqun, that isn't being talked about as much now but might be what you're looking for, OP.

[Thirsty Crow]

There's the theory of decomposition put forward by the ICC. In fact, this theory is rather a kind of a historical period construction which sees the current state of things as a separate historical period or epoch in class struggle and the reproduction of the social relations based on capital, one moreover which is marked by a kind of an impasse between classes, with the working class strong enough to actually frustrate the bourgeois drive to war, but not nearly to pose the question of social revolution (neither of the two classes being in the position to push through its own agenda). Social decay and disintegration, threats to the very real bases for social revolution are also supposedly important features here.

I'm lazy and don't want to look for articles, but if anyone's interested there's a lot of search engines out there.

[The Jay]

Endnotes and tiqqun are good. You could also check out some autonomist stuff.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

There's the theory of decomposition put forward by the ICC. In fact, this theory is rather a kind of a historical period construction which sees the current state of things as a separate historical period or epoch in class struggle and the reproduction of the social relations based on capital, one moreover which is marked by a kind of an impasse between classes, with the working class strong enough to actually frustrate the bourgeois drive to war, but not nearly to pose the question of social revolution (neither of the two classes being in the position to push through its own agenda). Social decay and disintegration, threats to the very real bases for social revolution are also supposedly important features here.

I'm lazy and don't want to look for articles, but if anyone's interested there's a lot of search engines out there.

There's a name for this theory?

[Thirsty Crow]

There's a name for this theory?

Yeah. I'm not sure if you're implying that this is kind of a general thing among Marxists these days, so correct me if I'm reading stuff into your question.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Yeah. I'm not sure if you're implying that this is kind of a general thing among Marxists these days, so correct me if I'm reading stuff into your question.

Never-mind. I was conflating one issue with another by means of over-reading. I didn't mean to imply that it was a general trend, or anything like that.

[Queen Mab]

I think Communisation is the most avant-garde Marxist theory at the moment. Of course that's not necessarily a good thing...

[Remus Bleys]

Yes, Marx' texts are holy scripture that can never be adapted to today's situation. Sod the scientific method

Oh do fuck off. No one ever came close to saying that at all. I mean, the very same text contradicts that buffoonery:
"1. We use the expression “Marxism” not in the sense of a doctrine discovered or introduced by the person Karl Marx, but in reference to the doctrine which arose with the modern industrial proletariat and which “accompanies” it throughout the course of a social revolution – and although the term “Marxism” has been speculated upon and massively exploited by a series of anti-revolutionary movements, we nevertheless retain it."

Marxism as a method is invariant, as its tools are basic enough to understand everything. The theories that concern what we must do under capitalism are derived from the application of Marxism to the movement of Capital. Capitalism, at its core, hasn't really changed at all. Sure Marx could be, and was, wrong on many things but this is not the application of a new theory - its still the same methodology.

To quote Luxemburg "We quote the above passages in order to stress the methods which Marx and Engels used with respect to the nationality question, methods not dealing in abstract formulae, but only in the real issues of each individual case. That method did not, though, keep them from making a faulty evaluation of the situation, or from taking a wrong, position in certain cases. The present state of affairs shows how deeply Marx was in error in predicting, sixty years ago, the disappearance of the Czech nationality, whose vitality the Austrians today find so troublesome. Conversely, he overestimated the international importance of Polish nationalism: this was doomed to decay by the internal development of Poland, a decay which had already set in at that time. But these historical errors do not detract an ounce from the value of Marx’s method, for there are in general no methods of research which are, a priori, protected against a wrong application in individual cases. Marx never claimed to be infallible, and nothing, in the last resort, is so contrary to the spirit of his science as “infallible” historical judgments."