Postanarchism from a Marxist Perspective (original) (raw)
Related papers
Politics, power and the state: a Marxist response to postanarchism
2013
Recent years have seen the development of a new form of anarchism. Under the label ‘postanarchism’, writers such as Todd May, Saul Newman and Lewis Call have sought to combine the insights of anarchism with those of recent Continental philosophy, in particular post-structuralism. A central but neglected element of postanarchist thought is its critique of Marxism. The main aim of this article is to counter the postanarchist dismissal of Marxism. It will: introduce the key ideas and arguments of postanarchism; locate its critique of Marxism, demonstrating its importance to the postanarchist project; and highlight weaknesses in the postanarchist critique of Marxism. It argues that the postanarchist portrayal of Marxism is reductive and misleading. Contrary to postanarchist claims, many post-structuralists have drawn inspiration from Marxism rather than rejecting it: as such, Marxism anticipates many of the poststructuralist-inflected ideas of postanarchism, in particular their approach to the state, power, subjectivity and politics. In addition, some Marxist criticisms of classical anarchism apply equally to postanarchism, thus raising questions to which postanarchists should respond.
Whilst the need for social and political transformation in the modern world is clear, it isn’t clear just who or what the structural agency for this change will be. It still can be the working class, for the reasons Marx gave. But the mechanisms upon which marxist class politics rest seem to have failed. Some would question the relevance of Marx to the project of emancipation, consigning marxism to the past in the search for a revival of radical politics.Marxism is still geared to the political economy of an industrial capitalist past. For postmodernists, marxism fails to either recognize the new technologies of regulation and, tied to the past, proceeds to advance political programmes that only further processes of bureaucratisation and homogenisation. The 'evident truths' of Marxism as a political movement are considered to have been 'seriously challenged by an avalanche of historical mutations which have riven the ground on which those truths were constituted'. This study looks at the relation between marxism postmodernism with the specific intention of outlining the contours of a 'postmodern marxism', playing up the extent to which the end of Marx's emancipatory project is itself a POSTmodernity rather than an anti-modernity. Particularly important is the role of social identity and pluralisation within an overarching framework. Thus the attempt is made to address the crisis of marxism as opportunity as well as defeat. Whilst some thought that the collapse of the old soviet marxism would mean the end of marxism as such, the view taken here is that the result has been the flourishing of a new Marxism, the foundations of which have been laid by many hitherto ignored and marginalised thinkers in the past.
Simon Choat, Marx through Post-Structuralism (2010)
Parrhesia, 2012
Simon choat's book Marx Through Post-Structuralism reminded this reviewer of one of engel's well-cited quotes from Marx, when he wrote a letter to his son-in-law Paul lafargue and the French Marxists just before his death. Dismayed by what was going in France in his name, Marx told them, if what they were proposing was Marxism, then "i am not a Marxist." 1 Jacques Derrida cited this phrase in his 1994 book Specters of Marx. Given what transpired during the twentieth century in the name of Marx, Derrida indeed found himself pondering there the question, "who can still say 'i am a Marxist?'". 2 and even since the two decades after Specters, one can wonder still what Marx would say today? what can Marx or Marxism contribute to our political and theoretical discourses in the twenty first century, the age of globalisation and anti-globalisation, financialisation and the GFC?
Reconsidering Poststructuralism and Anarchism
Post-Anarchism: A Reader, ed. Duane Rousselle and Süreyyya Evren, 2011
The concept of representation looms large in post-structuralist philosophy. For Derrida, Foucault and Deleuze representation is arguably the principal vehicle by which relational concepts are subordinated to totalizing concepts: difference to identity, play to presence, multiplicity to singularity, immanence to transcendence, discourse to knowledge, power to sovereignty, subjectivation to subjectivity, and so on. Representation plays a similar role in anarchist critique, which is one reason that Lewis Call (2003) counts 'classical anarchism' among the historical precursors of post-structuralism. Call was not, however, the first scholar to make this association. Gayatry Spivak and Michael Ryan (1978), 24 years earlier, published a groundbreaking analysis of the connections between post-structuralist philosophy (including that of Derrida, Deleuze and Guattari) and the nouvel anarchisme of 1968. This was followed 14 years later by Todd May's seminal work The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism (1994), which presented the first book-length argument that the political philosophy of Deleuze, Foucault and Lyotard represents a new kind of anarchism. 1 May was followed by Saul Newman (2001) (who refers to 'postanarchism') as well as Lewis Call (who refers to 'postmodern anarchism'). The common theme of these and related works is that post-structuralist political philosophy is an anarchism, one that consciously or unconsciously borrows several key ideas from 'classical anarchism' and proceeds to reaffirm, elaborate and ultimately 'improve' these ideas. My own position is that (a) the so-called 'classical anarchists' had already discovered several of the insights attributed to post-structuralists more than a century before the latter appeared on the scene; (b) that anarchism, consequently, is a postmodern political philosophy and not (or not just) the other way around; (c) that post-structuralist political philosophy, particularly as developed by Deleuze and Foucault, indeed elaborates, expands, and even (to a certain extent) 'improves' upon 'classical' anarchist ideas, but not in the way, or for the reasons, that May and others suggest; and (d) that rather than regard post-structuralist political philosophy as a totally new and ready-made form of anarchism, it is better to view post-structuralist ideas as potential ingredients for the development of new anarchist recipes. As I have already offered considerable support for (a) and (b) elsewhere, I will
Beyond Marxism. The ‘Crisis of Marxism’ and the Post-Marxist Moment
Marx is nowadays widely recognized as a lucid and useful thinker of capitalism but, at the same, his political project is declared definitively failed. Such a diagnosis is rooted in the context of retreat of socialism and the worker’s movement that goes back to the late 1970s. The “crisis of Marxism”, declared by some of the main Marxist thinkers of that time, is the theoretical reflection of that conjuncture and “Post-Marxism” its immanent development. However, a turning point is reached when it appears that the Post-Marxist constellation is unable to stand to the challenges of the new era of globalized capitalism, strengthened by decades of neoliberalism. Despite the persistent weakness of the political movements claiming its legacy, Marxism still hosts a string a ambitious research projects aiming at understanding the world in order to change it.
Is post Marxism deconstructionist?
This dissertation undertakes a comprehensive examination of the interplay between post-Marxism and deconstruction, shedding light on the profound influence Derrida had on Laclau and Mouffe, while also highlighting the innovative approach adopted by post-Marxism in relation to deconstruction. Positioned as a deconstructive operation within Marxism, post-Marxism strives to transcend the determinism inherent in traditional Marxist thought and enhance its political efficacy. The convergence of these two theoretical frameworks becomes evident through the striking resemblance between Laclau and Mouffe's notion of "antagonism" and Derrida's concept of "differánce." Although they seemingly diverge in terms of deconstructive and articulatory practices, and deconstruction and decision, an examination of Derrida's theories of hospitality and decision reveals a significant alignment with the perspective of Laclau.