Marxian Categories, the Crisis of Capital and the Constitution of Social Subjectivity Today (original) (raw)

Marx’s Capital, Method and Revolutionary Subjectivity - Table of Contents & Introduction

2015

In Marx´s Capital, Method and Revolutionary Subjectivity, Guido Starosta develops a materialist inquiry into the social and historical determinations of revolutionary subjectivity. Through a methodologically-minded critical reconstruction of the Marxian critique of political economy, from the early writings up to the Grundrisse and Capital, this study shows that that the outcome of the historical movement of the objectified form of social mediation turned into the very alienated subject of social life (i.e. capital) is to develop, as its own immanent determination, the constitution of the (self-abolishing) working class as a revolutionary subject. A crucial element in this intellectual endeavour is the focus on the intrinsic connection between the specifically dialectical form of social science and its radical transformative content.

The inversion of class perspective in Marxian theory: From valorisation to self-valorisation

Open Marxism, 1992

Different theories provide insights into various aspects of the social relationships of capitalism from different points of view. In Marxian terms, the usefulness of any particular theory depends upon understanding the particular class perspective from which it grasps those relationships. A given theory may express any of several different capitalist or working class points of view. We do not have to agree with a theory to understand with which aspects of the class relation it is preoccupied, how it approaches them and, therefore, the ways we may find it useful. In this essay my principal concern is an examination of the usefulness of some recent work --both within and without Marxian theory--on the positive content of working class struggle, that is to say on the various ways in which people have sought to move beyond mere resistance to capitalism toward the self-construction of alternative ways of being. As a methodological prelude to that examination I discuss first, the issue of class perspective as applied to economic theory and second, the question of the inversion of class perspective within Marxian theory with an example taken from post-WWII Italian Marxism.

Critical analysis of Marxist ideology

2018

The essay referred to herein is in fact a brief summary, precision-cut and sharp to the point, as only the quintessential technocrat can deliver it, of all the issues and problems generations of intellectuals have agonized on for more than a century -and it is prompted by the ongoing bicentennial of Karl Marx' birthday. It is very tempting to offer a brief review given we believe we can make a contribution to better understanding of XIX century's giant of philosophy 1 .

The theory of Marxism: Questions and answers

Rethinking …, 2008

Vladislav Sofronov questioned a number of prominent Marxist scholars on the challenges to contemporary Marxism posed by volatile post-Soviet conditions. He seeks a way forward: away from neoliberalism, and toward a leftist consciousness that can be articulated across borders. This article publishes the responses of Frederic Jameson and of Jack Amariglio and Yahya M. Madra. Jameson's answers reflect his attitude toward contemporary Marxism: its dialectic, the relationship between labor and the theoretical problems of the present. He outlines the challenges that affect Marxism, particularly the disparity between labor and technology and the pressure from postmodernity and culture. Amariglio and Madra stress the enduring significance of the Marxist dialectic, and give a descriptive analysis of the alternation of notions between labor and capital.

Developments in Marxist Theory

Nash/Blackwell, 2004

Marxists have analysed power relations in many ways. But four interrelated themes typify their overall approach. The first of these is a concern with power relations as manifestations of a specific mode or configuration of class domination rather than as a purely interpersonal phenomenon lacking deeper foundations in the social structure.

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.

Marxism, Sociology and Poulantzas’ Theory of the State

Capital & Class, 1977

Political developments in the last ten years have led to a very considerable renewal of interest in Marxist economic and political analysis, and to a concerted attempt to reinvigorate Marxist theory as a revolutionary force. The focus of this movement is the attempt to develop a Marxist critique of Stalinist dogmatism and of post-Stalinist revisionism. Its material conditions are the end of the long wave of postwar capitalist expansion and the reappearance of capitalist crisis, on the one hand, and the development of working class resistance to the domination of capital independently of the orthodox Communist Parties, on the other. This Marxist renaissance is taking place in conditions which make it extremely vulnerable to absorption into the frame of reference of bourgeois ideology. Since 1930 Marxist theory has been positively or negatively dominated by the official Marxism of the orthodox Communist Parties (which I shall refer to as 'dogmatism'). Those Marxists who were not prepared to subordinate themselves to dogmatism were not able to challenge it either. The period of cold war and the absence of independent working class resistance to capital meant that there was no basis on which such a challenge could be mounted. The independence of such Marxism was maintained by its diversion of attention from political and economic concerns. It was dominated by the attempt to explain the apparent solidity of bourgeois domination by reference to specific superstructural features which varied from one country to another, thus constituting various national schools of 'Western Marxism', which borrowed heavily from the dominant bourgeois cultural theories in the various countries. The 'Marxist' alternatives to dogmatism systematically evaded the fundamental theoretical issues which would have been raised by any direct challenge to dogmatism (Anderson, 1976). The development of capitalist crisis and the corresponding development of political alternatives to revisionism has created new conditions for Marxist theory. These dictate a return to the foundations of Marxism, to the generality of the capital relation, and a confrontation with the dogmatist orthodoxy. However the novelty of these conditions also indicates a weakness of contemporary Marxism. In the absence of a Marxist critique of dogmatism, various forms of bourgeois ideology, and above all bourgeois sociology, have monopolised such