Post-Marxists and "Young Marxists": Two Conflicting Visions of Radical Democracy (original) (raw)
Related papers
Radical democracy defines a perspective of democracy that seeks to maximize the political space, and the rights of antagonized groups, through a continuous hegemonic struggle. In Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe argue that this project is one that captures the unrest of the New Social Movements by hegemonic discourses that do not prioritize a priori a specific agent, as it was the case of the working class in classical Marxism. To do this, they argue for populist parties that could establish counter-hegemony. In this thesis, I will criticize their approach towards the role of horizontal movements, using the post-anarchist perspective of Saul Newman. First of all, I survey the main currents of ‘classical’ anarchism highlighting their main theoretical principles, in order to see the point of departure for their vision of equal liberty for social actors. Second of all, I present the post-anarchist critique to the more or less hidden essentialism found in ‘classical’ anarchism, and review the main arguments for why this characteristic hinders the fight for true equal liberty by allowing the Revolution and the destruction of the state to hide differents strands of power that pose problems for the the praxis of the movement and for the hypothetical post-revolutionary society. Third of all, I introduce the post-anarchist perspective on the organization and purpose of the anarchist movements in late stage capitalism. Newman argues that movements should become free from identity and concentrate on fighting specific situations of oppression, as a ‘nomadic group’. Fourth of all, while this may seem unrelated to the praxis of ‘classical’ anarchism, by using the Discourse Theory developed by the Essex School, I study three cases in the history of anarchist movements - The Haymarket Affair in Chicago during the 1880s, Anarchist Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, and the ‘Occupy’ Movement after the 2000s. This goes to show that the ‘Revolution’ stems further and further from the idea of overthrowing the state, while the ‘anarchist’, as a revolutionary identity, comes to include more and more social identities, concentrating on the fight for political rights. Fifth of all, after this analysis, I draw three main conclusions: a) after presenting the main criticism levelled against Newman’s politics, I argue that it is not only a viable vision of a movement, but that some NSMs are approaching his vision; b) I argue that this perspective on horizontal movements is necessary for the future of radical democracy, irrespective of other political formations, such as political parties; and finally c) from a post-anarchist perspective, I criticize the populist parties of Laclau and Mouffe for not being able to escape the downsides of parliamentary democracy, unless they are structured and kept in balance by some horizontal movement that is constantly adjusting and freeing itself from identity, because it is not constrained by the confined space of liberal democratic politics.
BRIDGING THE GAPS BETWEEN ANARCHISM AND RADICAL DEMOCRACY
I would like to engage and interrogate the relations, resonances, dissonance and points of conflict between two important modes of critical political analysis, Anarchism and Radical Democracy. These two converge at the point of relation with the institutionalization of non-hierarchical and egalitarian politics. I will attempt to address how do these work two lenses theorize their ideal political forms, and how they relate to constituent and destituent politics. Radical Democracy is a contemporary theoretical device that has its origins in the theoretical work of Ernest Laclau and Chantelle Mouffe, as a post-Marxist reading of a need for a direct and counter-hegemonic institution of politics. However, RD has its genealogy of thinkers who processed Laclau and Mouffe, including the council democrat Hannah Arendt. Arendt in On Revolution offers important groundwork for the interpretation of the most positive revolutionary, which values can be found in the Paris Commune's radical democratic council system that incorporated the people themselves directly into the institution of politics; her reading is in direct contradiction to the Marxist reading, which asserts that the socioeconomic improvements are the important revolutionary factors that was brought under the authoritarian rule of Jacobins. Radical Democracy thinkers tend to idealize direct democracy, and see radical and prefigurative democratic practices happening everywhere: democratic and student-run schools, cooperative living arrangements, workplace councils, and of course radically deliberative political institutions wherein the state, if there is one, is acutely aware of, and responds to the peoples' voice.
Thinking Radical Democracy: The Return to Politics in Postwar France ed. Martin Breaugh, Paul Mazzocchi, Rachel Magnusson, and Devin Penner (University of Toronto Press), 2015
Radical democracy redux. Politics and Subjectivity Beyond Habermas and Mouffe
This thesis investigates two contemporary theories of radical democracy, Jürgen Habermas’s deliberative and Chantal Mouffe’s agonistic democracy. By bringing the two scholars together and constructing a debate between them, their respective strengths and weaknesses are highlighted and the similarities and differences are pointed out. Habermas and Mouffe are seldom dealt with simultaneously as they represent different theoretical traditions, critical theory and post-structuralism respectively. This thesis argues that we can learn from both of them. The aim of the thesis is to clarify and critically assess Chantal Mouffe’s and Jürgen Habermas’s versions of radical democracy, their disparate visions of democratic politics and subjectivity, in order to clear the ground for a third position that draws inspiration from both of them. The methodological inspiration comes from the deconstructive approach to interpretation, and thus the study aspires to a ‘just reading’ while being conscious of the elements of violence inherent to any instances of reading. The main bulk of the thesis is dedicated to an analysis of the two authors’ theories of democracy and subjectivity, which leads on to the third position situated beyond the two. From Habermas I take the stress on political communication and intersubjectivity, while both these concepts are extensively reformulated. The elements I reject from his position are the orientation to consensus and the strong requirements of coherence and transparency of the subject. From Mouffe I take the accent on the agonistic spirit of democracy, while setting aside the ontological status of antagonism. Her conception of split subjectivity is included, but supplemented with a more explicit theorization of the unity of the subject in the element of intersubjective meetings. The third position on radical democracy embraces the fundamental status of undecidability, which calls for an ethos of questioning.
The Stakes of Radical Politics have Changed: Post-crisis, Relevance and the State
Globalizations, 2010
This paper flags up one central point: given that the stakes of radical politics have changed post-crisis, and the Left is proving to be ineffective, radicals need to revisit some fundamental debates. This not only requires us to continue with those initial reflections on the economy that draw upon Keynes and Marx. Other themes need re-examination in the post-crisis light too. My article revisits the role of three: namely (1) the state, (2) ethical lifestyle politics, and (3) radical philosophy today. I conclude by suggesting that the crisis has brought about new challenges in all three areas for radicals. These are the need to (1) create a new atmosphere where representational politics is seen more positively, (2) question the growing retreat into ethics and idealism, away from political instrumentality, and (3) point out that radical philosophy and politics, while related, are different.Este artículo marca un punto central: dado que los riesgos de las políticas radicales han cambiado después de la crisis, y la izquierda está probando ser inefectiva, los radicales necesitan volver a visitar algunos debates fundamentales. Esto no sólo requiere que continuemos con aquellas reflexiones sobre la economía que se inspira en Keynes y Marx. Otros temas que necesitan reexaminarse a la luz de la pos crisis también. Mi artículo vuelve a visitar el rol de tres: (1) el estado, (2) políticas del estilo de vida ético, y (3) filosofía radical de hoy. Concluyo sugiriendo que la crisis ha llevado a cabo nuevos retos en todas las tres áreas para los radicales. Estas son necesarias para (1) crear una nueva atmósfera a donde la política representativa sea vista más positivamente, (2) cuestionar el creciente retiro dentro de la ética y el idealismo, lejos del medio político y (3) destacar que la filosofía radical y la política, aunque se relacionan, son diferentes.
Radical Democracy with what Demos? Mouffe and Laclau after the Rise of the Right
Radical Philosophy Review, 2018
This paper considers the radical democratic theory of Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau with reference to the recent rise of Right-wing populism. I argue that even as Mouffe and Laclau develop a critical political ontology that regards democracy as an end in itself, they surreptitiously delimit the proper composition of the demos to coincide with particular political aims. In other words, they appeal to formal categories but decide the political content in advance, disqualifying Right-wing movements and discourses without justification. This ambivalence between form and content reveals the limits of Mouffe and Laclau's brand of radical democracy for understanding and critiquing the present political conjuncture.