I find it interesting that I remain entrenched in the 'Marxist' camp, even all these years after my first 'adolescent' flirtings with the manifesto and the 1844 manuscripts. It seems that more often than not, most people decouple their cart from that particular red horse, and come to believe that Marxism is simply passe: the logical step is thus taken by which one 'moves on' to participate in the post-structural neo-Marxist Lacanian-psychoanalytic hegemony debate. Yet in theory seminars and when discoursing with my colleagues in the department, I find myself still returning to Marx's ideas with continued frequency - especially in these turbulent times. It seems that inadvertently I still carry the 'hammer and sickle flag' no matter how much I try and move on. I guess that guy just won my heart and mind (yeah, I used that stupid phrase); regardless of my deep appreciation for Gadamer, Heidegger, and Jonas, it's still Marx who grounds my epistemological and ontological arguments.
That being said, man does this postmodern neo-Marxist debate suck. I just finished reading 'Contingency, Hegemony, Universality' by Butler, Laclau, and Zizek, which, though at times was admittedly rich and stimulating, is certainly nothing like Marx in terms of either form or content. Which makes me wonder: have we become too caught up in this new conceptual baggage? Is hegemony really all that (and a bag of universal chips), or is it more likely that this trendy line of theoretical investigation 'underdetermines' socialist strategy? A hundred years from now (or at whatever future point you choose), will social theorists still be discussing the possibilities of suturing together the surplus remainder from interpolation... affixing those temporary and contingent quasi-universalities into new chains of equivalence... etc etc. I'm not so sure. But what is interesting is how relevant (and prescient) Marx's writings still are today. For example:
“Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeois and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put the existence of the entire bourgeois society on its trial, each time more threateningly. In these crises, a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises, there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation, had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.”
So here's a thought: did Marx let the cat out of the bag a bit prematurely? Was he, inadvertently, the undoing of Communism... or at least instrumental in delaying its arrival? I mean by this that if you assess Capitalism through the lens of the welfare state, it's obvious that Bismark's welfare state was not altruistic, but in fact was constructed to appease German workers (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1297218,00.html). Hence, insights into the contradictions of capital markets and the need to curb such contradictions were probably gained from the rising popularity of communist literature, such as that written by Marx himself.
But on the flip side, and quite ironically, this current global financial crisis could only be delayed, not postponed indefinitely. If Marx was right (which is looking ever more probable), the contradictions inherent to Capital don't simply 'go away'; at best, they can only be temporarily circumvented. And where would such contradictions first manifest themselves/re-emerge: the industrialized country with the least developed welfare state: the US. Certainly this is purely speculative, but with the complete lack of institutions in the US to assist newly needy population segments, and with an overburdened economy taxed by war, entitlements, and debt, it would seem that the conditions are ripe for real social change. Unless of course someone were to pull a Bismark (or in this case, an Obama) and put a big bandage on the problematic situation in which case no substantial change will really occur. (But that leads back to the argument that I made here: http://ericstotles-agora.blogspot.com/2008/10/marxists-for-mccain-obama-sucks.html)
Well, I guess we're all just going to have to sit back and enjoy the ride. But currently it appears that no matter how much money world governments throw at this problem, it's not going away any time soon. And perhaps it's time for us to revisit the writings of Marx for a little guidance rather than cave into the inevitability of capital and the somewhat underwhelming socialist strategy of hegemony. Certainly this latter strategy has some interesting merits; however, the lack of transcendental universalities leaves me somewhat unimpressed. Isn't there some 'common denominator' by which to link divergent populations... a new metanarrative (as Zizek seems to call for) - perhaps grounded in the bios itself? I could imagine a structuring environmental principle based in metabolic dynamism as such a foundational base uniquely identifiable to Dasein (note the previous posts on Eros as Ethics).
Anyway, my breakfast companion calls, so I'll try and follow up on this thought experiment later.
3 comments:
Well here are my thought on this silly argument of yours and some criticism on your use of quotations...
First of all my bull shit meter goes off when you say things like, “ participate in the post-structural neo-Marxist Lacanian-psychoanalytic hegemony debate”. It strikes me that people who use this type of language either have incomplete, unformed or no real ideas or that they are hiding something. My since you don't really discuss post-structural neo-Marxist Lacanian-psychoanalytic hegemony, my guess is that you don't understand what these things are. But don't be offended, my guess is that nobody knows what these things are. It just makes academics feel good when they force this nonsense into our brains and helps them get tenure through confusion. Why is it that writing nonsense with big words makes people automatically think that the author has something to say?
You write, "Hence, insights into the contradictions of capital markets and the need to curb such contradictions were probably gained from the rising popularity of communist literature, such as that written by Marx himself."
Now here I must protest. This is quite the stretch and I suspect Marx himself would disagree. According to Marx these large, changes in the social structure are pre-determined by the human relationship to the means of production. Marx's writings could not have brought about those changes, even acording to him. Furthermore, since there were a great many other social writers who predated Marx, it would seem to me that society had already been developing socialism and Marx simply did a good job of sumarizing it and coupling his summary with a scathing and accurate critique of capitalism. But, Marx pre-empting socialist development? You give to much credit to the man and not enough to the people.
You write, “But on the flip side, and quite ironically, this current global financial crisis could only be delayed, not postponed indefinitely. If Marx was right (which is looking ever more probable), the contradictions inherent to Capital don't simply 'go away'; at best, they can only be temporarily circumvented.” This is too is rather ridiculous. Are you suggesting that the current economic perdicerment prooves that Marx was right? If so your bar for accepting Marx's theories as correct is rather low. But more importantly, I think what your looking for is a financial and governing system that never experiences a crisis. If so then your unattainable utopian ideals are exposed by the more subtle meaning of the above quote.
You continue to write, “And where would such contradictions first manifest themselves/re-emerge: the industrialized country with the least developed welfare state: the US. Certainly this is purely speculative, but with the complete lack of institutions in the US to assist newly needy population segments, and with an overburdened economy taxed by war, entitlements, and debt, it would seem that the conditions are ripe for real social change.” This doesn't make sense to me. Was not the current crisis created by lending rules designed to help the poor buy homes! It was the imprudence, required by federal law, of giving high risk individuals loans that caused this crisis. This seems to go exactly against your argument. If the bourgeois hadn't been federally required to make these loans they wouldn't have made them and the current crisis would have been averted by the conservativism of the banking system.
Again you write that the current government plan is to, "put a big bandage on the problematic situation" if your 'big bandage' works and avoids a crisis is that not evidence that the economic/governing system works and is capable of reacting to economic trouble in a way Marxist societies cannot?
This is not to say that I think throwing money at the problem will fix anything. The real changes necessary to prevent a similar crisis are already being discussed . Find any weekly from last week and you will see an article about the death of the neo-liberal approach to economics. These conclusions seem to be more far reaching then a bandage on the problem and again indicate an ability to react that has been not been seen in economies based on Marx's concepts. However, perhaps the social democratic Nordic economies will show greater flexibility then those based on Marx's approach. In which case it would seem that socialism is a practical approach if you can divorce it from Marx.
You write, "perhaps it's time for us to revisit the writings of Marx for a little guidance" considering my critique above I must ask, how will Marx help us here? Wouldn't we be better off revisiting the works of J.M. Keynes?
Finally, "the lack of transcendental universalities leaves me somewhat unimpressed" as you know this kind of talk sets off my bull shit meter. It seems to me the lack transcendental universalities, or the lack of a central and unifying cause of all our troubles is not just naively simplistic, but also positively dangerous. This kind of oversimplification will only create enemies of the very people who have the power to help the situation, and for nothing because it's too simple and ideological to deal with real world problems. People are saying, “Hi Eric, the economy is in the tank and now I've lost my job and the bank is foreclosing on my home.” and you respond, “Well, see Marx was right! We need to discover the transcendental universalities which have put you into this situation.” That seems ludicrous to my mind.
Finally; notes on quotes,
Why is 'adolescent' in quotes?
Why is 'move on' in quotes?
Why is 'hammer and sickle' in quotes?
Your not quoting anybody here, so drop the damn quotes. If you want emphasis, there are three fine options bold, italics, and underline all available for free.
OK Greg, as per our earlier discussion let me start my saying: you make some good points but fundamentally misunderstand what I’m saying. So in response to your silly response regarding my ‘silly’ argument and my stylistic use of quotations… here’s my reply: (Note, I’ll parse out your argument and enter in my rebuttals. Also, I’ll correct your atrocious spelling!)
1. you say that your “bull shit meter goes off when [I] say things like, “ participate in the post-structural neo-Marxist Lacanian-psychoanalytic hegemony debate”. It strikes me that people who use this type of language either have incomplete, unformed or no real ideas or that they are hiding something. My since you don't really discuss post-structural neo-Marxist Lacanian-psychoanalytic hegemony, my guess is that you don't understand what these things are. But don't be offended, my guess is that nobody knows what these things are. It just makes academics feel good when they force this nonsense into our brains and helps them get tenure through confusion. Why is it that writing nonsense with big words makes people automatically think that the author has something to say?
OK. Well, I didn’t really intend this post as an explication of that particular text or line of theoretical investigation. However, I take some offense to your hasty conclusion that I don’t understand what it is. If you want to discuss it, we can. But my guess is that you don’t really give two shits about the topic, and my overall point was that the hegemony debate is obfuscating the more important issue of capital. Hence, I’m urging a return to more ‘classical’ Marxist doctrine.
2. I wrote that: "Hence, insights into the contradictions of capital markets and the need to curb such contradictions were probably gained from the rising popularity of communist literature, such as that written by Marx himself."
You protested by saying: “This is quite the stretch and I suspect Marx himself would disagree. According to Marx these large, changes in the social structure are pre-determined by the human relationship to the means of production. Marx's writings could not have brought about those changes, even according to him. Furthermore, since there were a great many other social writers who predated Marx, it would seem to me that society had already been developing socialism and Marx simply did a good job of summarizing it and coupling his summary with a scathing and accurate critique of capitalism. But, Marx pre-empting socialist development? You give to much credit to the man and not enough to the people.
OK. My point was that Marx was one of many, not the only one. Certainly there were socialist movement (Internationals) occurring at the time… but as you state, “Marx simply did a good job of summarizing it and coupling his summary with a scathing and accurate critique of capitalism.” And that, my friend, could be the problem. Marx identified Historical Materialism, and in doing so, also (inadvertently) identified the chains of weakness in that very theory. Enter the welfare state.
I wonder what you mean by: “You give to much credit to the man and not enough to the people.” Certainly it’s the people who temporarily circumvented the material movement of history. And if we were to place the International, Marx’s writings, and the development of the first welfare states on a time line, you would find that they unfold in the following order: Capital (1867), Bismark’s Welfare State (began 1881).
3. I wrote, “But on the flip side, and quite ironically, this current global financial crisis could only be delayed, not postponed indefinitely. If Marx was right (which is looking ever more probable), the contradictions inherent to Capital don't simply 'go away'; at best, they can only be temporarily circumvented.”
You protested by saying: “This is too is rather ridiculous. Are you suggesting that the current economic predicament proves that Marx was right? If so your bar for accepting Marx's theories as correct is rather low. But more importantly, I think what you’re looking for is a financial and governing system that never experiences a crisis. If so then your unattainable utopian ideals are exposed by the more subtle meaning of the above quote.”
OK. I don’t really know what your criticism is here. I mean, my point was that the contradictions in capital cannot be held at bay indefinitely. Points of crisis will continue to emerge, and the stop-gap measures instituted by world governments will always fail. I admit that I cannot predict that international communism would result in a financial and governing system that never experiences crisis; however, I assume that given its non-profit agenda, the shift in the rules of the game would fundamentally shift the outcome as well. Perhaps we can discuss this point in more detail. I’ll encourage you to elaborate.
4. I continued to write, “And where would such contradictions first manifest themselves/re-emerge: the industrialized country with the least developed welfare state: the US. Certainly this is purely speculative, but with the complete lack of institutions in the US to assist newly needy population segments, and with an overburdened economy taxed by war, entitlements, and debt, it would seem that the conditions are ripe for real social change.”
You protested by saying: “This doesn't make sense to me. Was not the current crisis created by lending rules designed to help the poor buy homes! It was the imprudence, required by federal law, of giving high risk individuals loans that caused this crisis. This seems to go exactly against your argument. If the bourgeois hadn't been federally required to make these loans they wouldn't have made them and the current crisis would have been averted by the conservativism of the banking system.”
OK. That’s an interesting point. But who encourage this indiscriminate lending? Clinton… another centrist democrat who is still in the service of capital. It doesn’t actually go against my argument, as that my argument is that Capital always results in these types of contradictions. We could say that the lending rules were to help the poor buy homes, but the truth is that if the goal was to help the poor, there were other ways to do it rather than through the mechanisms of financial institutions and predatory lending. Rather, the government could have undertaken a federal works project to construct low-income housing for the poor. And actually, there are plenty of empty houses out there… the problem is simply to match them up to homeless/poor people. The problem is the middle-man, i.e. the bourgeoisie.
5. I’ll just quote you quoting me here: “Again you write that the current government plan is to, "put a big bandage on the problematic situation" if your 'big bandage' works and avoids a crisis is that not evidence that the economic/governing system works and is capable of reacting to economic trouble in a way Marxist societies cannot?
OK. Maybe. This assumes that we’ve actually had Marxist societies, which I think is a silly assumption. But we discussed that already and I posted the conversation here:
6. You wrote: “This is not to say that I think throwing money at the problem will fix anything. The real changes necessary to prevent a similar crisis are already being discussed . Find any weekly from last week and you will see an article about the death of the neo-liberal approach to economics. These conclusions seem to be more far reaching then a bandage on the problem and again indicate an ability to react that has been not been seen in economies based on Marx's concepts. However, perhaps the social democratic Nordic economies will show greater flexibility then those based on Marx's approach. In which case it would seem that socialism is a practical approach if you can divorce it from Marx.”
Hmmm… time will tell on this one. The Nordic countries you mention have had to greatly re-trench their social welfare programs over the past 20+ years. Hopefully this crisis will legitimize their initial goals and allow them to move back towards the left. But I’m not sure that this means that socialism has been divorces from Marx. Many welfare state theorists still rely on Marx… even the ones who advise Nordic governments (note Esping Andersen for example). And after all, my whole point was that the insightful ability to react might potentially have been garnered from an understanding of Marx. But those very reactions, heretofore, have failed to prevent crisis: Capital is tenacious!
7. I wrote, "perhaps it's time for us to revisit the writings of Marx for a little guidance"
You protested by saying: “considering my critique above I must ask, how will Marx help us here? Wouldn't we be better off revisiting the works of J.M. Keynes?”
OK, yeah. Keynes is pretty cool too, especially if we’re not really interested in a fundamental fix but just another temporary bandage. But if that’s the best we can hope for, than Keynes it is. It’s not like I really think revolution is imminent.
8. Finally, I wrote that "the lack of transcendental universalities leaves me somewhat unimpressed"
You protested by saying that “as you know this kind of talk sets off my bull shit meter. It seems to me the lack transcendental universalities, or the lack of a central and unifying cause of all our troubles is not just naively simplistic, but also positively dangerous. This kind of oversimplification will only create enemies of the very people who have the power to help the situation, and for nothing because it's too simple and ideological to deal with real world problems. People are saying, “Hi Eric, the economy is in the tank and now I've lost my job and the bank is foreclosing on my home.” and you respond, “Well, see Marx was right! We need to discover the transcendental universalities which have put you into this situation.” That seems ludicrous to my mind.”
Here’s where you misunderstand what I was aiming at: The hegemony debate (which you say I don’t understand) begins with the premise that the transcendental notion of class if flawed; there is no homogonous group which will seize power, nor is there a homogonous group that holds it. Rather, divergent interests are ‘sutured together’. My complaint is that this critique is flawed. While I don’t necessarily buy into ‘class’ as transcendental, I do think there may be room for another ‘common denominator' by which to link divergent populations... a new metanarrative (as Zizek seems to call for) - perhaps grounded in the bios. As I said, ‘I could imagine a structuring environmental principle based in metabolic dynamism as such a foundational base uniquely identifiable to Dasein’. By this I mean an appeal to Hans Jonas and Heidegger, to biophelia in the work of Fromm and E.O. Wilson, Aristotle’s habit theory of virtue, etc. I’m not ready to give up on a metaphysics project just yet (but I call it post-metaphysics in my work for a litany of reasons I’m not ready to go into here/yet)
9. Finally; notes on quotes,
Why is 'adolescent' in quotes? Because my physical body was about 19 when I started reading Marx; however, my mental/philosophical abilities were still adolescent. And those early ‘radical’ flirtings with Marxism/communism just seem like a rite-of-passage.
Why is 'move on' in quotes? Because it’s expected that after you read Marx, you ‘move on’ to post-Marxist bullshit
Why is 'hammer and sickle' in quotes? I should have used dashes. It was just for stylistic clarity.
You’re not quoting anybody here, so drop the damn quotes. If you want emphasis, there are three fine options bold, italics, and underline all available for free.
Hey bitch… it’s a stylistic choice. You underline things if you want; I’ll put things in quotes if I want. And I don’t use quotes anyway; I use apostrophes.
Finally to you, a note on contractions: you+are=you’re, not your!
Yeah yeah, I should have proof read that last comment especially if I'm going to criticize your grammar. I'm a hypocrite I admit it. But to be fair, 'stylistic choice' is not a justification for incorrect usage. I could equally defend my misuse of 'your' for 'you are' in the same fashion.
But more importantly,
Point 1, explain it to me
Point 2, I concede I didn't read you carefully enough.
Point 3, I'll get back to.
Point 4, You concede the general point but deepen the argument, I'll get back to that too.
Point 5, Assumption that Marxist societies have existed. Maybe, maybe not. This is outside the scope of this particular reply.
Point 6, I'll get back to it
Point 7, Keynes is just a band-aid and doesn't' really address the problem of Capital. From your perspective I agree. But I still think Keyen's a better approach to economics then Marx's vision of socialism
Point 8, I'll get back to too.
OK all those “I'll get back to” comments are because I think they are really sub arguments within a greater difference of opinion between us. It seems to me that our difference is this. I think applied Marxism leads to totalitarianism, and you don't. My argument is simple, it seems that everywhere Marx is applied some form of authoritarianism is established and often time something far worse. Your response, if I understand you correctly is that Marx's approaches have never been applied appropriately so the evidence I muster (Castro, Pol Pot, Stalin, China, N. Korea, etc) is flawed because they don't really apply to Marx. Therefore, Marx still stands untested and you are willing to try to apply his approach, whereas I see it as a risky adventure at best.
Is this a fair summary of our disagreement?
Post a Comment