Abstracts for conference organised into panels
Examining the Relevance of Marx and Marxism to Contemporary Global Society
Newcastle University, 29th and 30th of January 2011
2. What Does it Mean to be Marxist?
Name: Alan Johnson
Title: Marxism as Linksfaschismus: Taking Slavoj Žižek Seriously
Abstract:
The only ‘realistic’ prospect is to ground a new political universality by opting
for the impossible, fully assuming the place of the exception, with no taboos,
no a priori norms (‘human rights’, ‘democracy’), respect for which would
prevent us from ‘resignifying’ terror, the ruthless exercise of power, the spirit
of sacrifice … if this radical choice is decried by some bleeding-heart liberals
as Linksfaschismus, so be it! – Slavoj Žižek (2000:326)
This paper makes two claims. First, that Žižek should be taken seriously. He is
rehabilitating (for this is hardly a novelty) Marxism-as-linksfaschismus. More, and
darker: his thought shares some of the central themes and a great swathe of the
sensibility of the conservative revolution of the 1930s. It is an example of the fateful
power of what Claude Lefort has identified as the ‘anonymous intentionality’ of the
totalitarian regime of thought and language.
The paper examines some expressions of Žižek’s Marxism-as-linksfaschismus,
including his in-principle assault on liberalism, democracy, majority rule, the
‘bourgeois’ individual and her ‘stupid pleasures’ , as well as his valorisation of
dictatorship, terror, and organisation as tools to impose an Absolute Truth. His
metaphysics of violence, pain and self-sacrificial death as the spiritual ground for both
the formation of a warrior-soldier, a cold and cruel New Man, and for the shattering
of a decadent liberal democracy will also be considered.
Second, that Žižek’s project (and generally positive-to-fawning reception
amongst Marxists) is one more symptom that ‘Marxism’ – long ago unmoored from
the ‘democratic extremism’ (Hal Draper) that held Marx’s thought in continuity with
the promise of the bourgeois revolutions, and from the notion of self-emancipation
which was Marx’s true revolution in thought – is now mostly an anti-democratic and
reactionary force in politics and intellectual life. The combination of Žižek’s
linksfaschismus with the framing idea of his geo-political thought – the distinction
between the primary conflicts and secondary tensions of global capitalism – means
that to be ‘anti-fascist’ is to be – not always, but often - anti-Marxist. It is certainly
to be anti- Žižek.
Name: John Gullick
Title: Putting the -ism Back onto Marx: Political Commitment and the Biography of
Philosophy
Abstract: Following the work of Alain Badiou this paper argues that philosophy is
fundamentally biographical, but far from being a relativist weakness this is its very
strength. The philosopher at their best is a unique point in a socio-economic
constellation, at once both embedded and able to withdraw and disembed themselves,
giving new perspective. The classic critique of positivism is then outlined, to suggest
1
that the self-movement of the scientific method is itself founded upon an original
philosophical decision, or an Urwissenschaftlich decision in Heideggerian terms. This
is an epistemological and phenomenological decision marking analytic and scientific
knowledge as the true knowledge, however the verification for this mark is itself of a
reasoned, philosophical nature. Given Marx's often cryptic relationship with
philosophers, his overt use of an Hegelian structure in Capital, but equally his
invocation of "science" as the doctrine of study he is setting up apropos society, this
paper argues that philosophy asserts itself continually at both the proto-scientific level,
and the social-scientific discursive level in Marx. His invocation of science is thus one
heavily qualified philosophically, and vice versa. Thus, in spite of the self-movement
of the scientific method, the philosophical trace and structure gives Marx's work its
critical rather than just descriptive stance. This itself was informed by the
biographical nature of philosophy, meaning the social-science he outlined comes
packaged with a political commitment born of his philosophy. Marx's major work was
the critique of political economy, the critique of the philosophical, juridical and
scientific discourses which naturalised and edified capitalism. To conclude, it is
suggested that if being a Marxist, and forming a Marxism has any meaning it is in this
complex package of analysis, reason and political commitment, a package which
juggles science and philosophy in the critique of capitalism.
Name: Lawrence Wilde
Title: Marx, Morality, and Global Justice
Abstract: Marx’s disdain for moral discourse is well known, and it is therefore hardly
surprising that he barely rates a mention in the global justice debate that has
developed apace over the last two decades. However, it is questionable that the debate,
addressing as it does systemic inequalities in power, should simply ignore Marx’s
analysis of exploitation in capitalism and its implicit ethical grounding in the
alienation thesis. Conventional Marxist positions can be critical of liberal arguments
about justice, but offer no alternative within moral discourse. However, if the ethical
significance of Marx’s social theory is admitted, it could produce a radical and
constructive contribution to global justice. This paper argues for such an engagement
on two grounds. First, that Marx’s hostility to moral discourse was a tactical choice
rather than a rejection of morality as such, and, that this choice is no longer justifiable.
Second, there is an ethics explicit in his early writings and implicit in his mature
political economy that could be developed to produce an ethics of self-realisation. The
point of access to existing debates in global justice is the work of Martha Nussbaum,
one of the few contributors to make use of Marx’s philosophical views on human
flourishing. A Marxist perspective could give qualified support to her capabilities
approach, as applied to global justice in Frontiers of Justice (2006), while clarifying
its limitations in not dealing with the realities of global economic power.
Name: Nik Howard
Title: What Marxism was not and why that is important to its regeneration today: an
examination of three late 19th century strands of ‘socialism-from-above’
Abstract: This paper will treat three thinkers and their individual brands of socialism
from above as forms of pseudo-socialism and, in so doing, point to how Marxism as a
school of thought and politics became fatally confused and contaminated with other
(and deeply alien) authoritarian and proto-totalitarian traditions from above.
Two decades after the end of the Cold War, we have to be clear that Marxism
still has an image problem that is tied ineluctably to its association with a number of
2
regimes around the world that claimed to be ‘Marxist’ but are better described as
bureaucratic state capitalist (Russia after 1925) or peasant nationalist (China after
1949). It is not the place here to make an examination of the structure of the flawed
political economies or the political deviations of such bureaucratic-authoritarian
regimes as Stalinist and post-Stalinist Russia, Maoist and post-Maoist China, Kim Ilsungist and post-Kim Il-sungist North Korea (etc.). Instead, I am more interested in,
and I shall thus focus on, the kinds of ideas that made cogent and compelling such an
identification of the substantive ideologies of these regimes with Marx’s.
In attempting to extract the truth of such genealogies of mistaken belief, the
intention is to lay bare just how deformed and distorted the best of the Marxist
tradition (socialism-from-below) became at the hands of largely alien strands of
socialism-from-above.
For purposes of illustration of this thesis, my focus will be on three texts that
had a massive impact upon Japanese socialism – a tradition that was born in confusion
and contamination and never managed to recover from this predicament and
proceeded through the 1920s and the 1930s only to get worse (the Japanese case is far
from unique, I would submit, but rather reflected the broad trends of confusion and
conflation in the wider world concerning ‘the two souls of socialism’ – title of an
essay by Hal Draper). The following three texts are instructive precisely because they
indicate just how fatally different the various strands of socialism were in the Western
world in the late 19th to early 20th century.
The underlying thesis of this paper is that ideas and ideological conceptions
matter, especially in or alongside corrupting or counter-revolutionary socio-political
predicaments which bring with them constant danger of new and unprecedented paths
towards, and forms of, socialism-from-above with its inner embourgeoisement, or
even potential for eventual ‘fascistisation’ or a succumbing to totalitarianism.
The texts of socialism-from-above to be examined here will be: first, Albert
Schäffle’s Quintessence of Socialism – which lies in the Bismarckian state
socialist/German Historical School tradition; second, Henry George’s Social
Problems and his land reform outlook (that borrows heavily from liberalism and, in
turn, influences the statist-liberal traditions of the Fabians); and, third, Edward
Bellamy’s novel, Looking Backward, with its deluded and complacent conception of
the coming to birth of his Utopia from above and what that tells us about the vision of
gradualism, reformism and ‘the inevitable arrival of socialism’ (from above) that
subtends it.
3. Theory, Practice and Praxis
Name: Alberto Martinez
Topic: Evolution of Marxist Theory and Practice
Abstract: Marxism claims to have two main characteristics: to be a scientific
knowledge of social reality based on economics and to indicate a way to achieve the
liberation of the working class and of the whole of mankind, thus entering a new era
in human history.
Both of these features, repeatedly proclaimed in Marxist writings, –from Marx
and Engels to Stalin and other leaders and Marxist ideologues– are deeply
problematic. The liberation of the working class is denied by the historic experiences
of the countries and situations where Marxist organisations have got any kind of
power. The scientific character of Marxism, on the other hand, clashes with some a
3
priori ideas of Marxist theory, in particular with the doctrinarian imposition of
dialectic thought.
Independently of the theoretical constitution of Marxism, which must, in any
case also be considered, the socio-historic reality makes evident the disparity between
hopes which are in some way a result of the ideological power of the socialist –
Marxist theory itself, and the real social situation. While Marxism has been a great
hope for millions of people for about a century and a half, Marxist-socialist reality has
caused a profound disappointment in many socialist supporters, a disappointment
delayed but not avoided by widely trumpeted propaganda slogans.
This situation, a sound suspicion of not being as proletarian nor as scientific as
proclaimed, requires an analysis of the reality of capitalism and of Marxist ideology
according to a scientific and materialist view, without being subject to the dialectical
idealistic standpoint increasingly dominant within Marxism.
The subordination of reality to the development of dialectical categories and
the strict bipolarity of contradiction, including the class struggle, are two especially
revealing manifestations of the dialectical dogmatism and idealism that have
permanently pervaded Marxism from its first moments and hinder even the study of
basic material production and the capitalist class structure.
From a materialistic point of view, the root of this idealism must be analysed
according to a view of social classes that goes beyond the duality capitalist classworking class; at least we ought also to take into account the presence in capitalist
society of the fundamental class of cadres or managers.
Besides the dialectical bipolar view of social classes, a unitary conception of
each of the social classes in a national sphere and beyond that in the international
realm also seems theoretically untenable. The national character of the dominant
classes and their struggle is an undeniable historical fact – whose more acute
manifestation is the war between the ruling classes of different States – that deserves
to be incorporated into social theory over and above any aim of establishing general
and universal categories which could possess the capacity for self-development.
Name: Charles Umney
Title: Workers of the World? Trade Unions and International Class Consciousness
Abstract: This article examines the role of bureaucracy in shaping trade union
responses to globalization. It engages with Marxian trade union literature- particularly
work on ‘international social movement unionism’ which suggests a link between
member-led activism and transformative internationalist orientations. The norms
emphasized within this literature, represent relevant and progressive criticisms of
modern trade unionism from a Marxist perspective. However, with reference to
qualitative research into the international trade union movement, it argues that such a
link is difficult to sustain empirically. Instead, trade union officials often have a
progressive role to play in propagating internationalist frames amongst membership.
The article suggests a distinction between interest-oriented internationalism and
value-oriented internationalism, which is largely dependent on the extent to which
workers are integrated into global production chains. In the case of the former, we
often find officers trying to decentralize internationalism, and activate grassroots
international networks amongst their membership.
Name: Martyn Griffin
Title: Culture, Community and Cognition: A Vygotskian Foundation for a
Communitarian Deliberative Democracy
4
Abstract: Deliberative democracy rests upon an assumption that citizens are
competent enough to take part in the public exchange of reason. However, the
developmental theory on which this political framework is built does not adequately
support a community where critical deliberators can be cultivated and where they can
flourish. Instead, the developmental theory on which deliberative democracy is builtan account proposed by Jean Piaget- encourages a liberal and laissez faire attitude
towards education. This Piagetian account, endorsed by deliberative theorists such as
Rawls and Habermas, represents development as i) organic, ii) universal, iii)
evolutionary, iv) descriptive and v) encouraged by facilitative techniques. Piaget acts
as a foundation for a liberal approach to deliberative democracy. In this paper I wish
to discuss this influence, to examine its problems and to propose an alternative that
might be better suited to deliberative democracy. At its foundation this alternative will
have a developmental theory devised by the Soviet and Marxist psychologist Lev
Vygotsky. In contrast to Piaget he defends an account of development which is i)
cultural, ii) contextual, iiI) revolutionary, iv) explanatory and v) encouraged by
mediatory techniques. I would like to defend the merits of this approach to
development and suggest that it can be more effective in the creation of competent
deliberative citizens and, perhaps even more significantly, that Vygotsky and the
influence of Marx could act as the foundation for a new Communitarian approach to
deliberative democracy.
Name: Miguel Candioti
Title: Marx and the Primacy of Practice over Theory: Notes on Some
Misunderstandings
Abstract: In the brief notes later known as Theses on Feuerbach (1845), Marx wrote
down some important ideas, most of which he would begin to develop during the
same year in The German Ideology. Unfortunately, these two works were not made
public at the same time, because when Engels decided to publish the Theses, in 1888,
he ruled out the edition of The German Ideology. Thus, the reading of the succinct
and sometimes equivocal Theses without the possibility of comparing them to that
other important text written in the same year and with the same spirit (specially its
first part, entitled “Feuerbach: Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlooks”),
caused some serious misunderstandings. One of them refers to Marx's definition of
praxis as “sensuous human activity” (“sinnlich menschliche Tätigkeit”). Many
authors, in particular those who could not read The German Ideology, interpreted that
expression wrongly, as if it meant that Marx's philosophical point of view was a
sensualist subjectivism, which stands against any type of materialism. This paper
aims to contribute to the clarification of this confusion (and others), by showing
Marx’s discovery of a new practical materialism which opposes both idealism and
previous materialism.
Keywords:
Praxis, Historical Materialism, Theoricism, Idealism, Subjectivism, Objectivism.
Name: Ritanjan Das
Title: Ideas vs. Compulsions: The Political Rationale of the Communist Party of
India- Marxist (CPIM)
bstract: The remarkable distinction of being the longest-lived, democratically elected
Communist government in the world goes to the Left Front (LF) coalition government
in the Indian state of West Bengal (WB). Led by the Communist Party of India-
5
Marxist (CPIM), the LF has ruled WB uninterruptedly since 1977, and has been in
limelight ever since with its pro-poor development efforts1.
The governance initiatives of the LF have always been fraught with a fundamental
debate which existed in the leftist circles of India since the 1950s- whether a
communist party should participate in a parliamentary democratic system or not.
These debates reached its peak in 1967-69, when a group of radical leftists left the
CPIM, criticising its leaders of neo-revisionism, and rejecting the hoax of
parliamentarianism. The CPIM response to these criticisms- both before and after it
came to power- has always been along following lines:
The party firmly adheres to its aim of building socialism, but this cannot be
achieved under the present State and the bourgeoisie-landlord government led by the
big bourgeoisie. Therefore, the party recognises the establishment of people’s
democracy as its immediate objective, which would be based on the coalition of all
anti-feudal, anti-monopoly and anti-imperialist forces led by the working class.
Participation in parliamentary democracy is thus an absolute necessity. However, the
party also recognises that this would not solve the economic and political problems of
the nation in any fundamental manner, and thus the people’s democratic government
can at best carry out a programme of providing relief to its people and implement
alternative policies within the existing limitations.
In this paper, I propose to trace a new chapter in the recent history of the
CPIM, when the party slowly seeped into the logic of capitalist production, but
continued to maintain the above ideological standpoint. This ideological jugglery
would have gone largely unnoticed amidst the celebrations of economic development
in WB finally taking off, had it not been for the severe atrocities unleashed by the
state on its citizens in the name of land acquisition for industrialization purposes 2.
These incidents- dubbed in popular media to be one of the worst governance and
humanitarian crisis in arguably one of India’s most liberal states- present a serious
ideological puzzle: how does a communist government (with a record of significant
pro-poor development initiatives) submit itself so blindly to the capitalist production
system, and yet continue to proclaim its Marxian philosophy? While reactions range
from nuanced analysis of ideological revisionism to emotional outbursts about the
moral betrayal of a leftist dream, I examine this jugglery against the backdrop of the
political rationale of the CPIM. Trying to perform a tight-rope walk of balancing its
ideological stance with the compulsions of a transitional economy, the CPIM had
developed this rationale as its modus-operandi in WB. The ideological puzzle
continued to exist at the heart of this rationale, but rather than a proper debate, it was
1
The LF has had a distinguished record in the implementation of agrarian reforms, led the way in the
establishment of local-level democracy, broken a long spell of stagnation in agricultural production,
and most importantly, experienced significant reductions in rural poverty and inequality.
2
The particular case in point is that of Nandigram- a small village in the East Midnapore district of
WB- where on 14th March 2007, 14 people were killed by police firing during a protest demonstration
against a government decision to acquire arable land for setting up a Special Economic Zone (SEZ).
Since then the area remained virtually sealed off from the outside society for 10 months, and was
caught in an open warfare between the local cadres of both the ruling and opposition parties. The LF
was accused to have turned a blind eye towards the atrocities being unleashed by the cadres of the
CPIM in the region. This sparked off a series of political violence in many parts of WB, including
Kolkata, and led to a central government imposed criminal enquiry, and waves of criticism from
various national and international quarters2. Over the last two years, Nandigram has acquired a
symbolic significance all across India- epitomising a peasant movement against corporate/government
land invasion according the diktats of a harsh neoliberal regime.
6
always pushed under the garb of a legitimising rhetoric. The present state of affairs in
WB is just a manifestation of this inherent contradiction.
4. Popular Culture
Name: Eran Fisher
Title: Marx 2.0: Network Technology, Social Production, and the New Tradeoff
between Alienation and Exploitation in Digital Capitalism
Abstract: Network technology (primarily, the Internet) is commonly seen in popular
and academic discourse as socially transformative. Network technology is
characterized as a new means that renders production more democratic, collaborative,
and distributed. It is hence seen as antithetical to capitalism, as undermining capitalist
relations, and hence as revolutionary. Such perspective implies that Marxist theory is
inadequate in grasping and analyzing the novelty of our era – with companies such as
Google offering their services for free, or with open source projects (such as
Wikipedia) thriving on voluntary work and a decentralized and dehierarchized model
of organization.
This paper offers an alternative perspective which utilizes Marxist categories
to account for the new operation of capitalism and the new constellation of social
relations it entails. My overarching argument is that network technology and the new
modes of production it facilitates allow a process of de-alienation; concurrently, they
also allow (and are even conditioned on) the exacerbation of exploitation.
The paper explores some of the new modes of production facilitated by
network technology such as crowdsourcing, open source, prosumption, masscustomization, and social production. It shows the dual character of contemporary
capitalism. On the one hand, network technology allows the integration of creativity,
self-expression, personal idiosyncrasies, authenticity, passion, hobbies, and
individualism into the productive process, thus leading to de-alienation. Network
production is conducive to the expression of personal characteristics, and hence
allows more individual freedom and authenticity. Network technology, then, opens a
space that allows self-realization through production, reversing the alienation that
dominated industrial production.
On the other hand, network technology also allows the exacerbation of
exploitation and the emergence of new forms for exploitation. At the same time that
labor becomes more meaningful, humane, and emancipatory it also becomes more
privatized and individualized, shifting more risks from capital to labor, and
dismantling the social buffer zone characterized by a strong welfare state,
Keynesianism, and a Fordist social compact – a buffer zone which promised to
enhance social equity and personal security. Network technology promises to make
the production process more democratic and engaging, but at the same time
undermines the institutional arrangements that made those processes more stable and
protective.
In sum, the paper suggests that the ideological promise of technology has
changed from a focus on mitigating the exploitative element in industrial capitalism
(by reducing inequality, job insecurity, and economic stability) to a focus on
mitigating alienation (by facilitating personal expression, authenticity, and
participation) through a more democratic, distributive and dehierarchized mode of
production anchored in network technology.
The new mode of production facilitated by network technology articulates a
new social compact between labor and capital (a compact that substitutes the Fordist
7
social compact): labor gains more freedom and authentic personal expression through
the production process; capital concedes its complete control over production,
rendering the production process more democratic and less hierarchical; in return,
capital gains access to a more flexible power labor, more malleable for exploitation;
moreover, through network technology, capital is able to mobilize to the productive
process new forces of production, which have been hitherto unexploited sources for
capital accumulation, such as tacit knowledge, amateurish skills, play, joy, leisure
time, and the unconscious.
Name: Phoebe Moore
Title: Free Software and Open Source: Is this Marxism?
Abstract: Free(Libre)/Open Source Software (FLOSS) is an open, evolutionary arena
wherein hundreds and sometimes thousands of users voluntarily explore design codes,
spot bugs in codes, make contributions to the code, release software, create artwork,
and develop licenses in a fashion that is becoming increasingly prevalent in the
otherwise hugely monopolised software market. This 'computerization movement'
emerged as a challenge to the monopolisation of the software market by such
mammoth firms as Microsoft and IBM, and is portrayed as being revolutionary (Elliot
and Scacchi 2003; DiBona, Ockman, and Stone 1999; Kling and Iacono 1988), an
'ultimate goal'; 'to provide free software to do all of the jobs computer users want to
do, and thus make proprietary software obsolete' (Free Software Foundation 2005).
However, if it is to succeed in bringing about a new social order (Kling and
Iacono 1988) or proceed to the post-capitalist era within the dialectical materialist
trajectory, then we must scrutinise this movement from a critical standpoint through a
look into the practices toward knowledge production of participants and associated
subjectivities of participants. Free Software may be viewed as a social movement
while Open Source is perhaps a development methodology, but it is not always
necessary to isolate analysis to one or the other firstly due to the extensive overlap in
software communities, and also because their rhizomatic roots emerge from a shared
intellectual and moral response to exploitation of markets by powerful firms (see
Elliot andScacchi 2004). This piece queries whether the behaviours of collaborative
software producers as well as the activities in the hardware production communities
that release playbots and other blueprints for machine replications can indeed be
perceived as revolutionary in the Marxist sense, and what should happen for this to be
so.
Name: Matt Davies
Title: The Popular Aesthetics of the Financial Crisis: Work, Culture, Politic
Abstract: Can a popular aesthetic of finance shed light on the effects of
financialization and the financial crisis on work? The current financial crisis – or
“credit crunch” – has a particular aesthetic that is both abstract/formal and
representational. Short educational films distributed through sites such as YouTube
purport to explain the crisis, its origins and consequences, contributing to popular
education in financial literacy and thus to the common sense of what the crisis is and
what must be done to deal with it. These short films thus play a significant role in
contemporary economic transformation, especially in financialization. Yet while
contemporary economic transformations have as much to do with struggles over the
control of the labour process as with financialization, popular representations of
finance has tended to make work invisible or obscure. Consequently, the “imagined
recovery” from the crisis focuses on fiscal austerity and financial prudence; the role,
8
nature, and qualities of work in the recovery are givens, and thus invisible, and thus
excluded from politics. This article analyses four short films all distributed through
YouTube to show not only how their visual, sound, and narrative elements organise
particular subjectivities of finance for an anti-politics of finance, but also to find in the
popular aesthetic a different “distribution of the sensible” (Rancière) that permits
moments of suspension or rupture that can politicise financialized subjectivity. The
article examines the latent consequences of financialization for a politics of work, to
contribute to an aesthetic and political theory of work.
Name: Mark Edward
Title: What is Happening to the Multitude? Wall-E and the Emergence of HyperConsumerism
Abstract: A common theme of Marxism has been the belief that an exploited group
hold the potential to overcome capitalism. In Marx and Engel’s Communist Manifesto
(1848) it is the working class that are viewed as having a revolutionary potential,
which is produced from the class antagonism between the bourgeois and the
proletariat. In the recent work of Hardt and Negri (2000, 2004 & 2010), we move
away from class reductionism and towards the concept of the multitude as denoting
the revolutionary potential of different groups exploited from Neo-Liberalism.
However, another common theme in Marxism is the desire to comprehend why those
groups thought to be exploited are not resisting and revolting against capitalism. For
example, Adorno and Horkheimer’s (1972) Culture Industry and Gramsci’s concept
of hegemony (1998) both offer explanations why the masses ‘accept’ capitalism.
In my paper I continue Adorno, Horkheimer and Gramsci’s line of thought and
argue that a new subjectivity is in the process of emerging that will negate the
capacity of the multitude to resist capitalism. From providing an analysis of the
popular film Wall-E (2008) I suggest that the representation of human bodies is a key
element for conceptualising the future of the multitude. I argue that the film depicts
the emergence of the hyper-consumer as a subjectivity and the disappearance of
human labour. I then draw on examples from our contemporary world to show that we
are already developing technologies that will produce hyper-consumerism as a
subjectivity. The result is that hyper-consumerism is a significant problem for anticapitalist Marxism theories of resistance.
5. Post-Marxism and the Political Subject
Name: Oliver Harrison
Title: ‘Revolutionary subjectivity in post-Marxist thought; the case of Laclau and
Badiou’
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to analyse the theory of revolutionary
subjectivity in the work of Ernesto Laclau and Alain Badiou. By using Marx’s own
theory of revolutionary subjectivity as my analytical framework, I will consider the
extent to which each of these thinkers’ theories of revolutionary subjectivity could be
considered, in some sense, post-Marxist. Marx’s theory of revolutionary subjectivity
has three inter-related elements; revolutionary subjectivity is defined through the
prism of productive labour; revolutionary subjectivity emerges immanently to
capitalist development through a dialectic of subjective and objective forces; and
finally, revolutionary subjectivity necessarily involves change at the level of totality.
Both Laclau’s and Badiou’s own theory of revolutionary subjectivity break decisively
with all three of these elements, and do so in ways that suggest something common to
9
post-Marxist thought in general. For Laclau, revolutionary subjectivity is defined by
nothing other than its hegemonic construction in the form of ‘the people’. Its
emergence does not follow a strictly dialectical logic, and can only ever aspire for
change at the level of totality. For Badiou, today’s revolutionary subject is no longer
defined in exclusively class terms. Being the outcome of a ‘generic truth procedure’,
Badiou’s revolutionary subject is similarly highly contingent, and according to him,
any attempt for this subject to revolutionise all aspects of a ‘situation’ would only
ever end in disaster. Ultimately, both Laclau’s and Badiou’s theory of revolutionary
subjectivity are equally hostile to the perceived circularity of Hegelian dialectics, and
yet, beneath appearances, and in their own particular way, I will argue that these
theories attempt to understand both the emergence and sustainability of this
subjectivity in a manner that suggests a closer affinity to Marxist thought than one
might suspect.
Name: Paul Reynolds
Title: When was Post-Marxism? Reflections on the Past Conjuncture
Abstract: This paper seeks to provide an overview and assessment of the character
and role of post-Marxism – constituted as a particular conjuncture from the early
1980’s to the first decade of the 21st century. The argument for this periodisation
recognises a distinct political, cultural and theoretical phase of left critique during this
period that is qualitatively different, if rooted in, the political and theoretical events of
1968 and after, and recognises the exhaustion of that phase of critique and its
uncertain supersession in the current conjuncture. In specifying what post-Marxist is,
it both seeks not to be closed in terms of providing an exclusive representation of
particular strands of post-Marxist thought – whether self-affirmed or labelled – yet
does not seek to dignify an expansiveness that makes the phenomena almost beyond
conception – continuously intangible, endlessly fluid and conveniently elusive.
In doing so, it seeks to explain how we should think of post-Marxism, how we might
assess the ‘post-Marxist’ conjuncture, and how we should think of successive forms
of left critique and Marxist critique. Unpacking the post-Marxist conjuncture
elucidates a Marxist understanding of dialectics, history and the importance of
contextualising Marxist critique.
Name: Tim Fisken
Title: The Communist Manifesto in a Post-Fordist World
Abstract: Of all Marx’s writing, the Communist Manifesto may be one of the works
that seems least relevant to contemporary global society. It is primarily a political
intervention into an event now more than 150 years old, the European revolutions of
1848, and much of it consists of polemical criticism of authors and political currents
now little remembered. The work’s politics look forward to an immanent proletarian
and communist revolution, while it proposes a theory of class struggle at its most
schematic, as depending on an absolute schism into two classes. It is these last two
points which seem to render the work most out of touch with contemporary politics,
in which the supposedly impending communist revolution seems to have only become
less and less plausible an outcome in the past 150 years, while global economic
changes, such as the spatial segregation of manufacturing and service work, have
produced a much more complicated array of apparent class positions than the
polarization suggested by Marx.
Despite this unpromising appearance, however, I contend in this paper that the
Communist Manifesto remains a vitally important text for its analysis of capitalism
10
and its invocation of the proletariat as antagonist to capitalism. It is in this invocatory
character that the Manifesto’s continuing importance lies, because this makes clear
that the emergence of the proletariat in victorious communist revolution is something
that Marx wishes for and hopes to bring about through the power of his textual
intervention, not something he predicts with scientific accuracy or, still less, sees as
actually existing in the world. In this paper, I develop a reading of the Manifesto that
interprets Marx’s optimistic, even triumphalist rhetoric as a process of reaching out to
a not-yet existing proletariat, and which thereby develops a theory of class not as a
present, positive reality, but as future-oriented and spectral.
I develop this reading of Marx through a critical engagement with Derrida’s
Specters of Marx, arguing that Marx is not as hostile to the spectral as Derrida
believes, and with Laclau’s “New Reflections of the Revolution of Our Times,” in
which I argue that Marx’s figuration of class does not depend on the “positivity of the
social,” but is instead a theory of class as a structural category that never has a fully
positive existence. Through these engagements, and a close reading of the Manifesto
itself, I suggest the outline of a Marxist theory of class which can respond to the
political-economic reconfigurations of the past 50 years.
Name: Mark Cowling
Title: Can Marxism Make Sense of Crime?
Abstract: There has been quite a substantial tradition of criminological theory that
makes some use of Marxism. Notable figures have been Willem Bonger, Rusch and
Kircheimer, in the United States Richard Quinney in the 1970s, Frank Pearce writing
on the USA from Britain and Canada, William Chambliss, Jeffrey Reiman, Christian
Parenti, and in Britain, Walton, Taylor and Young, the authors of Policing the Crisis,
Ian Taylor and John Lea.
In this paper my intention is to draw on some themes analysed by the above
authors and my own reading of Marx in order to give an overview of some areas
where Marxism has been, or could be, used to analyse crime. Marx and Engels
themselves associated crime with the lumpenproletariat, but I argue that the definition
of the lumpenproletariat is foggy, and the concept is dubious for the same reasons that
Charles Murray's conception of the underclass is dubious. It would be possible to
make some use of Marx's theory of alienation in the analysis of crime, but I consider
that the theory is too vague to be seriously helpful. I then turn to the idea that crime
might be part of the reproduction conditions of capitalism, and basically conclude that
it is a contingent possibility rather than a necessary feature. Another way of linking
Marxism and crime is through the analysis of law, and I agree with Paul Hirst and E.P.
Thompson (strange bedfellows!) that law has a substance of its own, and as such can
provide a degree of defence to working-class interests. I then move on to discuss the
question of distributive justice, on which I consider that Marxists today need a theory
of distributive justice, and criminal justice, on which I argue that there is a worthwhile
distinction between relatively decent capitalist enterprises such as Marks & Spencer's
and the Mafia, which can be captured in the idea that the former is not a criminal
enterprise whereas the latter is. Finally I argue that various forms of crime would not
disappear in a communist society, contrary to the views of Bonger and Walton, Taylor
and Young, and that a communist society would actually criminalise some activities
which are currently legal.
6. IPE
11
Name: George Musgrave
Title: Marx and the Blame Game: A Historical Materialist Conception of the
Financial Crisis
Abstract: The ideology of recent history has been that of an apparently unshakable
faith in the ability of capitalism and the so-called free market to deliver us from all
evil. Rampant neoliberalism espoused the inherent sanctity and near mathematical
perfection with which capitalism could solve the worlds ills and create wealth
wherever it went. The UK even boastfully declared ‘boom and bust’ to have been
eliminated altogether. However, the financial crisis of 2007-8, cast aspersion on the
idea that capitalism was infallible.
Desperate panaceaphilia in the quest to simplistically vilify responsible
individuals in the wake of the crisis sought to lay blame at the foot of the door of a
few bad apples; an exceptional instance as opposed to a rule of thumb. Some blamed
the bankers, with their complex financial instruments and unchecked greed. Others
blamed governments and their short-sighted pandering to the financial sector in the
form of light touch regulation. Some blamed economists for their imposition of an
outdated and inaccurate neo-liberal agenda in informing governmental policy
direction.
In attempting to make sense of the causes of the financial crisis, this paper
draws on the excellent work of Robert Brenner to illustrate how a historical
materialist conception of history informed by Marx, illustrates perfectly how the crisis
was in fact, frighteningly, no-ones fault, butacts as the perfect illustration of the
inherent contradictions of capitalism – that is, it occurred via everyone following their
own self-interested, and rational ‘rules for reproduction’ as determined by ‘socialproperty relations’. As Brenner notes, feudalism evolved into capitalism (a system of
the exploitation of many by the few) as a result of “the pursuit of feudal goals by
feudal actors”. In much the same vein, the recent crisis of capitalism was caused by
nothing more than the pursuit of capitalist goals by capitalist actors.
Marx’s ideas are as insightful and telling today as they have ever been, and the
recent resurgence in interest in his work, suggests that those who foolishly dismissed
his ideas following their perversion in the form of Bolshevism, Leninism, Stalinism,
or any other reconception, may have been too hasty. The financial crisis serves to
ultimately undermine Smithian/Friedmanite arguments espousing the universal and
inherent benefits of the pursuit of self-interest, and points instead to a system prone to
crisis, and indeed, when we look back at the work of both Marx and Engels, the
accuracy with which they both foretold capitalism’s inevitably propensity for crisis is
staggering.
Name: John Smith
Title: Imperialism and the Law of Value
Abstract: What contribution do the 300,000 workers employed by Foxconn
International in Shenzhen, China who assemble Dell’s laptops and Apple’s iPhones and of the myriad of other ‘arm’s length’ firms in other low-wage countries producing
cheap intermediate inputs and consumer goods for western markets - make to the
profits of Dell & Apple, and of the service industries that provide their premises, retail
their goods etc? According to mainstream economic theory, none whatsoever.
According to most radical theories of the crisis, none worth mentioning. Yet what
Foxconn epitomises, namely the global shift of manufacturing production to lowwage countries, has resulted in a dramatic increase in the importance of super-profits
extracted in the ‘global South’ to firms in all sectors of the imperialist economies.
12
This reality is obscured by explicit or implicit acceptance of the bourgeois
economists’ definition of ‘productivity’—that is, ‘value-added’/worker—resulting in
Foxconn workers’ low wages being seen as a reflection of their supposedly low
productivity, even though they are working flat out with state-of-the-art technology.
'Value-added', a construct of mainstream marginalist economic theory, also underlies
'GDP', which merely aggregates the total 'value-added' produced by all firms
operating within a nation's economy. This paper presents an alternative conception
based on the theory of value elaborated by Marx in Capital, arguing that GDP must be
reinterpreted to mean value captured, not value produced, and that part of the value
that is captured by US, European firms, thereby inflating their own profits and their
nations’ 'GDP', was actually produced by Foxconn workers and their sisters and
brothers in other low-wage countries.
Through a critical engagement with the most outstanding facts pertaining to
neoliberal globalization and with the paradox-strewn mainstream neoclassical
explanation of them, this paper establishes the necessity for a reconnection with
Marxist value theory. It argues that to understand its imperialist form, further
development of Marx’s key concepts are necessary—in particular, we must relax
Marx’s exclusion from his analysis of international differences in the rate of
exploitation, and we must also abandon his assumption of free mobility, and therefore
equality, of living labour.
Name: Peter Burnham
Title: State, Capital and Crisis: The Limits of IPE
Abstract: The paper begins by analysing current IPE approaches to capitalist crisis
which are then contrasted with those drawing on the tradition of classical political
economy. The classical tradition, that understands societies in terms of inter-related
systems of production, distribution and exchange is then considered alongside
Keynesian approaches that seek to compensate for flaws in the technical operation of
classical theory. Both approaches are then contrasted with Marx’s critique
emphasising state and capital as aspects of the social relations of production. In this
view, crisis is inherent in the social relationship sketched by Marx as the circuit of
capital. Implications are then drawn out concerning the politics of crisis management
in the wake of its most recent expression – the credit crunch and the politics of the
budget deficit.
Name: Tatiana Rudneva
Title: Can the Crisis Shift the Balance to the Left?
Abstract: After the Bolsheviks' failed attempts to implement Marx’s ideas (although
according to their own conception, or, rather, misconception of these ideas) and build
a classless, communist society Marxist ideology has been unavoidably associated with
what had happened in the Soviet Union (mostly during the Stalin era, such as massive
repressions etc.) and afterwards with the Soviet Union itself (its total collapse).
Nevertheless, the struggle for social justice has never ceased, even in democratic
societies. Most of the people still prefer to be socially secure.
As long as the working class could get it within a capitalist framework, it was
quite content with the existing economic system. When the world had to face a
rapidly spreading financial crisis, it became clear that within the capitalist system no
one can be really secure. In the UK only, during the period from October 2008 to
September 2010 companies confirmed the loss of more than 154,000 jobs, that is
about 10,000 more people than the population of Oxford.
13
The instability embedded in the capitalist economics and revealed by the
urged the society to rethink the relevance of Marxist ideas, since one of the reasons
why Marx believed that socialism would inevitably replace capitalism, of which
crisis-proneness is, he argued, an ineradicable feature [Clarke, 1994], is because of the
socialism’s superiority over capitalism, both in terms of rationality and economy
[Brus & Laski, 1989].
The global financial crisis and subsequent vast criticism of the capitalist
system could have caused a leftist shift in public opinions. To determine whether the
support for socialist ideas is growing and whether it correlates with the economic
downturn, this study will present the results of 2008-2010 parliamentarian elections in
pluralists democracies and analyse the voters' choices.
7. Neo-Liberalism and Its Discontents
Name: Andrew Higginbottom
Title: Marx’s Theory of Rent and the Multinationals Takeover of the World’s
Resources
Abstract: The multinational takeover of the world’s natural resources is a huge
problem for humanity, and one in which Britain, or rather London as a financial
centre, plays a particular role. This paper will attempt to show the contemporary
relevance of a relatively obscure aspect of Marx’s critique of classical political
economy, his labour theory of ground rent.
The paper will first outline the Marx’s theory of rent, and his analytical
distinction between three forms of rent. It will then introduce the political
implications of the distinction between absolute rent and differential rent, as
developed by Lenin to inform the agrarian programme of Russian social democracy.
The paper then applies these concepts to raw material extraction in the context of
multinational corporations dominating mining, oil and other extractive industries. The
paper will show that two modifications of Marx’s theory of ground rent are required
in colonial or semi-colonial conditions to take account of the decline or complete
absence of independent landed property on the one hand, and harshly exploited labour
on the other. Both these developments render more surplus value and hence profit
available to the corporation, accelerating changes in the organisation of capital that
throw new light on the concept of ‘monopoly capital’. Drawing examples from Latin
America, the final section applies this analysis to the contemporary dynamics of
multinationals in natural resource sectors. In conclusion the paper argues that an
appropriately modified version of Marx’s theory of ground rent provides a theoretical
basis for uniting the environmental and socialist causes.
Name: Hari Zamharir
Title: Ideology, or Political Theology?: An Account of Contemporary Social and
Political Movements in Venezuela, Latin America
Abstract: While Marx’s social thoughts and theories had frequently been thought of as
anti God, they could in essence have thrown lights of God’s real call to betterment of
dealing with human society. This seems to be similar to what the existentialist
philosopher, Nietzsche proclaimed,. ”God is dead”, whose meaning is more to
promoting the proper use of Reason and protesting against Church’s doctrines with
their subsequent bad practices in dealing with social problems encountered by the
Western societies during the Dark Ages. It may be just fair to think that had such
14
ideas not produced by such intellectuals as Marx and Nietzsche, there would not be
better mode of living of what is now modern world
The social and political movements in contemporary Latin America, especially
“Neo-socialism” in Venezuela (with Hugo Chavez currently in power), have attracted
interests of observers given the seemingly winning of Capitalism at the expense of
Marxism/Socialism. Such interests in the movement of “Neo-socialism”, base
themselves on varied hypothesis emerging: some contend that ideological roots with
strong influence of Marxism have been the basis of it, whereas some others find that it
is political theology coming from Liberation Theology being its basis. With some
distinctive features in historical and cultural contexts that Latin American societies
have experienced, many analysts have been wondering whether the experiment would
work and more importantly what actually underlie the emergence of “Neo-socialism”.
In the meantime, reality seems so complex that several factors that include the success
story of Critical Education of Paulo Freire and the spread of “pro-poor” Theology of
Liberation have made significant influence on the cultural and political transformation.
In the past, Nietzsche’s project was fundamental philosophy Reason whereas Marx’s
project was on social and economic system in a particular country or global world
influencing our mode of production and the way we understand social, economic
processes—ideology and social theory. Chavez’s contemporary work seems to be
working out past legacy of both (plus acceptance of some elements in Capitalist way)
with absorption and adaptation that are pragmatically fruitful. Chavez himself can be
looked down, but the vast people’s demands for the politics of welfare through
revolutionary-pragmatic ideas other than those of destructive capitalism are
apparently more important.
The study will make an account of the “Neo-socialism” in Venezuela by
considering diverged views about it by using discursive approaches to come the
conclusion. Two dichotomous ways of viewing the reality—secular ideology within
the framework of secular positivism (in epistemology) and political theology—will
have to be benefited on an eclectic basis in order for the study to be more meaningful.
This may be so since neither the two suffice for translating the meaning of ‘Neosocialism’ in Latin America, especially Venezuela.
This abstract for my proposed paper “Ideology, or Political Theology?: An
Account of Contemporary Social and Political Movements in Venezuela, Latin
America” may reflect the very idea of the paper.
Name: M. Mohibul Haque
Title: Beyond Liberalism: The Contemporary Relevance of Marxism
Abstract: The failure of Soviet Union in implementing Marxism provoked Francis
Fukuyama (The End of History and the last Man, 1992) to quite naively declare that
the history of ideas had ended with the recognition of liberal democracy as the
ultimate form of human government. He argues that the ideological debate that had
ended with the worldwide victory of Western liberal model of democracy had
eventually led to the end of human quest for any new model. In his own words “we
may be witnessing…the end of history as such: that is the end point of mankind’s
ideological evolution and the universalisation of Western liberal democracy as the
final form of human government.’’ The thesis of Fukuyama is not new. The US
Sociologist Daniel Bell had very loudly announced as early as in 1960s that the stock
of political ideas had been exhausted. In fact, he did not say that there is an end of
ideology but he argued that as most political actors in the West try to acquire political
power by promising economic growth, social security and material affluence based on
15
hedonistic principles of life, there is an ideological consensus or accord between the
actors. There is one common point in the thesis of both the scholars that their views
and formulations are West- centric and there is an element of arrogance inherent in
their thesis or hypothesis. However, they could not realize that while doing so they
ignore the ideological need of around 80 % of the world population living in nonWestern societies. Moreover, voices of dissent in the West itself have not been taken
into account by those scholars.
In the wake of current bout of financial tsunami and crisis in capitalism it is
important now to delve deep into the contemporary relevance of Marxism. The
proposed paper is a modest endeavor to look beyond Liberalism and revisit Marxism
as a progressive ideology of meaningful change in the present scenario. The growing
global disparity and corporate capitalist paradigm of successive exploitation under the
garb of globalization and usurpation of natural rights of people have made Marxism
not only relevant but a viable option for many people. It is high time that Marxism is
revisited in this context. The paper analyses: contemporary liberalism/capitalism with
regard to weaknesses and contradictions; resistance to monopoly capitalism and
corporate globalization and the role of Marxism; the changing nature of class struggle
in the Marxian paradigm; the role of the State as a promoter of monopoly capitalism
and corporate loot; the decline and resurgence of left movements in India, and the
future of Marxism.
Name: Marcus Kantola
Title: Marxism and the Future of the Welfare state
Abstract: The relationship between Marxism and the welfare state has always been
complicated. Political parties, which have claimed allegiance to Marxist doctrines,
have all over the world supported the creation and expansion of the welfare state. In
the era of neoliberal political hegemony, many Marxist parties have defended the
welfare state against radical cuts proposed by the political right. Karl Marx himself
demanded “free education to all children in public schools” in the Communist
Manifest. But there has also been another strain in the Marxist thought. The
supporters of this strain had emphasized the limits of welfare measures in the
capitalist society. Capitalism is by nature geared towards expansion. In the end there
is no area in society which is not forced to follow the logic of commercialization. The
welfare state cannot humanize capitalism. Welfare services, which hamper the
accumulation of profits, will sooner or later vanish, many Marxists have claimed.
Close to this school of thought is a view that capitalism needs the welfare state in
order to function properly. Capitalism, according to representatives of this school,
needs welfare state to legitimate a system, which is basically based on the exploitation
of the majority of citizens.
There is not just one Marxist view on the welfare state. Insights derived from
the Marxist tradition can be used to analyze welfare states in many different ways. In
my paper, I emphasize one Marxist’s interpretation of welfare state, which can be
used in analyzing different welfare states. Following the work of Neo-Marxists like
Irving Howe and Michael Harrington, I argue that Marxists could stress the
empowering role of some welfare states. Through political battles for social rights
citizens gain self-knowledge and they learnt to feel solidarity towards each other.
Individuals learn that with co-operation they can achieve things no individual alone
could achieve. To the left these things are important because without the experience
of solidarity, gained by the individuals, no socialist society (it could be argued) could
work. Struggle for comprehensive welfare benefits creates the necessary conditions of
16
socialist society, but at the same time the realm of social benefits represents a realm of
socialism inside capitalist society, because this realm does not follow the logic of
“monetary gain”. Through the welfare state, individuals could experience a society
which is in one sense post-capitalistic. Without these experiences the popular support
for a socialist project could remain low.
I argue that Marxists should give their full support to the universalist welfare
state, which guarantees basic income security and maximum amount of political
participation to all members of the community. According to liberals, like John
Dewey, income security and political participation are essential parts of human
flourishing. By promoting these values the welfare state gain a legitimacy which is
not tied to the political project of socialism. Because not all the welfare states
guarantee income security and participation to all members of the community,
Marxists contribution should focus on these values. Marxists should emphasize that
the welfare state must provide opportunities to political participation and basic
security to all members of the community. The worth of future welfare reforms
depends (both from the Marxist and liberal perspective) on the realization of these
values.
8. Development
Name: Amna Mahmood
Title: Family Structure in the Traditional Societies: The Application of Marxist
Analysis
Abstract: The family is one of the most important institutions of the society. It
provides the society a basis of growth, continuity to the mankind and in turn to the
civilization. Family is a legitimate social way to satisfy the sexual and social needs of
the basic instinct of both male and female. In the traditional structure of family male
was responsible for the livelihood of the family and by virtue of the economic
responsibilities he was bearing, he was supposed to be the head of the family and
enjoyed the ultimate authority in the decision making as far as the family matters were
concerned. All the family members especially the women were supposed to be
submissive to their husband, brothers and fathers since they were carrying the purse of
the family.
This social setup is subject to a drastic change even in traditional societies
with the emerging trends of women’s economic independence in the last few decades.
The society and specially the male are not accepting the changing patterns of the
family. Since the women are getting more economic independence they are now
demanding more participation in the decision making process of the family matters.
They are expecting more respect and more facilitation on the part of their family
members being the economic contributor. Being the economically empowered the
educated working women are also challenging the traditional wisdom of their men.
But mind set that the male is all powerful and enjoys the unchallenged position in the
family does not allow their males to accept the changing realities. They are exploiting
their wives to do the job, take the responsibility of child bearing and raring along with
their jobs single handedly and also accept the status of husband as a sole commander
like the reflection of ‘God on Earth.’ Moreover their salary should be in the hands of
the husbands’ control. The result of this exploitation of the educated and working
wives is the resentment and friction gradually surfacing with the growing resistance of
male to accept the status of women as an equal partner in the family. With all this not
17
only the whole family structure is under clouds but ratio of disintegration of family is
also increasing.
This research is intended to apply Marxist analysis on the economic
exploitation of women in the traditional societies and its impact on the family
structure. The study also intends to find out the repercussions of this phenomenon on
the social fabric of the whole society. It also intends to study the possible solutions in
the light of Marxist philosophy.
Name: Chengyi (Andrew) Peng
Title: Sinicized Marxist Constitutionalism: Its Emergence, Contents, and Implications
Abstract: As China has become more and more open and integrated into the global
economy in the past three decades, its ideological realm has also been deeply
penetrated and influenced by external forces. One notable example is the widespread
acceptance of liberal constitutional paradigm among intellectuals in China, with the
issuing of the “08 Charter” two years ago by some liberal dissidents such as Liu
Xiaobo, the recent Nobel Peace Prize winner, as a good example. This liberal
perspective historically viewed the constitution of a Marxist-Leninist state as a
“sham” that serves as “an artifice of propaganda designed to impress and mislead
foreigners,” and consequently scholars influenced by this paradigm look
contemptuously at the current Chinese constitution, which for them needs to be
abolished or significantly revised. However, in recent years, in light of the significant
progress of the constitutional framework of China, including its values and practices
regarding the rule of law, this dominant liberal perspective has been challenged.
Stephanie Balme and Michael Dowdle (2009), for example, have devoted their latest
book Building Constitutionalism in China to exploring the empirical impacts of the
emerging constitutionalism on many aspects of Chinese society, including its juridical,
political, and social realms. A U.S. constitutional scholar, Larry C. Backer, has also
sought to establish a party-state model to grant legitimacy to China’s current
constitutional development in the international community. Legal scholars in China
have made similar efforts as well and just convened a conference on “Socialist
Constitutionalism with Chinese Characteristics” this past May in Changsha City of
Hunan Province. In light of these developments, we can see that a new paradigm of
Sinicized Marxist Constitutionalism is emerging. Why is the SMC emerging and what
are its contents? How is it relevant to Marxism and what are its implications? These
are the questions this paper seeks to explore.
Name: Jolynna Sinanan
Title: Development, Modernities and the Emergence of a Transformed Cambodian
State
Abstract: This paper draws upon fieldwork conducted in Cambodia and examines the
relationship between development discourses implemented in practice and Khmer
understandings of modernisation. In this post-conflict context, there has been a
tremendous insurgence of international actors engaging in local development.
Development, as a Western, modernising project has emphasised and naturalised the
need for individuals to act as productive labour units, which reorganises social lives
around economic subjectivity, in order to be developed. However, for Cambodians,
development as a project that reorganises society also represents another period of
social upheaval and change, which also seeks to dismantle social relationships that
have become relied upon as strategies of survival in recent decades. To explore these
issues, I will be drawing upon post-development as an approach within ‘Marxisms’,
18
which responds to modernisation theory and the assumptions of development
economists who predominantly view development as a process of economic relations.
In development processes, there is also a need to critically examining structural and
historically embedded power relations. I will also refer to discussions of multiple
modernities in order to suggest that in recent experience, Cambodia is caught between
conflicting agendas of development and the formation of the modern Khmer state.
Name: Oniwide Oyetola
Title: Imperialism and Underdevelopment in Africa: The Nigerian Experience
Abstract: Many African countries are referred to and characterized as underdeveloped
because paradoxically, these countries have remained backward in spite of
endowment in natural resources. The backwardness of these societies is said to be the
result of the stunted and distorted growth and development of the societies, which
itself demonstrates the impact of such historical events as colonialism, neocolonialism and imperialism. This research paper, therefore, attempted to provide
answers to the following questions: What was the nature of connection between
Imperialism and Nigeria’s underdevelopment?; What economic measures were
adopted by the British colonizers in the twentieth century to integrate Nigeria into
international capitalism?; In what ways had the Nigerian elite, after political
independence, adopted the same economic measures hitherto used by the colonizers to
integrate Nigeria into international capitalism?, and in what ways can the Nigerian
leaders dislodge and stamp out imperialism?
This paper employed dependency approach to explain, analyze and predict the
Nigeria’s Imperialism – Underdevelopment relationship. Using Nigeria as a case
study, this study attributed the problem of underdevelopment plaguing the African
societies to their contact with imperialist powers in Europe and America. It was
observed that Nigeria had emerged independent on a parameter set by Western
Imperialism and colonialism that influenced the choice of the capitalist path of
economic development. The study revealed further that without any genuine attempts
to decolonize the economic foundations which were laid down by Britain, the
Nigerian elite adopted the same obnoxious economic measures which were used to
under develop the Nigerian economy. Some of these measures include maintaining all
military, financial, commercial and economic links of the previous colonial period.
The paper therefore suggested that Nigerian leaders should transform the Nigerian
economy into an independent, producer, and socialist economy.
9. Developments in Theory in Relation to Developments in Circumstance
Name: Mohomed Fawas
Title: Marxist or Post Marxist?
Abstract: Who is Marxist, has become a much debated and discussed question among
the students of social sciences. A commonly stated view of many scholars is that the
Marxists are the followers of Marxian thoughts and Post Marxists are that who
criticise the Marxism but based on Socialism. On the contrary, this paper offers some
theoretical underpinnings and explores, analysing empirical evidence following
discourse analysis that it is hard to differentiate the Marxist and post Marxist
according to philosophy of social sciences and Marxist and post Marxist are, favour
on Marxian thoughts and who help to develop his thoughts according to the changing
dynamics of the global society.
19
Name: Raluca Goleşteanu
Title: A Profile of Central and Eastern European Marxists and their Contribution to
an Enquiry of Society, Nowadays
Abstract: Twenty years after the fall of the Iron Curtain, Marx as well as his
indigenous supporters are still regarded on the intellectual scene of Central and
Eastern Europe as a rather `devilish appearance`, since their ideological output was
considered then and now a strong backup for the authoritarian nature of the regimes in
the region. Nonetheless, the Marxist content of these regimes is far from being a
settled issue, if we consider the strong nationalist and anti-Semitic features displayed
by the Communist governments of Central and Eastern Europe at some moments3.
The Western Marxists on the other hand looked with a bit of contempt to their
`brothers-in-ideology` from behind the Curtain, severed as they were from the postMarxist debates that were going on starting with mid `70s. Only these and it suffices
to call Marxism and its followers in the East a Cinderella…
To this situation we should still add the specificities that became the blueprint
of Central and Eastern European Marxism, at least until WWII (namely until the
official installation of the Communist regimes). The countries of the region did not
meet several of the criteria deciphered by Marx as typical for the capitalist societies of
the time. Accordingly, some of them had a predominant agrarian nature of the
economy, which also imprinted a patriarchal character to the relations between
individuals (i.e. Romania); others lacked their own state (i.e. Poland). These made the
adepts of orthodox Marxism prone to the attacks of Conservatives, Populists, or even
Liberals, who argued that Marxism was an `alien plant` here, as it addressed first and
last the industrialized countries. The polemics with the other doctrines, as well as the
social and economic context, determined the Central and Eastern European Marxism
to better define its position.
The outcome of the process rested in the affirmation of a sort of
exceptionalism to which the Marxism in Central and Eastern Europe submitted at the
level of both ideology and political action. The intellectuals who designed this
exceptionalism were faithful scholars of Marx, hence they recognized the importance
of the general laws in the analysis of any society. However, they sought to provide
via Marx answers to the backwardness of their country and respectively to the state`s
inexistence. In this way, Romanian Marxists transformed classic Marxism in a tool of
investigation of the underdevelopment4, as they considered Romania of the time stuck
somewhere between feudalism and capitalism, and the role of Socialism was to help
the country engage itself on the track of capitalism, to consume all its stages on the
way to the `proletarian revolution`. Polish Marxists in turn attempted to detect
primarily the ethical aspect of the classic Marxist concept like social revolution (i.e.
thinking received predominance over the material conditions). Thus, by virtue of a
`Marxist humanism`, they tried to underline a Polish cultural specificity, legitimizing
in this way the fight for regaining the state independence5.
3
When we imply that the collapse of Eastern European Communism did not necessarily meant the
compromise of Marxism as method of investigation of the social and economic reality, we take as
premise the idea that the upheavals of 1989 did not represent automatically the illustration of the fact
that the Western Liberal political and economic system was without fallacies at the time.
4
After WWII, the theory of backwardness pioneered by the Romanian Marxists became a domain of
research of the periphery par excellence, with theoretical supplements like `dependency` or `world
system`.
5
This is not such a heresy from the orthodox Marxism, if we remember Marx`s observation that `the
productive forces within a society, its available technology, will determine the nature of its economic
structure`.
20
Taking as point of reference the syncretism of Central and Eastern European
Marxism described above, the present paper argues that these `Marxisms` can be
integrated in a general Marxist paradigm. This attempt is similar with the effort of reintegrating various Marxist concepts in a `grand economic narrative`. In the last years,
some scholars elaborated on the usefulness of Marx`s analysis as performed in the
Capital if considered on separate parts, thus letting aside his ambition of explaining
society by the virtue of one theory. While this paper acknowledges the shortcomings
of Marxist grand themes like historical materialism, it wishes to stress the suitability
for the present economic (global) turmoil of conceiving general explanatory schemes,
both theoretical and economical.
The exceptionalism of Central and Eastern European Marxism can contribute
as a theory to the working out of a general map of Marxism with West and East alike.
Just in the same fashion, concepts like alienated labor, disharmonies between
`worker` and `capitalist` can apprehend economically the phenomena generated by the
integrated industrial sectors that exists today throughout Europe, but did not exist in
Marx`s time. In other words, concepts of Marx found yesterday useful only if
considered isolated can work up today a formula to integrate all societies. For instance,
what Marx was elaborating under the chapter of `alienation from our species-being`
can be now illustrated clearest than ever: from Bucharest to London people cannot
satisfy via work their life expectancies.
All in all, this paper emphasizes the paradox according to which the
exceptionalism can lead to `grand narratives`. The theoretical tools employed for such
an endeavor ranges from the classic Capital to those works that deal with the heritage
of Marx (i.e. J. Wolff, Why Read Marx Today?). In addition, the paper quotes those
authors that lately redefined the place of Central and Eastern European Marxists
within the other Marxist or leftist groups of Poland or Romania (we have in mind the
book of Marci Shore of 2006, Caviar and Ashes: A Warsaw Generation's Life and
Death in Marxism, 1918-1968).
Name: Stephen Okhonmina
Title: How the State Does not Wither: Rethinking the State in the Era of Globalization
Abstract: The withering away of the state is a major theoretical platform upon which
Marxism rests. Historically, this has been the understanding in Marxism particularly
as it relates to the expectation that socialism/Marxism will eventually overthrow and
dump liberal capitalism in the ash heap of history. This has not been and if anything it
is liberal capitalism that has surpassed socialist Marxism. Post Perestroika and
Glasnost Soviet Union thinking therefore has tended to hold the view that the state
will never wither because, in their understanding the march of socialism has been
halted for all time.
We agree with this thinking that the state will never wither but the theoretical
basis for this analysis is different from the conviction in contemporary liberal
capitalist thought. Whereas liberal capitalism makes the assumption that the idea of
socialism is dead and therefore history has ended, which is not true, we base our
conviction of the centrality of the state to social existence and political analysis on the
retention of the primacy of the state despite transformations in its meaning and
conception in the age of globalization. What is more, socialism has always been
conceived to be state centrist and yet it assumed that the state will wither. No doubt
Marx accepted liberal definition of the state to arrive at his conclusion. In doing so,
Marx committed ideological suicide.
21
Our purpose in this paper is to revisit the liberal conception of the state as far
as it is adopted by Marxism and to argue that what Marx calls the administration of
things is expressive of the state and that it is only in this sense that socialist Marxism
can retain its state centrist conception against the backdrop of the post globalization
thinking of the state in terms of the state as societies.
22