Marxism and the Status of Critique

Marxism and the Status of Critique

Page 1 of 17

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: University of North Carolina - Greensboro; date: 14 October 2014

PrintPublicationDate: Nov2007 Subject: Philosophy,SocialandPoliticalPhilosophyOnlinePublicationDate: Sep2009

DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199234097.003.0008

MarxismandtheStatusofCritiqueAlexCallinicosTheOxfordHandbookofContinentalPhilosophyEditedbyMichaelRosenandBrianLeiter

OxfordHandbooksOnline

AbstractandKeywords

Marxismhasalwayshadacomplexrelationshipwithphilosophy.MarxhimselfwasindubitablyaphilosophicalchildofGermanclassicalidealism:hisconceptualvocabularyandintellectualpreoccupationsareunintelligibleoutsidethewholecomplexmovementfromKanttoHegel.ButthepainfulprocessthroughwhichMarx,alongsideEngels,workedthroughleftHegelianismandbegantodevelopadistinctivelydifferenttheoreticalprojectpulledintwoconflictingdirections.Thisprojectinvolved,ofcourse,thetwocollaborators'politicaljudgementthatcommunism,whichtheyidentifiedwiththestruggleoftheworkingclasstoliberateitselffromitsplightincapitalistsociety,representedtheonlyacceptablesolutiontotheconflictsofEuropeanmodernityintheerafollowingtheFrenchRevolution.ButMarxandEngelsdidnotseecommunismprimarilyasanideologyoramoralandpoliticaldoctrine,butratherasahistoricalprocessarisingfromthematerialandsocialconditionsofcapitalistsociety.Keywords:Marxism,Germanclassicalidealism,Hegelianism,politicaljudgement,communism

MARXISMhasalwayshadacomplex,nottosayconflicted,relationshipwithphilosophy,whoseultimatesourcederivesfromuncertaintyandindeedambivalenceaboutitsownstatusasaformoftheoreticaldiscourse.MarxhimselfwasindubitablyaphilosophicalchildofGermanclassicalidealism:hisconceptualvocabularyandintellectualpreoccupationsareunintelligibleoutsidethewholecomplexmovementfromKanttoHegel.ButthepainfulprocessthroughwhichMarx,alongsideEngels,workedthroughleftHegelianismandbegantodevelopadistinctivelydifferenttheoreticalprojectpulledintwoconflictingdirections. Thisprojectinvolved,ofcourse,thetwocollaboratorspoliticaljudgementthatcommunism,whichtheyidentifiedwiththestruggleoftheworkingclasstoliberateitselffromitsplightincapitalistsociety,representedtheonlyacceptablesolutiontotheconflictsofEuropeanmodernityintheerafollowingtheFrenchRevolution.ButMarxandEngels(p.211) didnotseecommunismprimarilyasanideologyoramoralandpoliticaldoctrine,butratherasahistoricalprocessarisingfromthematerialandsocialconditionsofcapitalistsocietybuttendingtowardsaradicallydifferentformofsocietybasedonthesovereigntyofthosewhomMarxinCapitalcallstheassociatedproducers.

Wecallcommunismtherealmovementwhichabolishestheexistingstateofthings,MarxandEngelsdeclareinTheGermanIdeology. Accordinglythistext,writteninthemid-1840s,developsthefirstoutlineofMarx'stheoryofhistory,accordingtowhich(ashemoreconciselystateditinthe1859PrefacetoAContributiontotheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy)systemicsocialtransformationsareaconsequenceofthetendencyoftheproductiveforcestocomeintoconflictwiththeprevailingsocialrelationsofproduction.Thetransitionfromcapitalismtocommunismthereforewilldevelopasaresultoftheeconomiccrisesthatarethespecificformtakenbythisconflictundercapitalismandoftheclassstrugglesbetweencapitalandlabourthatthesecriseswillintensify. Butwheredidthisleavethephilosophicaltradition,criticalengagementwithwhichhadallowedMarxtodevelopthistheoryofhistoryandthepoliticalprojectthatwas(forhimatleast)indissociablyconnected?MarxhimselffamouslywroteintheeleventhThesisonFeuerbach:Thephilosophershaveonlyinterpretedtheworldinvariousways;thepointistochangeit.

1

2

3

4

Marxism and the Status of Critique

Page 2 of 17

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: University of North Carolina - Greensboro; date: 14 October 2014

Marx'sownwritingssuggesttwodifferentwaysinwhichtotakethisalteredviewoftherelationshipbetweentheoryandpractice.ThefirstwastoradicalizethetendencyimplicitinFeuerbach'scritiqueofHegel(evenifFeuerbachhimselfhesitatedabouttakingthisstep):thatis,togiveupthemostbasicmovemadebyGermanclassicalidealismtheconstitutiveroleassignedtoasubject(whetherKant'stranscendentalunityofapperceptionorHegel'sAbsoluteIdea)conceivedasdistinctfromtheflowofsense-impressionsforsomeversionofnaturalisticpositivism.InMarxthissolutionismostevidentinthosepassagesinTheGermanIdeologywherephilosophyisdeniedanycognitivestatusatall(mostdisparaginglywhenitiscomparedtomasturbation)comparedtothescientificstudyoftherealmaterialconditionsofindividualsexistence. MaybethesamekindofthinkingalsohelpstomotivateMarx's(p.212) refusaltoacknowledgeanynormativedimensiontohiscritiqueofcapitalistexploitationandhisespousalofarelativistmetaethicsinwhichvaluesandnormsbelongtotheprevailingideologyinthemodeofproductioninquestion. Thenaturalistic-positivistconceptionoftherelationshipbetweentheoryandpracticewas,however,muchmorefullydevelopedbytheMarxistsoftheSecondInternational(18891914)mostnotablyKarlKautskyandGeorgiPlekhanovwhotendedtoconceivethetriumphofsocialismastheinevitableproductofanhistoricalprocessgovernedbythesameevolutionarylaws(whichtheytypicallytookfromLamarckratherthanDarwin)asthoseatworkinnature.Engels'sdiscoveryoflawsofthedialecticcommontothephysicalandsocialworldsoffereddoctrinalwarrantforthisnaturalisticstrainofMarxism(eventhoughEngelshimselfconceivedtheselawsinarelativelylooseandopenwaythathethoughtofferedawayofavoidingboththephysicalistmaterialismofBchner,Moleschott,andVogt,andtheteleologicalspeculationsofRomanticNaturphilosophie).

ButtherewasanotherstraininMarx'sthought,evenifitwentmoreorlessundergroundformorethanthirtyyearsafterhisdeathin1883.IntheEconomicandPhilosophicalManuscriptsof1844,writtenbeforeTheGermanIdeology,Marxusedhisfirstreadingofclassicalpoliticaleconomytodevelopaphilosophicalanthropologyinwhichtransformativesociallabourisconceivedbothaswhatmakeshumansdistinctivelyhumanandaswhatworkerslosecontrolofundercapitalismwhentheyselltheirlabour-powertotheiremployer.ThisanthropologyresurfacesinthemassivecycleofmanuscriptstheGrundrisse,the1859Contribution,theEconomicManuscriptof186163,andfinallythethreevolumesofCapitalthroughwhichMarxsought(unsuccessfully)inthedecade185767tobringhiscritiqueofpoliticaleconomytocompletion.Inthefirstplace,production,theanchorofsociallife,isconceivedastheinteractionbetweenhumankindandnaturemediatedbylabour,throughwhichhumanscooperatesociallytotransformtheirphysicalenvironmentandtherebytomeettheirneeds.Secondly,thecapitalistmodeofproductionisregulatedbywhatMarxcallsthelawofvaluethemechanism(p.213) thankstowhichcommoditiestendtoexchangeinproportiontothesociallynecessarylabour-timerequiredtoproducethem.MarxinheritedthelabourtheoryofvaluefromRicardo,buthegaveitamuchbroadersocialandhistoricalmeaningthanithadenjoyedinclassicalpoliticaleconomy.Inparticularhearguesthatitisthroughcompetitionamongautonomousbutinterdependentproducersthattheimmensevarietyofdifferentproductiveactivitiesthatmakeupamodernindustrialeconomyarereducedtosomanyunitsofabstractsociallabour.Thevalueofcommoditiesisthuslesssomephysicallyascertainablesumoflabourthanasocialnormimposedonproducersthroughtheirowncompetitiveinteractions.Finally,Marxarguesthatthegoverningroleofsociallabourinacapitalisteconomyissystematicallyoccultedbytheveryworkingsofthateconomy.Themostcelebratedinstanceofthisprocessiscommodityfetishism:theimperativeinherentinthenatureofacapitalisteconomyfortheproductsofsociallabourtobeexchangedascommoditiesonthemarketleadstoaninversion,inwhichsocialrelationsamonghumanbeingstakeontheformoftheautonomousandapparentlynaturalrelationsamongtheseproducts.ButtheentireargumentofCapitalpainstakinglyreconstructstheprocessthroughwhichthelawofvalueaswellaswhatitallowsustoperceive,namelytheexploitationofworkersthroughtheextractionofsurplus-valueisprogressivelyconcealed,bythecirculationofcommodities,bythecompetitivestrugglesofrivalcapitaliststomaximizetheirprofits,andbythedistributionofsurplus-valueamongdifferentkindsofcapitalforexampleproductivecapitalinvesteddirectlyintheexploitationofworkersandmoneycapitalactiveinfinancialmarketsaswellasamonglandownersclaimingrent.

TheconceptualconstructionofCapitalpullsawayfromthenaturalisticpositivismoftheSecondInternational.Inthefirstplace,MarxcontinuesinCapitalandhisdraftstodescribehisenterpriseasscientific,buttheinvestigationofmaterialconditionsofexistenceprovestobemuchmorecomplexandproblematicthanitappearedtobeinTheGermanIdeology.ThewayinwhichcapitalistsocietytendstoconcealitsinnermechanismsrequiresitsscientificstudyrigorouslytodistinguishbetweenwhatMarxusuallycallsessenceandappearance.BothinCapitalandintheportionofthe18613ManuscriptspublishedasTheoriesofSurplusValue,hepraisesSmithand(p.

5

6

7

8

Marxism and the Status of Critique

Page 3 of 17

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: University of North Carolina - Greensboro; date: 14 October 2014

214) Ricardoforpenetratingthesurfaceappearanceofcapitalistsocietyandcomingtosomeunderstandingofitsrealworkings;vulgarpoliticaleconomybywhichismeanttheancestorsoftheneo-classicalorthodoxythatdominatescontemporaryacademiceconomicsisbycontrastrelentlesslydenouncedformerelytranscribinghowthemarketseemstoworktothoseengagedinit.Marxiscarefultostressthatthefoundersofmodernphysicsalsodistinguishedbetweenhowtheworldseemsandhowitreallyworks,butthefailureofvulgarpoliticaleconomyismorethanthatofnotmatchinguptothedemandsoftheoreticalexplanationtoutcourt.Simplyuncriticallytodescribetheappearancesofcapitalistsocietyisapologeticthatis,itisaformofideology,inasmuchas,forexample,ittakesatfacevaluetheapparentequalitybetweenmarketactors,ignoringtherealinequalityinaccesstoproductiveresourcesthatunderliestheseeminglyinnocentexchangebetweencapitalandwage-labour.ButthisreboundsonthestatusofMarx'sownundertaking.Foritindicatesthatheisdoingsomethingdifferentfromormorethanwhat,say,GalileoorDarwinundertook:heis,notsimply,likethem,offeringanexplanatorytheorythatseekstoidentifythemechanismsunderlyingandresponsibleforcertainphenomenaorprocesses,butisalsoprovidingacritiqueofother,falsetheoriesthat,inconcealingormisrepresentingthenatureofthesemechanisms,suppressthefactthatthephenomenaunderexaminationarepartofanunjustsocialreality.MarximplicitlyconcedesthepointintitlingorsubtitlingallhismajoreconomictextsCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy:heisengaginginthecritiqueofbourgeoisideologyaswellastheformulationofscientifictheoriesoftheusualexplanatorykind.

Butwhatdoescritiquemeanhere?RecallthatMarxdeniesthathiscritiqueofcapitalistexploitationappealstoanynormativeprinciples:itisasignofthetensionsinhispositionthat,inordertopresenthisviewsinthepreviousparagraph,Ihadinfacttomisrepresentthembyreferringtoanunjustsocialreality.Marx'sresistancetothemoralcondemnationofcapitalismhasexceptionallycomplextheoreticalsources:one,verydifferentfromthenaturalisticpositivismreferredtoabove,isprovidedbyHegel's(p.215) critiqueofKantiantranscendentalphilosophy.Kant'sanalysisofmoralityasirreducibletothepathologicalprocessesgoverningempiricalhumannatureandconstitutedbyuniversalmorallawscapableofbeingadoptedbyacommunityofautonomoussubjectsisforHegeloneinstanceofthefundamentalflawinKant'sthought,thesystematicseparationofformandcontentthatreducesthetranscendentalsubjecttoanemptyshapedisjoinedfromthenaturalworldandfromhumanhistory.Hegelbelieveshimselfcapableofclosingthegapbetweenformandcontentbecausehehasdevelopedthedialecticalintuitionsofearlierphilosophersintothedoctrineofdeterminatenegation,accordingtowhichthetensioninherentineveryconcept(andhenceintheworlditself,sinceitisthroughconceptsthattheworldachievesform)doesnotdestroytheconcept,butreplacesitwithanewermoreinclusiveconceptthatincorporatesallthecontentexposedthroughitsearliercontradictorydevelopment.Hegel'sLogic,andthemodelthatitoffersofaformofsciencethatdoesnotsimplytranscribesense-appearancesbutcapturesitsobjectthroughtheprogressiveconstructionofanarticulatedsystemofcategories,evidentlyinfluencedMarx'smethodinCapital.ButHegelisabletopullofftheprocessofsustainedreconciliationofoppositesforexample,oftheoreticalandpracticalreasonbecauseoftheimplicitteleologythatbindshiscategoriestogetherandthatmakeseachstageinthedialecticastepclosertotheself-realizationoftheAbsoluteSpiritthatisidenticalwiththeprocessitself.UnderlyingthedebatesamongMarxistphilosophersaboutwhetherandifsohowmaterialisticallytoappropriatetheHegeliandialecticistheproblemofwhether,onceonehasdroppedtheAbsoluteandtheteleologythatsustainsit,oneisentitledtothereconcilingandincorporatingpowerthatHegelclaimsforhismethod.Thenaturalistic-positivisttakeonMarxismofferedby,forexample,Kautskydidofferanalternativeteleologyintheideaofanevolutionaryprocessdrivenbytheimperativeofadaptingsocietiestotheirenvironment.Buttheresultislessthetranscendenceofoppositionssuchasthatbetweenvalueandfactbutratherthereductionoftheformertothelatter.

(p.216) But,secondly,whoisthesubjectofcritique?Inwhosenameisitconducted?Conceivingvalueasabstractsociallabourimpliesthattheworkingclassismorethanthesumofthedeprivationsandexclusionstowhichitissubjected.InCapitalVolumeIandtheso-calledSixthChapteronTheResultsoftheImmediateProductionProcessthathedroppedfromthepublishedversion,Marxconceptualizescapitalistproductionasthecontradictoryrelationshipbetweenacapitaldrivenbytheimperativesofcompetitiveaccumulationandaworkingclassthatisprogressivelytransformedbytheincreasinglycomplexandsocializedcharacterofthelabourprocessintoacollectiveworkercapableoftakingcontroloftheeconomyandinauguratingacommunistsociety.ThisdistinctivesociologyofclassdovetailedinwiththepoliticalstressthatMarxandEngelslaid,forexample,intheirrolewithintheFirstInternational(186476)andinadvisingtheleadersofGermanSocialDemocracy,ontheworkingclassas,notaninertsufferingmass,buttheagentofitsownemancipation,schooledbyitsdailyconflictswithcapitalintoasubjectcapableofassumingsovereignpower.Suchastressonrevolutionaryclasssubjectivity

9

10

Marxism and the Status of Critique

Page 4 of 17

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: University of North Carolina - Greensboro; date: 14 October 2014

satillwiththepoliticalgradualismthatprevailedintheSecondInternational,thoughthedissidentvoiceswhetherrepresentativesofanarcho-syndicalismsuchasGeorgesSorelormoreorthodoxMarxistslikeRosaLuxemburgremainedrelativelymuteduntiltheFirstWorldWarandtheRussianRevolutionofOctober1917blewtheinternationallabourmovementapart.

Lukcs'sRevolutionItwasinthiscontextthatGeorgLukcseffectivelyinauguratedMarxistphilosophyasadistinctintellectualdisciplinebypublishingHistoryandClassConsciousnessin1923.Butalthoughthiscollectionofessayswasanimmenselypartisanwork,inwhichasophisticatedaestheticphilosopherintimatewiththeleadingfiguresinGermansocialtheoryjustifiedthepoliticalchoicehehadmadetorallytotheBolshevikcause,thisisnotthemain(p.217)reasonwhyHistoryandClassConsciousnessremainssuchacompellingwork.ItsbrillianceliesintherigourandlanwithwhichLukcscutstheGordianknot,resolvingthetensionswehavebeensurveyingbyembracingMarx'sHegelianheritagewithenthusiasm.InthecentralessayofHistoryandClassConsciousness,ReificationandtheConsciousnessoftheProletariat,LukcsradicalizesandhistoricizesHegel'scritiqueofKantianformalism.SurveyingtheantinomiesofbourgeoisthoughtfromDescartestoDilthey,hesituatesthemwithinthelogicofcapitalistsociety,andmorespecificallywithinthecomprehensivecommodificationofsociallifeinherentinthislogic.LukcsheredevelopsMarx'stheoryofcommodityfetishism,arguingthatcommodificationimpliesaprocessofreificationinwhich,intheonehand,socialrelationsarefragmentedthroughtheprogressivespecializationofproductiveactivity,and,ontheother,themediationofinteractionsbymarketexchangespromotesthereductionofsocialprocessestonaturalobjects,eternalandunamenabletochange.ThescissionthatMaxWeberidentifiesinEconomyandSocietybetweenformalandsubstantiverationality,andtheimplicationthatmodernreasonallowshumanbeingstoascertainthemosteffectivemeansofachievingtheirgoals,butnottoidentifywhatthesegoalsshouldbe,isaninstanceoftheirrationalityofcapitalismasadistinctivesocialform,whereindividualpartsofsocietymaybepurposivelyregulated,butthewholeremainsbeyondeithercomprehensionorcontrol.Thesameunattainabilityofarationaltotalityalso,accordingtoLukcs,structurespost-Cartesianphilosophy:thegreatmeritofHegelistohavegraspedtheproblem,buthisownsolutionthereconciliationofsubjectandobjectinAbsoluteSpiritmaintainstheseparationthatHegelhimselfdenouncesbetweenthoughtandhistorysinceitisachievedthroughtheretrospectivecontemplationoftheprocessbyphilosophy.ItisonlyinMarxismthattheseantinomiesincludingthatbetweenfactandvalue,withwhichLukcshadstruggledinhispre-Marxistphilosophicalwritingsaredefinitivelyresolvedbycomprehensivelydemolishingtheoppositionsbetweenthoughtandtheworldandsubjectandobject.Theproletariatistheidenticalsubject-objectofhistory:itsreductiontoanobject,thatis,thetransformationoflabour-powerintoacommodity,isthepresuppositionofthecommodificationandreificationwithwhichbourgeoisthoughthasstruggledunavailinglybecauseittakesforgrantedthelegitimacyandperpetuityofcapitalistsociety.Itisthereforeonlybyassumingtheclassperspectiveoftheproletariat(whichmaywellnotbethesameastheactualclassconsciousnessoftheproletariansthemselves)thatcapitalismbecomesanintelligibleobjectorratheratotality(p.218) structuredbytheexploitationofwage-labour,thepivotonwhichtheentiresocietyrests.Butthisrationalunderstandingispreciselynotitisnotthedetachedcontemplationofthetotality.Itisonlythroughactiveengagementintheclassstrugglethat,ontheonehand,Marxisttheorycanobtainarealgraspofthecontradictionsofcapitalistsociety,and,ontheotherhand,workersforgethemselvesintotheself-consciouscollectivesubjectthat,aslongasbourgeoisnormalityprevails,theyareonlyinpotentia.TheprivilegedlocusforthefurtherdevelopmentofthecritiquethatMarxinauguratedisthereforearevolutionarypartyontheBolshevikmodelthatcanmediatebetweenthetheoreticalunderstandingofcapitalismandthepracticeofclassstruggle.

LukcsintendedhistourdeforceasaphilosophicalcounterparttothepoliticalbreakthatLeninandtheinfantCommunistInternationalweremakingwiththetimidreformismintowhichEuropeansocialdemocracyhad(theybelieved)degenerated:justassocialistpoliticalpracticeneededtobereorientedaroundthethemeoftheactualityoftherevolution,sothenaturalisticpositivismoftheSecondInternationalhadtobereplacedbyatheoryofclasssubjectivity. But,insteadofbeingwelcomed,HistoryandClassConsciousnesswascomprehensivelydenouncedbytheleadershipoftheThirdInternational.InlargepartthisreflectedtheprocessofBolshevizationthroughwhichtheCommunistpartieswereincreasinglytransformedintodisciplinedinstrumentsofSovietforeignpolicy.ButthedogmaticandunthinkingcharacterofthepredominantCommunistreactiontoHistoryandClassConsciousnessshouldnotbeallowedtoconcealthepresenceofmoresubstantiveissues.Themostobvious

11

12

13

Marxism and the Status of Critique

Page 5 of 17

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: University of North Carolina - Greensboro; date: 14 October 2014

problemswerethoseimpliedinthecommonchargeofidealism:bysothoroughlyhistoricizingthedialecticLukcsseemedtoruleoutthepossibilityofithavinganyextensiontothephysicalworld.MoreseriouslyperhapsforanyoneasconcernedasLukcswaswithsquaringhisinterpretationofMarxwiththelatter'stheoryofhistory(HistoryandClassConsciousnessisdistinguished,amongotherthings,forbeingthefirstclosephilosophicalreadingofCapital),itishardtoreconciletheideaof(p.219) theproletariatastheidenticalsubject-objectofhistorywithMarx'snarrativeofsuccessivemodesofproductionrisingandfallinginresponsetoconflictsbetweentheforcesandrelationsofproduction.ItwasdifficultiesofthisnaturethatledLukcs,afterdraftingarobustdefenceofhisbook,latertoembraceamuchmoreobjectivistinterpretationofthedialecticthat(inparticularafterhereadthe1844Manuscriptspriortotheirpublicationin1932)focused,notonthedynamicsofclasssubjectivity,butinsteadontheinteractionbetweenlabourandnature. Implicitinthesedifficultiesbutarguablymoreinterestingfromalonger-termperspectiveisthefactthatLukcssoughtinHistoryandClassConsciousnessphilosophicallytogroundarevolutionaryinterpretationofMarxismthroughatheoryofabsolutesubjectivityatpreciselythehistoricalmomentwhenWesternphilosophersbeganseriouslytointerrogatethecategoryofthesubjectfirstinallthetwistsandturnsofHeidegger'swritings,andthen,ofcourse,withthegradualemergenceofanti-humanismasoneofthedominantthemesofFrenchthoughtafter1945.OnewayofthinkingaboutthesubsequentdevelopmentofMarxistphilosophy(andlaterofincreasinglymoreexplicitlypost-Marxistcriticaltheory)istoseeitasasuccessionofattemptstoaddressanagendalargelyinheritedfromLukcsbyseekingtodisengagethecritiqueofcapitalismthatMarxinauguratedfromanytheoryofsubjectivity.TheearlyFrankfurtSchool,Althusser,andHabermasallofferexamplesofthiskindofattempt.

BeyondtheSubject:Adorno,Althusser,andHabermasLukcs'suseoftheideaofcommodityfetishismastheorganizingmetaphorforanyattempttounderstandcapitalistsocietyisenormouslyinfluentialonthecentralfiguresintheFrankfurtSchool,TheodorAdornoandMaxHorkheimer.What,bycontrast,theyfindveryhardtoswallowistheconceptionoftheproletariatastheidenticalsubject-objectofcapitalistsociety.Initiallythisscepticismismotivatedbyfairlystraightforwardpoliticalandsociologicalreasonsontheonehand,thedefeatoftherevolutionarywave(p.220) aftertheFirstWorldWarandthesubsequentvictoriesofFascismandNationalSocialism,and,ontheother,theevidencethattheFrankfurtSchool'sempiricalstudies(particularaftertheirflightintoAmericanexile)providedthattheprocessesofcommodificationthatLukcshadhighlightedwerefragmentingclassconsciousnessandthereforesystematicallypreventingtheWesternproletariatfromconstitutingitselfasaself-consciouscollectivesubject.ButtheradicalizationofHorkheimer'sandAdorno'scritiqueoflatecapitalisminDialecticofEnlightenment(1947)entailsanincreasinglyphilosophicalsuspicionofthecategoryofthesubjectitself.Reificationishenceforthconceivedintranshistoricaltermsastheconsequenceofhumankind'sdrivetodominatenature:classexploitation,whilestillcondemned,istherebyreducedtoaninstanceofamuchbroaderpatternofsubjugation.Withinthisframeworkreasonitselfappearstobenecessarilyinstrumental,atoolintheefforttorenderthephysicalworldfungibleandcontrollable.Adorno'sphilosophicalmaster-work,NegativeDialectics(1966),denouncestheveryideaoftheconstitutivesubjectattheheartofclassicalGermanidealismasaphilosophicalrationalizationoftheurgebyahumankinddivorcedfromnaturetodominateandconsumeit.Hedoesnotthereforedismisstheconceptofthesubjectasaltogetherworthlesstheidealofindividualautonomyarticulatedbyclassicalliberalismduringtheearlyphaseofbourgeoissocietydidprovidearefuge,howeverprivilegedandproblematic,fromtheprocessesofcommodification.But,withtheonsetofthetotallyadministeredsocietywhosetriumphinmoresubtleformsthanthoseofferedbyNazismwassecuredbythevictoryofliberaldemocracyintheSecondWorldWar,thatrefugeisinvadedandconquered.ParticularlythroughtheoperationsofthecultureindustrysymbolizedbyHollywood,theindividualsubjectisbrokenopenandsubjecttothedirectandunmediatedimperativesofcapitalaccumulationandmassconsumption.Amidthisalmostcomprehensivedisaster,thethoughtofHegelandMarx,foralltheirlimitations,retaintheirusesforcriticalthought.Inparticular,thesubsumptionofindividualexistenceunderthecategoriesoftheLogicmirrorshowthelawofvaluereducesparticularhumanactivitiesintounitsofabstractsociallabourAdornocontinuestoaffirmtheactualityofMarx'scritiqueofpoliticaleconomy,forexample,criticizingLukcs'sconceptofreificationforidealism,eventhoughthecollectivesubjectwhomthatcritiquewasintendedtohelpconstitutehaslongagosuccumbedtotheveryprocessesrevealedbyCapital.

(p.221) ItistotheFrankfurtSchoolthatweowetheexpressioncriticaltheory,initiallyasanacademicallyacceptablesynonymforMarxism,butincreasinglyasanameforthepursuitofatleastaspectsofMarx'sproject

14

15

Marxism and the Status of Critique

Page 6 of 17

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: University of North Carolina - Greensboro; date: 14 October 2014

beyondtheconfinesoforthodoxMarxism.ButtheobviousproblemthematizedextensivelybyJrgenHabermas,widelyseenasHorkheimer'sandAdorno'sphilosophicalheirwaswhatkindofstatustheyprovidedforcritiqueitself.MarxandLukcshadgivenitadefinitesociallocation:itisonlyfromthevantagepointoftheproletariatthatcapitalistsociety,withallitsinjusticesanddysfunctions,becomesintelligibleasatotality.ForHorkheimerandAdornotheatomizationandincorporationoftheworkingclassbylatecapitalismmeantthatthiskindofclassperspectiveofferednosortofcriticalleverage.KarlMannheim,alsoinfluencedbyLukcs,proposedthefree-floatingintelligentsiaasthesocialvehicleforrationalinsightintocapitalistmodernity,butAdornodismissedthisasimplyingtooreconcilingavisionofcontemporarysociety.Theproblemwas,however,morethansociologicalorpolitical.Ifreasonitselfisimplicatedinthedominationnotsimplyofexploitedandoppressedhumans,butofnatureitself,howcoulditprovidethemeanstoilluminateandcriticizethisdomination?Howwascriticaltheoryitselfpossible?Adorno,amuchmoresophisticatedphilosopherthanHorkheimer,circledroundthisproblemfordecades.Hisanswerseemedtobethatcriticaltheorycouldevokethesheersufferinginflictedonhumansandanimalsalikebythetotallyadministeredsociety,notablybyphilosophicalreflectiononthehighModernistworksofartwhosedissonantstructuresalludedtothissufferingandthereby,bynegation,impliedthepossibilityofaUtopianreconciliationofhumankindandnature.But,evenifcoherent,thissolutionofferednodirectionforthekindofprogrammeofresearchthat,forexample,theFrankfurtSchoolitselfhadpursuedinthe1930sand1940s,andnoroutetoanythingresemblingaseriouspolitics(eventhoughlargenumbersofGermanstudentsinthelate1960s,toHorkheimer'sdismayandAdorno'sembarrassment,usedtheirbookstojustifyrebellingagainstcapitalism).

AnalternativestrategyforMarxistphilosophywas,whiletryingnottolapsebackintonaturalisticpositivism,tobreakaltogetherwithHegelandindeed(p.222) withtheideaofconstitutivesubjectivity.ThemostinfluentialexponentofthisstrategywasLouisAlthusser.Althusserwentthroughhisownultra-Hegelianphaseinthelate1940sandearly1950swhen,alongwithmanyotheryoungintellectuals,heralliedtotheFrenchCommunistParty. ButthebooksforwhichheismostfamousForMarxandthecollectiveworkReadingCapital,bothpublishedin1965espousedanavowedlyanti-HegelianMarxism.Althusserinthelate1960sandearly1970sidentifiedwithMaoistdissidentswithinFrenchCommunismpresentedthisasareturntoMarx,butinfactwhatheandhiscollaboratorsofferedwasahighlycontroversialreconstructionrestingonthreemainelements.Inthefirstplace,asymptomaticreadingofMarx'swritings,modelledonFreud'sinterpretationsofdreamsandparapraxesasthedistortedfulfilmentofrepresseddesires,revealsanepistemologicalbreakdividingtheyoungMarx,whosethoughtisimpregnatedwithHegelianismandhumanism,frommaturescientificworkssuchasCapital.ThisreadingofMarximpliesthatthefundamentaldifferenceinproblematictheimplicitsystemofquestionsorganizingatheorythatseparatedhimfromHegelmadealltheattemptsfromEngelsonwardstodistinguishHegel'sdialecticalmethodfromhisidealistsystemessaysinself-deception.ReplottingMarx'strajectoryinthisfashionimplied,secondly,averydifferentconceptionofsciencefromthattobefoundintheFrankfurtSchool,earlyorlate.Horkheimer,Adorno,andHabermasallconceivescienceasaformofinstrumentalrationality,constitutivelytiedtothepracticalimperativeofmasteringnaturetomeethumanneeds.ForAlthusser,bycontrast,scienceischaracterizedaboveallbyitsautonomy,itsdistancefromeverydayactivitiesandconcerns.ThisviewreflectstheinfluenceoftheFrenchepistemologicaltraditioninthephilosophyofscience,andinparticularofhisteacherGastonBachelard,whoarguesthatascienceisformedbybreakingwithsense-experienceandfolkbeliefsanddevelopinganinternallypowereddynamicofconceptualrefinementandreconfiguration.AlthussertriestoincorporatethisconceptionofscienceintoMarxismby,ontheonehand,presentingtheoryasadistinctsocialpracticegovernedbyitsownspecialprotocols,and,ontheother,reinterpretingtherupturethroughwhichascienceisconstitutedasabreakwithideology(conceivedalongroughlyMarxistlinesastheimaginaryrelationshipthatsocialactorshavewiththeiractualrelationshiptotheirconditionsofexistence).Finally,(p.223)thistheoryofscienceisconceivedasaspecificationofalargerreinterpretationofMarx'stheoryofhistory.Themainthoughthereisthattheforcesandrelationsofproduction(undertheinfluenceoftheChineseCulturalRevolutionAlthussergivesprimacytothelatter)mustbeunderstoodasstructuresirreducibletotherelationsamongthepersonstakingpartinthem.Historyisaprocesswithoutasubjectorgoals.Individualsaretransformedintosubjectsthroughideology,whichinterpellatesthem,summoningthemtoperformtherolerequiredofthemassupportsoftheprevailingrelationsofproduction.

TherereadingofMarxismofferedbyAlthusserandthoseinfluencedbyhim(mostnotablythestatetheoristNicosPoulantzas)hadamajorimpactontherenaissanceofMarxismproducedbytheupheavalsof1968andafter.ItsmainphilosophicalthrustmadeitpartofthebroaderphenomenonofFrenchanti-humanismthat,asittookshapein

16

17

18

Marxism and the Status of Critique

Page 7 of 17

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: University of North Carolina - Greensboro; date: 14 October 2014

thecourseofthe1960s,threwupthenamesstructuralismandthenpoststructuralism.AsphilosophytutoratthecoleNormaleSuprieureinParis,AlthussertaughtFoucaultandwasacolleagueandfriendofDerrida's:attheheightofhisfamehepositivelyrevelledinthenotorietyhisanti-humanistreadingofMarxattained. ButwhereastheinfluenceofDerridaandFoucaultexpandedenormouslyinsubsequentdecades,Althusser'svanishedalmostasquicklyasithademerged.Inpartthiswasforreasonsofexternalhistory:hewasthemostspectacularvictimoftheprofoundcrisisthatoverwhelmedEuropeanMarxisminthelate1970s,asitbecameclearthattherevolutionaryhopesraisedby1968wouldnotbefulfilled(Althusser'spersonalfallwas,ofcourse,greatlyacceleratedinOctober1980,whenhemurderedhiswifeduringoneofthedepressionsfromwhichhehadsufferedsincehisteens). Butitwasalsothatthecontradictionsinhistheoreticalprojectrapidlybecamevisible.Twoareworthmentioninghere.First,theautonomizationoftheoryheattemptedsatillwiththeMarxistframeworkinwhichheincorporatedit.Foronething,if(asheargues)everysciencehasitsowninternalcriteriaofvalidity,howtodistinguishitfromatheoreticallyelaboratedideology?Foranother,thereconceptualizationofthesocialtotalityasapluralityofautonomouspracticesseemedalltooliableto(p.224) collapseintomoremainstreamideasofsocietyasacontingentcollectionofdifferentfactors.Inboththeserespectsthatis,thetendenciestoblurthedistinctionbetweenscienceandideologyandtodisaggregatethesocialintoaplayofdifferenceAlthusserpointedinthedirectionthatpoststructuralismtook,notablyinFoucault'swritingsonpower-knowledgeinthemid-1970s.Thesecondmajordifficultyis,however,commontobothAlthusserandFoucault:inwhatsensecanaconsistentanti-humanismcoherentlyclaimtobeengagingincritique?ThelogicofbothAlthusser'stheoryofideologyandtextsofFoucault'ssuchasDisciplineandPunishandSocietyMustbeDefendedistotreatindividualsubjectsashavingnoidentityindependentoftherelationsofdominationthattheyareconstructedwithinandinordertoperpetuate.ButaswasmostforcefullyexpressedbythegreatEnglishMarxisthistorianEdwardThompsoninhispolemicagainstAlthusserifthat'showthingsare,whatisthepointofresistingtheserelationsinpracticeandofcriticizingthemintheory?ThoughitwouldbemisleadingtobracketAlthusserandFoucaultwiththenaturalisticpositivismoftheSecondInternational,theytooresistintroducinganynormativedimensionfromwhichtomotivatesocialcritiqueand,consistentintheiranti-humanism,theydisdaintheevocationofsheerbrutesufferingthatinformsHorkheimer'sandAdorno'sphilippicsagainstlatecapitalism.

Habermasandhisco-thinkersnevershowedmuchmorethancontemptuousincomprehensionforAlthusser'senterprise. ButHabermas'sownprojectisbestunderstoodasaresponsetothesamesetofproblemsthathadmotivatedAlthusser.Liketheanti-humanistsofParis,Habermasrejectsthephilosophyofconsciousness.ThisphilosophyinformsclassicalMarxism,whoseproductionparadigmpositsamonologicrelationshipbetweenacollectivehumansubjectandanatureconceivedastheformer'spassiveobject.TheaporiasoftheearlyFrankfurtSchoolstemultimatelyfromHorkheimer'sandAdorno'sfailuretobreakwiththisconceptualframework,eventhoughtheyincreasinglysawthehistoricalprocessthusunderstoodnotas,say,Kautskyperceivedit,astheprogressiveconquestofnaturebyrationallyorganizedhumanity,butasthedestructionofreason.ButtheconclusionofHabermas'scritiqueof(p.225) classicalMarxismisnotthestraightforwardabandonmentoftheconceptoftheconstitutivesubject,butratheritstransformationintoacommunicativetheoryofintersubjectivity.Onthisaccount,communicationimplicitlyorientedtowardsthegoalofachievinguncoercedagreementbetweenspeakerandheareristheparadigmofallhumanaction.Socialtheory,consequently,muststartfromthedialogicrelationshipamongapluralityofinteractingandcommunicatingpersons,notthemonologicsubjectobjectrelationshipthatisthebasisofMarx'santhropology.ThisdoesnotimplyaRomanticrejectionofinstrumentalrationality,whichhasitsplacewhenhumansseektounderstandandcontrolnatureinordertomeettheirneeds.Butitmustbeseenasonespecificandlimitedformofamuchbroaderrationalitythatisfundamentallycommunicative.Correlatively,thedevelopmentofmodernityinvolvescruciallyaprocessofdifferentiationinwhichspecificformsofrationality(instrumental,aestheticpractical,moralpolitical)articulatethemselvesasthepresuppositionsofdistinctdiscourseseachgovernedbyitsownprotocols.Thepeculiarimperativesofinstrumentalrationalityfurtherproducetheseparationfromthelifeworldofimplicitpre-understandingspresupposedbyeverycommunicativeactoftheeconomyandpolityasautonomoussubsystemseachregulatedbyitsownmediumrespectively,moneyandpower.Societyasadecentredsystemisthusnot,asAlthusserclaimed,aconstantinhumanhistoryconceivedasaprocesswithoutasubject,butanachievementofmodernity.AndHabermasdoesseemodernityasanachievementanincompleteprojectthreatened,notbythedifferentiationthatisrequiredfortherationaldevelopmentofhumankind,butbythetendencyofthesubsystemstocolonizethelifeworld,inthewayinwhich,ashesoughttoshowinhisfirstmajorwork,thepublicsphereofrationalandcriticaldebatethatdevelopedinearlybourgeoissocietyintheeighteenthandnineteenthcenturieswaspenetratedandincreasinglydominatedbytheimperativesofcommodifiedmassconsumption. Thesetrendsdo

19

20

21

22

23

Marxism and the Status of Critique

Page 8 of 17

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: University of North Carolina - Greensboro; date: 14 October 2014

not,however,leadHabermastodespairofmodernity:hisviewistheoneheattributestoAdornoheremainstruetotheideathatthereisnocureforthewoundsofEnlightenmentotherthantheradicalizedEnlightenmentitself.Communicativeaction,institutionalizedinmodernliberaldemocracyanditslegalsystems,hasthecapacitytoreininunrestrainedinstrumentalrationality.Habermascitestheexamplesofthesuccessofthepost-warwelfarestateinregulatingcapitalism(p.226) andtherebyavoidingitsworstexcessesandtheemergenceofformsofglobalgovernancethatinhisviewrepresentfalteringstepstowardsKant'sideaofaworldconfederationwithsufficientpowerandauthoritytopreventwar.

OneoftheprincipalmotivationsbehindHabermas'sentirephilosophicalenterpriseistoprovideadefensiblebasisforthekindofcritiquethatMarxinaugurated. Hismaturetheoryofcommunicativeactionissupposed,amongotherthings,toofferthereconciliationbetweenscientificandnormativediscoursesthatMarxandhissuccessorshadfailedtogive.Butitisneverclearquitehowthisismeanttohappen.Habermasdisplaysadegreeofhesitationaboutthestatusofcriticaltheoryitself.InKnowledgeandHumanInterests(1968)theideaoftheknowledge-constitutiveinterestpresupposedbyeachkindofdiscoursebearsastrongresemblancetoKant'sconceptofthetranscendentalconditionsofexperience.Partlytoavoidanyimplicationofconstitutivesubjectivity,Habermasinhislaterwritingstreatsthepresuppositionsofcommunicativeactionascounterfactualcommitmentsimplicitineveryspeechact.Butthis(asheseesit)pragmatiststrategyisintensionwithhisdesiretoshowhowtheideaofcommunicativeactioncanjustify,notaspecificsetofvaluesorduties,butatleastthenormativeframeworkofmodernliberaldemocracies.Forexample,Habermaswrites:Communicativelyactingindividualsarethussubjecttomustofaweaktranscendentalnecessity,butthisdoesnotmeanthattheyalreadyencountertheprescriptivemustofaruleofaction. Thecontentofthisweaktranscendentalnecessityisprimarilyprocedural:theinstitutionsofliberaldemocracyshouldasfaraspossiblehavetheopen,dialogicstructurerequiredbytheimplicitcommitmentofcommunicativeactiontowardsuncoercedconsensus.ButtheapparentlypurelyproceduralcharacterofcommunicativerationalitymakesHabermasvulnerabletothechargethatheisretreatingintothekindofformalismforwhichHegelcriticizedKant,aswellastoDavidson'sdeconstructionofthedistinctionbetweenconceptualschemeandsubstantivejudgement. Moreover,particularlyinhistheory(p.227) oflawanddemocracy,Habermas'spragmatism,andtheinfluenceofthenormativefunctionalismofDurkheimandTalcottParsonsencouragehimtoconceivecommunicativeactionasthesourceofsocialintegration,leadingtoaconstantslidefromtheepistemicvalidity(Gltigkeit)ofnormstotheirsocialacceptance(Geltung).Habermas'sattempttointegratecriticaltheoryandfunctionalistsociologythereforethreatenstoabolishtothedistancefromexistingsocialrealitythatseemstobeanecessaryconditionofcritiqueperformingitsrole.

ContemporaryMarxismandPost-MarxismWithHabermaswestepdefinitivelybeyondtheboundariesoforthodoxMarxismintotheworldofpost-Marxismthatis,oftheclusterofprojectsthatseektocontinueMarx'scritiquewhilerejectingmanyofhismostimportantsubstantiveclaimsandoftenalsothemethodthroughwhichhearrivedatthem. AvarietyofstrategieshavebeenpursuedbycontemporarytheoristsunconvincedbyHabermas'sattemptedreconstructionofhistoricalmaterialism.WhatisintriguingishowoftenthesestrategiesreplicateorreactivatesomeofthetendenciestobefoundinthemoreclassicalMarxistdebatessurveyedabove. ThenaturalisticpositivismoftheSecondInternationalhasremaineddeeplyunattractivetolatergenerations.AttachingthislabeltotheschoolofAnalyticalMarxiststhatbrieflyflourishedinthe1980s,asmanymoreorthodoxcriticspolemicallytendedto,failedtocapturetheconcernsandmethodsofthisgroup.Nevertheless,inonerespectAnalyticalMarxismdidresemblethemostintellectuallycreativegroupofSecondInternationalMarxists,theAustro-Marxists.ThelattertendedtoacceptKant'sdistinctionbetweentheoreticalandpracticalreason:thus,inhisprefacetoFinanceCapital,RudolfHilferdingfamouslyarguesthatitisperfectlypossibletoacceptMarx'stheory(p.228) ofcapitalismbutnottofollowhiminseekingthissystem'soverthrow.TurningtoAnalyticalMarxism,wesee,inthefirstplace,theefforttodevelopdefensiblerestatementsofMarxisttheory,mostnotablyinG.A.Cohen'sKarlMarx'sTheoryofHistory(1978).Inprinciple,conceptualreconstructionofthiskindwasnodifferentfromwhatAlthusserandhiscollaboratorshadundertakenadecadeortwobefore,thoughtheAnalyticalMarxistsrelianceonanalyticalphilosophyandAnglophonesocialscienceastheirmainsourceofintellectualstyleandparadigmsdidsetthemapartfromearlierMarxistphilosophers.But,secondly,AnalyticalMarxismincreasinglytookrightsandtherestoftheapparatusofnormativediscourseseriously.JohnRoemer'sAGeneralTheoryofExploitationandClass(1982)providedthebridgebetweenthetwoformsofinquiry,sinceitofferedacriticalreconstructionofMarx's

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

Marxism and the Status of Critique

Page 9 of 17

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: University of North Carolina - Greensboro; date: 14 October 2014

theoryofexploitation,whichitsauthorhadregardedasbelongingfirmlyinthedomainofexplanatorytheory,butRoemer'srestatementofwhichmoveddiscussionofexploitationintotheterrainoftheegalitarianconceptionsofjusticedevelopedbyJohnRawlsandhisinterlocutors.Cohen'sandRoemer'smaintheoreticalpreoccupationssubsequentlycametofocusonissuesinnormativepoliticalphilosophyashiftthattheformerarguedwasjustifiedbothbytheinadequaciesofMarxistsocialtheoryandbytheincoherenceoftheHegeliandialectic,whichpurportedtotranscendtheoppositionbetweentheoreticalandpracticalreason.ThismovementfromclarifyingthenatureofMarxismasanexplanatorytheorytoexploringnormativeproblemsinaphilosophicalspacedevelopedbyegalitarianliberalismmayinacertainsensehavebeenmadepossiblebytheAlthusseriancritiqueofHegelianMarxism:quiteagainstAlthusser'sownintentions,oncetheillusionwasremovedthatthesecretofthedialecticwastobefoundinHegel,soonerorlaterMarxistphilosopherswouldhavetoshakeofforthodoxyandaskthemselveswhatplaceethicalandmoralconsiderationsshouldplayinsocialistthought.InthecaseofAnalyticalMarxism,thepursuitofthesequestionsinvolvedtheabandonmentofthekindofexplanatorysocialtheorymoretraditionallyundertakenbyMarxists,thoughtheredoesnotseemtobeanyreasontothinkthatthetwokindsofinquiryareinherentlyincompatibleapointtowhichIreturnbelow.

(p.229) AseconddirectiontakenbycontemporarycriticaltheoryhasinvolvedresorttoaversionofnaturalismverydifferentfromthekindofsocialLamarckianismfavoured,forexample,byKautsky.ThemostcelebratedrecentworkofMarxisttheoryisundoubtedlyMichaelHardtandAntonioNegri'sEmpire(2000).Thisbookisbestknownforthethesisthatcontemporarycapitalisminvolvesanewformoftransnationalnetworkpowerthathasrenderedimperialism,withitsantagonismsamongrivalnationalcentres,obsoleteandrequiredtheemergenceofanovelkindofsovereignty,Empire,whichrecognizesnolimittoitsdominion.ChallengingEmpireisanewformofclasssubjectivity,multitude,inwhichallthosedominatedbycapitalconvergeinresistancetoit.Empire'scritiqueofmoretraditionalMarxisttheoriesofcapitalismandclasshasarousedimmensedebate.OftenobscuredintheseargumentsisHardtandNegri'srelianceonthevitalistontologyoriginallydevelopedbyGillesDeleuze,mostnotablyinMilleplateaux(1980,writtenincollaborationwithFlixGuattari).ForDeleuze,LifeistobeunderstoodlessasthekindoforganicforceatthecentreofBergson'sphilosophythanasananarchictendencytosubvertallhierarchiesandstratifications,andtodecentreallrelationsofdomination.ThesignificanceofEmpireforHardtandNegriisthatitisthevariantofcapitalisminwhichthesubversivepotentialofLifeismostfullyrealized,notablythroughthedecentringofpower-relationsimpliedbytheincreasingrelianceonnetworkformsoforganizationtheeconomy,themilitary,andelsewhere.Butthispotentiallyliberatingattainmentreflectsthegrowingdependenceofanincreasinglyparasiticcapitalonthecreativityofthemultitude.ThiscreativitycannolongerbeunderstoodwithintheframeworkofMarxianvaluetheory,forthenewnetworkcapitalismsystematicallydemolishesthebarriersbetweenworkandtherestofhumanlife,promotingthedevelopmentofwhatHardtandNegricallbiopoliticalproduction:withthedeclineofmanuallabourandthegrowthoftheservicesector,itisnowLifeitselfthatisexploitedbycapitalratherthanthepurposiveactivityoftransformingnaturewithwhichMarxidentifiedlabour.Consequentlythemultituderepresents,withinthelimitsofcapitalistclassrelations,thetriumphoftheinherentproductivityofLife.

(p.230) HardtandNegriundeniablyofferanswersofakindtothetwoquestionsthat,asInotedabove,areposedbyMarx'scritiqueofpoliticaleconomy,namelythestatusofthiscritiqueanditssubject.ButtheirphilosophicalpresuppositionsareradicallydifferentfromtheHegelianheritageoutofwhichMarxdevelopedhiscritique.AsaphilosophicalreferencepointHegelisreplacedbySpinozaastepthatAlthusserandhiscollaboratorshadalreadytakenwhenseekingtoformulateananti-Hegelian,anti-humanistMarxism. Negri'sprojectissimilarlyanti-Hegelian:ThatMarxwasHegelianhasneverseemedtomethecase:onthesoleconditionofreadingMarxandHegel. HisreadingofSpinozaisheavilyinfluencedbythatofDeleuze,forwhomtheconceptofGodasimmanentcauseimpliesanon-hierarchicalconceptionofbeing,whathecallstheprincipleofanequalityofbeing,accordingtowhichallentitiesareequallyvalidexpressionsofthedivinesubstance. Deleuze'sconceptionoftheplaneofimmanence,whereentitiesarerelatedtoeachotherlaterallyandhierarchiesofanykindaretemporaryandliabletosubversion,isanimportantsourceoftheideaofEmpireasatransnationalnetwork.OneattractionofthiskindofSpinozistMarxismforanti-humanistsisthatitisincompatiblewithanyconceptionofsubjectivityasconstitutive.HardtandNegricallthemultitudeanactivesocialsubject,whichactsonthebasisofwhatsingularitiesshareincommon,buthowthesesingularitiessomehowspontaneouslyconvergetoformasubjectisoneofthegreatmysteriesofEmpire. HardtandNegri'sbreakwiththeideaofconstitutivesubjectivityis,however,moreapparentthanreal:themultitudemaybelittlemorethanaplaceholderforthetrans-individualcreativeimpulsesofLife,butwhatisLifeitselfastheyconceiveitbutasubjectivizednature?The

32

33

34

35

36

37

Marxism and the Status of Critique

Page 10 of 17

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: University of North Carolina - Greensboro; date: 14 October 2014

generalrefusalofseriousMarxistphilosopherssincethecollapseoftheSecondInternationaltocountenanceanykindofnaturalisticconceptionoftheunityofthesocialandphysicalworldsmaywellhaveossifiedintoadogmademandingcriticalre-examination.Buttotreatnatureasaprojectionofthepoliticaldesireforegalitariananddomination-freesocialrelations,asHardtandNegrido,followingDeleuze,issimplytoforecloseseriousdiscussionofwhatanon-positivistandnon-reductionistnaturalismmightlooklike.

(p.231) Anotherinfluentialstrandincontemporarypost-MarxistthoughtpursuesaphilosophicalstrategyradicallyopposedtothatdevelopedbyHardtandNegri.Forthelatterthecapacitytocriticizeandtransformexistingsocialrealityisaconsequenceofwhattheycall,inthefamousconcludingparagraphofEmpire,thejoyofbeingoftheplenitudeofLife. ForAlainBadiou,bycontrast,asubjectcapableofbearingwitnessinBadiou'sspecialvocabulary,beingfaithfultoinnovationproceedsthroughasubtraction,aradicalbreakfromthenormalcourseofbeing.InfluencedinhisyouthbybothSartreandAlthusser,Badiouswimsagainsttheanti-humaniststreamintheemphasisheplacesondevelopingatheoryofsubjectivitythatdoesnotfocus,as,say,AlthusserandFoucaultdo,onhowindividualpersonsareformedbyandinrelationsofdomination.Buthedoesnottherebyreturntoaversionoftheideaofconstitutivesubjectivity.Foronething,notallpersonsaresubjects.Onthecontrary,subjectsemergefromanexceptionalconstellationofcircumstances.Badiou,particularlyinhismajorphilosophicalwork,LEtreetlvnement(1988),seekstotheorizetheeventconceivednotasonemereoccurrenceamongmany,butasasingularity,somethinguniqueandexceptional.Thesubject,definedbyitsfidelitytosuchanevent,isthereforerareandheroic. Foranother,subjectsemergefromtrans-individualprocesses.ButBadiouconceivestheseprocessesinamannerradicallydifferentfromthedecentringfluxofLifecelebratedbyDeleuzeandNegri.Ontology,heclaims,recapitulatesthemainproofsinsettheory.ThecomplexitiesofBadiou'sinterpretationofmathematicallogicinLEtreetlvnementarefartoogreattoconsiderhere,butitisperhapsworthunderliningthatitimplies,comparedtotheluxuriantextravagancesofDeleuze'smetaphysics,anaustereontologywhosecontentisestablishedthroughtheconceptualclarificationofthenatureofnumber.Whatthisanalysisrevealsthatbeingconsistsofsituationsineachofwhichthe(p.232)multiple(conceivedasaset)isunifiedintoastructurecounted-as-one,asBadiouputsit,asasituation.Thefactthateverysituationisaresultofthisoperationofcounting-as-oneimpliesthatlyingbeyondthesituationbutpresupposedbyitiswhatBadioucallsinconsistentmultiplicity,orthevoidtheconditionofindifferencethatbeingpossesseswhenitdoesnotbelongtoasituation.Thisvoidhauntseverysituation,threateningtosubvertitadangerthatiswardedoffthroughthereduplicationofthestructurethatdefinesthesituationinametastructure,thestateofthesituationthat,likethepoliticalstateinclassicalMarxism,seekstogivethesituationaunitythatitinherentlylacks.Butthevoidcanstillmakeitselffeltthroughaneventthatis,throughasingularoccurrencethat,inarandomandunpredictablefashion,transcendsthesituation,butthatismadepossiblebyelementsofthesituation(whatBadioucallstheeventalsite)thatsomehowmanagetoavoidinclusioninthemetastructure,intheconstrainingunityimposedbythestate.AneventthusbearsanambiguousrelationshiptothesituationBadiou,drawingonsettheory,describesitasanelementofthesituationthatisnotincludedinitthatplacesitontheedgeofthevoid.Theoccurrenceofaneventisthusnotself-evident:tobecomevisibleitrequiresaninterpretinginterventionthatretroactivelyidentifiesitasbothabreakfromandanelementofthesituation.Badioucallssuchinterventionsgenericproceduresthroughwhichtruthsemerge.Itisthroughfidelitytoaspecifictruth-eventthatasubjectisformed:Asubjectisnotaresult,anymorethanitisanorigin.Itisthelocalstatusoftheprocedure,anexceptionalconfigurationofthesituation.

Thisishardlythemostperspicuousofphilosophicalschemes.ItmaythereforebehelpfultoconsidersomeoftheillustrationsBadiougives.OneofthemoreremarkableisprovidedbyhislittlebookonStPaul.Badiouportrayshimasathinker-poetoftheevent,whosoughttouniversalizeChristianitybydissociatingitfrombothJewishlawandGreekmetaphysicsandstrippingitdowntothepureeventoftheResurrection.ForBadiou,Paul'sroleinthedebateoverwhethergentileconvertstoChristianityshouldhavetoconformtotheJewishlawbybecomingcircumcisedexemplifiestherelationshipbetweenaneventanditseventalsite.Paulrecognizedthat,ifJudaismwasthesiteoftheChrist-Event,theeventneverthelesstranscendeditssite.BybecomingtheapostletothegentilesandpreachingaNewLaw(p.233) inwhichthegiftofdivinegraceisofferedtoall,Paulbecameoneoftheveryfirsttheoreticiansoftheuniversal. TheemphasislaidhereontheuniversalshouldserveasasignalthatthereisapoliticaldimensiontoBadiou'stheoryofsubjectivity.TheFrenchRevolutionof1789andtheRussianRevolutionof1917areparadigmcasesofpoliticalevents.Badiou,oneofthemostprominentandpolemicalFrenchexponentsofMaoisminthedecadeafter1968,remains,despitehissubsequentrenunciationofMarxism,amongthosefaithfultotheeventofOctober1917. Thisnaturallyposesthequestionofhowoneidentifieseventsworthyofsuch

38

39

40

41

42

43

Marxism and the Status of Critique

Page 11 of 17

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: University of North Carolina - Greensboro; date: 14 October 2014

fidelity.ThatOctober1917shouldbelonginthiscategoryis,ofcourse,deeplycontroversial,buttotakeaneasiercasewhataboutthosewhowishtoremainfaithfultotheNationalSocialistrevolutioninGermany?Badiou'sansweristhatgenuineeventshaveuniversaladdressees,whichNazismplainlydidnot. ButthefeelingthatthisisanarbitrarystipulationisreinforcedwhenoneconsidersthatBadiou'saccountoftheuniversalbothgivesitastronglynormativecontentandascribestoitthesamepropertiesinparticular,thatofbeingexceptionalthathediscoversineventsthemselves. ThisapparentcircularityunderlinestheimpressionthatBadiouhasconstructedanelaborateontologyinordertotheorizethestanceofactivepoliticalcommitmentthathedevelopedinhisMaoistdays(andseekstocontinueinthepost-MarxistgroupusculeenigmaticallyentitledtheOrganisationpolitique)butthatthisontologylacksthesubstantivecontentneededmakesuchapracticeplausible.OnecanunderstandwhyBadiou'sgreatphilosophicalantagonistDeleuzeshouldaccusehimofKantianformalism.

Meanwhile,anothermajorfigureontheFrenchintellectualscene,PierreBourdieu,developedinthelastyearsofhislifeaversionofHegel'sconceptionoftheuniversalclass,thatis,oftheclassforwhomtheprivateinterestis(p.234) satisfiedthroughworkingfortheuniversal. Hegelofcourseidentifiedthestatebureaucracywiththisclass;Marxlatergavetheconceptaverydifferentinflectionwhenheclaimedthattheuniversalclassistheproletariat,aclasswithradicalchains,whichhasauniversalcharacterbyitsuniversalsufferingandclaimsnoparticularrightbecausenoparticularwrongbutwronggenerallyisperpetratedagainstit. Inthedecadebeforehisdeathin2002adecadeinwhichhebecamealeadingspokespersonforthemovementforanotherglobalization,Bourdieuidentifiedyetanotheravataroftheuniversalclasstheintellectualswho,inadistinctivelyFrenchtraditioninitiatedbyZoladuringtheDreyfusaffair,byvirtueoftheirauthorityinthespecificculturalfieldinwhichtheywork,asserttheinterestsoftheuniversalinthelargersociety.IfthisallsoundsveryFrench(BourdieucitesSartreandFoucaultasexemplarsofthissyndrome,butinthe1990shehimselftookonasimilarrole),Bourdieuoffersadistinctive,essentiallysociologicalexplanationofwhyintellectualsshouldhaveaparticularinterestintheuniversal. Hislargertheoryofsocialstructureidentifiesthelatterwithfieldseachofwhichisconstitutedbyastruggleforrecognitiondrivenbycompetitionforsomeparticularscarceresourcewhathecallssymboliccapital.Inthecaseofthesciences(whichshouldbeunderstoodinthebroadsenseofWissenschaft,systematicknowledge),thestruggleforprestigeandadvancementencouragesresearcherstoreachresultsthatcanbevalidatedbyintersubjectivelysharedstandardsthatdefinewhatcountsasobjectivityandtruthinthespecificdisciplineinquestion.Intheparticularcaseofthescientificfield,then,competitiongivesactorsasocialinterestinadvancingobjectiveknowledge.Wehaveherethenahistoricalplacewheretranshistoricaltruthsareproduced.

Thisintriguingargument,whichbearsastrikingresemblancetoAdamSmith'smetaphorofthehiddenhandthroughwhichthepursuitofprivateinterestproducesoptimalresultsforthegeneralwelfare,invitesvariousquestions.Foronething,Bourdieuendorsesananti-realistepistemologyaccordingtowhich[t]hisobjectiverealitytowhicheveryoneelsetacitlyorexplicitlyrefersisultimatelynomorethanwhattheresearchersengagedinthefieldatagivenmomentagreetoconsiderassuch.Itisattheveryleastdoubtful(p.235) whethermakingtherealamatterofintersubjectiveagreementcanprovideBourdieuwithastrongenoughbasistoallowhimtoachievehisavowedobjectiveofrenouncingtheabsolutismofclassicalobjectivismwithoutfallingintorelativism. Moreover,evenifheweretohaveasufficientlyrobustconceptionofscientificobjectivity,muchfurtherargumentwouldberequiredtoconnectitwiththedistinctivelynormativeuniversalprinciplesthataresurelyatstakewhenintellectualsandnotonlyintellectualsengageinpolitics.Forallthat,Bourdieu'stheoryoftheintellectualintriguinglyrevivestheideathatwefind,notjustinMarxbutalsoinLukcs,thataccesstotheuniversal(howeverconceived)dependsnot,asiscommonlythoughtinatraditionthatmustultimatelybetracedbacktoPlatoandAristotle,onachievingimpartiality,thatisondetachingoneselffromthediurnalstrugglebetweenantagonisticsocialinterests,butratheronfindingtheparticular,necessarilypartialsociallocationthatprovidesitsoccupantswithavantagepointfromwhichtounderstandandtransformthewhole.AsimilarthoughtispresentintheeffortsofBadiouandthoseinfluencedbyhimtocontinuewithMarx'sconceptionoftheproletariatastheuniversalclasswhileseekingtodisentanglewhattheyregardastheparadigmofapoliticalsubjectfromanymoreempiricalandsociologicalanalysisofwhere(ifanywhere)theworkingclassistobefoundtoday.

MovingOnWhatisstrikingaboutthissurveyofcontemporaryversionsofcriticaltheory,whetherMarxistorpost-Marxist,istheextenttowhich,despitetheprogressthatmanywouldthinkwasachievedbytheanti-humanistcritiqueofthe

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

Marxism and the Status of Critique

Page 12 of 17

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: University of North Carolina - Greensboro; date: 14 October 2014

philosophyofconsciousness,thetensionsandquestionsthatemergedasMarxsoughttodefinethenatureofhisprojectcontinuetobeactive.Thereis,tobeginwith,theproblemofhowtoaddresstheideaofconstitutivesubjectivityfirstdevelopedbyKant.Arguablythisideaisstillactiveinsome(p.236) contemporarypost-MarxistphilosophersalbeitinformsverydifferentfrombothKant'stranscendentalphilosophyandeachother:HabermasandBadioumightbeconsideredasexamplesofthiskindofposition.ThenthereisthequestionofhowtosituateoneselfinrelationtoHegel'scritiqueofKantianformalism.OneverydistinguishedcontemporaryMarxist,FredricJameson,unapologeticallypursuesaversionofHegelianMarxismsufficientlycatholictoaccommodatebothLukcsandAlthusserandtointerpretpostmodernismasasymptomoftheadventofglobalcapitalism. ButifonerenouncesHegel'sabsoluteidealism,howtodosowithoutfallingvictimtoallthepolaritiesthathepromisedtotranscendandreconcile?ThenaturalisticpositivismoftheSecondInternationalremainsanawfulwarningofthefatetowhichwould-bematerialistappropriationsofthedialecticcansuccumb.HardtandNegrihavesoughttouseSpinozaandDeleuzetodevelopananti-Hegelianandnon-positivisticnaturalism,butatthepriceofrelyingonavitalistontologythatisimplausibleinitsownrightandthatunderminestheaccounttheyofferofcontemporarycapitalismandtheformsofresistancetoit.

HowmightoneattempttocontinueMarx'scritiquewhileavoidingthesepitfalls? Onestrategyhasbeendevelopedindependently,andindifferentmodesbyTerryEagletonandme(thoughwhatfollowsismyownversion). ThisstrategyinvolvesareturntoMarx'sphilosophicalanthropologytheacknowledgement,inotherwords,thatMarx'stheoryofhistoryrequiresabroaderconceptionofhumannature.Thisconception,whiledrawingfromMarxhimselfaviewofhumanbeingsasactivesocialproducers,couldalsofindsupportinsomeversionsofevolutionarybiology(perhapsnotsurprisingly,sincecontemporaryleft-wingDarwinianstendalsotobeinfluencedbyMarx). Basedonthisconceptionofhumannatureonecouldthenmoveupstream,seekingtogroundtheconstantsofhumannaturein(p.237) anon-reductivenaturalism.Criticaltoanysuchmoveisthethoughtthatdifferentlevelsofbeingeachhavetheirownspecificproperties(ratherthanbeingintermingledontheDeleuzianplaneofimmanenceorsomehowdeducedfromthebasicpropertiesofmatter).Onewayofelaboratingonthisthoughtmightbetodrawontheidea,developedintheschoolofcriticalrealismfoundedbytheradicalphilosopherofscienceRoyBhaskar,thattheworldconsistsofnestedclustersofinteractingmechanismsandoftheeventstowhichthesemechanismsandtheirinteractionsgiverise. Anattractionofcriticalrealismisthatitconceivestherealasstratified:thegenerativemechanismsthatare,accordingtoBhaskar,thebearersofcausalpowersareasitwerearrangedintolayerseachofwhichisemergentfrombutirreducibletoamorebasiclayer.Marx'smodelofscienceofCapitalimpliessomesuchlayering:thesuccessiveintroductionofmorecomplexcategoriesashisreconstructionofthecapitalistmodeofproductionproceedsisintendedatoncetocapturethespecificcharacterofeachdeterminationandtoaccountforthatdeterminationbylocatingitsrolewithinthelargercapitalisttotality.But,onabroaderscale,settingMarxistsocialtheorywithinacriticalrealistontologywouldmakeitpossibletotreathumansascontinuouswiththerestofnaturewithoutdenyingthemthespecificproperties(mostimportantlyintentionalityandagency)onwhichpost-MarxisttheoristssuchasHabermaswhoareinfluencedbythehermeneutictraditionhaverightlylaidstress.

OnecouldalsomovedownstreamfromarestatementofMarx'santhropologytoacknowledgewhatheconsistentlyrefusedtorecognize,namelythatanycritiqueofcapitalismnecessarilyhasanormativedimension.ThisavowalofwhatmightseemtobetheobviouscouldhavemoreproductiveconsequencesthantheontologicalundergirdingtowardswhichIhavejustgestured,thoughthetwomovesareconnected:arecognitionofthefinitecharacterofhumanexistenceconsequentonourdependenceonnatureis,forEagleton,thekeytoanunderstandingofwhymoralityisinescapable.Itisthemortal,fragile,suffering,ecstatic,needy,dependent,desirous,compassionatebodywhichfurnishesthebasisofallmoralthought,hewrites. ButexplicitlyacknowledgingitsnormativecommitmentsmightalsoallowMarxismtoengagewiththemostinterestingstrainincontemporarypoliticalphilosophy,theegalitarian(p.238) liberaltraditionwhosemainreferencepointis,ofcourse,Rawls'sATheoryofJustice.Now,aswehaveseen,leadingAnalyticalMarxistshavetakenontheRawlsianenterprise,butindoingsohaveabandonedtheterraintraditionallyoccupiedbyMarxistsocialtheory.ItisnodisparagementofthevaluableworkthatCohenandRoemerhaveundertakeninnormativepoliticalphilosophytosaythatinmakingthischoicetheyhaveturnedupthechancetopursuethepotentiallymorefundamentalreorientationthatwouldhaveinvolvedamuchmoredirectmutualinterrogationofMarxismandegalitarianliberalism,perhapsstrengtheningboth.OnereasonwhysuchaprojectfailedtoemergefromAnalyticalMarxismisthecontemptthatpractitionersofthisapproachdisplayedtowardsMarxisteconomictheoryastancewithwhichitwouldbeeasiertosympathizehadtheythemselvesproducedanythingtocomparewiththewealthofradicalpoliticaleconomypublishedbymore

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

Marxism and the Status of Critique

Page 13 of 17

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: University of North Carolina - Greensboro; date: 14 October 2014

orthodoxMarxistsinrecentyears. ItisonlyfairtoaddthatdialoguebetweenMarxismandegalitarianliberalismhasnotbeenexactlyhelpedbytheformer'shostilitytoanyversionofliberalthought,anattitudegivencanonicalsanctionbyMarx'sdisparagementofJohnStuartMill.

Thisis,however,intellectualhistory,notphilosophy.ThefactthatMarxistsocialtheoryhasfailedsofartoengageinanyrealdepthwithegalitarianliberalismisnoreasonwhythisshouldcontinuetobethecase. Anincentivetodosoisprovidedbyapotentialconvergenceinpracticalconcerns.PlainlyanyattempttocontinuetheMarxistcritiqueofpoliticaleconomytodayislikelytopayparticularattentiontothemechanismsresponsiblefortheenormouspovertyandinequalitythatexistonaglobalscaleandhave,inpartbecauseoftheeffortsoftheanti-globalizationmovement,beguntoregistereveninofficialpolitics.Globalinequalityandpovertyarealsooneofthemainpreoccupationsofthecosmopolitanwingofegalitarianliberalism,whichhassoughtbothtobringoutthescaleofcontemporaryinequalitiesandthesufferingtheycauseandtoarguethattheseviolateuniversallyvalidprinciplesofjustice. ThisoffersapotentialmeetinggroundonwhichnormativecritiqueandMarxism'smoreexplanatoryfocuscouldbegintoengagedirectlywithoneanotheraroundissuesthatareofpressingpolitical(p.239) concern. Ofcourse,thisstrategyleavesunresolvedmanyquestions,mostobviouslythatofthesubjectofcritique:Hardt'sandNegri'sconceptofthemultitudemayhavereneweddiscussionoftherevolutionarysubject,buttheycertainlyhaventconcludedit,ifindeedanyconclusionisavailable.NeverthelesstheredoesseemtobeawayofatoncecarryingonandrenewingMarx'scritique.(p.240)

Notes:(1)ThreerelevantFrenchstudiesofMarx'searlydevelopmentareG.Labica,MarxismandtheStatusofPhilosophy(Brighton,1980);E.Renault,Marxetlidedecritique(Paris,1995);andS.Kouvelakis,PhilosophyandRevolution(London,2003).

(2)K.MarxandF.Engels,CollectedWorks,50vols.(London,1975-),v.49.

(3)SeeaboveallG.A.Cohen,KarlMarx'sTheoryofHistory,2ndedn.(Oxford,2000).

(4)MarxandEngels,CollectedWorks,v.5.

(5)Ibid.v.236.ThestressonindividualsinTheGermanIdeology,notrepeatedinlatertexts,reflectsthepressureMarxandEngelsfeltfromMaxStirner'sanarcho-individualisminTheEgoanditsOwn,aphilosophicalbombshelldirectedatFeuerbachianhumanism.ThenaturalisticmaterialismtheyexpoundinresponseisoneofthemainthemesexploredbyJacquesDerridainSpectresofMarx(NewYork,1994).

(6)SeeespeciallyN.Geras,TheControversyaboutMarxandJustice,NewLeftReview,I/100(1985),andS.Lukes,MarxismandMorality(Oxford,1985).

(7)SeeA.Callinicos,MarxismandAnarchism,inT.Baldwin(ed.),TheCambridgeHistoryofPhilosophy,18701945(Cambridge,2003).

(8)ThebestcommentaryontheseaspectsofCapitalremainsI.I.Rubin,EssaysonMarx'sTheoryofValue(Detroit,1972),butseeA.Saad-Filho,TheValueofMarx(London,2002)forastate-of-the-artdiscussion.

(9)GooddiscussionsofthisdimensionofMarx'sthoughtincludeJ.Rancire,LeConceptdecritiqueetlacritiquedelconomiepolitiquedslesManuscritsde1844auCapital,inL.Althusseretal.(eds.),LireleCapital,4vols.(Paris,1973);N.Geras,EssenceandAppearance:AspectsofFetishisminMarx'sCapital,NewLeftReview,I/65(1970);Renault,Marxetlidedecritique;M.Rosen,OnVoluntaryServitude(Cambridge,1996),ch.6;andH-G.Backhaus,SomeAspectofMarx'sConceptofCritiqueintheContextofhisEconomic-PhilosophicalTheory,inW.BonefeldandK.Psychopedis(eds.),HumanDignity(Aldershot,2005).AnEnglishtranslationofRancire'sessayhasbeenpublishedinausefulselectionofarticlesonrelatedissues:A.Rattansi(ed.),Ideology,MethodandMarx(London,1989).

(10)MichaelRosenoffersadefinitivediscussionofthephilosophicalissuesinHegel'sDialecticanditsCriticism(Cambridge,1982).ThebesttreatmentsofMarx'smethodinCapitalincludeE.V.Ilienkov,TheDialecticsoftheAbstractandtheConcreteinMarx'sCapital(Moscow,1982);R.Rosdolsky,TheMakingofMarx'sCapital(London,1977);G.Dumnil,LeConceptdeloiconomiquedansLeCapital(Paris,1978);J.Bidet,QuefaireduCapital?,2nd

59

60

61

62

63

Marxism and the Status of Critique

Page 14 of 17

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: University of North Carolina - Greensboro; date: 14 October 2014

edn.(Paris,2000);andE.Dussel,TowardsanUnknownMarx(London,2001).DemonstratingthattheconceptualstructureofCapitalisidenticaltothatofHegel'sLogiciscurrentlypopularamongMarxistphilosopherssee,forexample,T.Smith,TheLogicofMarx'sCapital(Albany,1990),C.J.Arthur,TheNewDialecticandMarx'sCapital(Leiden,2002),and,foramorescepticalview,A.Callinicos,AgainsttheNewDialectic,HistoricalMaterialism,13/2(2005).

(11)ThemostgiftedAustro-Marxisttheoristsdidaddressboththeseissues,essentiallybyseekingtoincorporateMarxistsocialtheorywithinamodifiedversionofKantiancriticalphilosophy:seeT.BottomoreandP.Goode(eds.),Austro-Marxism(Oxford,1978)andmybriefdiscussioninMarxismandAnarchism.

(12)SeeM.Merleau-Ponty,TheAdventuresoftheDialectic(London,1974),ch.2;G.Stedman-Jones,TheMarxismoftheEarlyLukcs,NewLeftReview,I/70(1971);M.Lwy,GeorgLukcs:FromRomanticismtoBolshevism(London,1979);A.AratoandP.Breines,TheYoungLukcsandtheOriginsofWesternMarxism(London,1979);J.Rees,TheAlgebraofRevolution(London,1998),esp.ch.5,theIntroductionandPostface,respectivelybyJohnReesandSlavojiektoG.Lukcs,ADefenceofHistoryandClassConsciousness(London,2000),andA.Callinicos,WesternMarxismandIdeologyCritique,inBaldwin(ed.),TheCambridgeHistoryofPhilosophy,18701945.

(13)TheactualityoftherevolutionistheorganizingthemeofLukcs'sLenin(London,1970).

(14)ThuscompareLukcs,DefenceofHistoryandClassConsciousness,draftedinthemid-1920sbutonlypublishednearlythirtyyearsafterLukcs'sdeath,with,forexample,Lukcs,TheYoungHegel(London,1975),writtenin1938andpublishedafterthewar.

(15)SeeRolfWiggershaus'smonumentalstudy,TheFrankfurtSchool(Cambridge,MA,1994).

(16)SeeT.W.AdornoandH.Marcuse,CorrespondenceontheGermanStudentMovement(1969),NewLeftReview,I/233(1999),and,forthediagnosisofthedilemmasoftheearlyFrankfurtSchoolofferedbytheirsuccessors,J.Habermas,TheTheoryofCommunicativeAction,i(London,1984),ch.4;A.Wellmer,Truth,SemblanceandReconciliation,Telos,62(19845);andA.Honneth,TheCritiqueofPower(Cambridge,MA,1991),pt.I.

(17)L.Althusser,TheSpectreofHegel,ed.F.Matheron(London,1997)andY.MoulierBoutang,LouisAlthusser:Unebiographie,i(Paris,1992).

(18)ThefullestaccountofAlthusser'stheoryofideologyistobefoundSurlareproduction(Paris,1995),aposthumouslypublishedtextfromwhichthecelebratedessayIdeologyandtheIdeologicalStateApparatuses,firstpublishedinEnglishinAlthusser,LeninandPhilosophyandOtherEssays(London,1971),wasextracted.

(19)L.Althusser,TheHumanistControversyandOtherEssays,ed.F.MatheronandG.M.Goshgarian(London,2003).

(20)SeeAlthusser'sautobiographiesinTheFutureLastsaLongTime(London,1993).

(21)E.P.Thompson,ThePovertyofTheoryandOtherEssays(London,1978).SeealsoP.Anderson,ArgumentswithinWesternMarxism(London,1980);E.Balibar,EcritspourAlthusser(Paris,1991);A.Callinicos,Althusser'sMarxism(London,1976);G.Elliott,Althusser:TheDetourofTheory(London,1987);G.Elliott(ed.),Althusser:ACriticalReader(Oxford,1994);E.A.KaplanandM.Sprinker(eds.),TheAlthusserianLegacy(London,1993);P.Raymond(ed.),Althusserphilosophe(Paris,1997).

(22)See,forexample,A.Honneth,HistoryandInteraction,inElliott(ed.),Althusser.

(23)J.Habermas,TheStructuralTransformationofthePublicSphere(Cambridge,MA,1989).

(24)Habermas,AutonomyandSolidarity(London,1992),155.

(25)ThemostimportantexpositionsofHabermas'sdevelopedviewsareTheTheoryofCommunicativeAction,i(London,1984),andii(Cambridge,1987);ThePhilosophicalDiscourseofModernity(Cambridge,1987);andBetweenFactsandNorms(Cambridge,1996).AxelHonnethoffersaversionofHabermas'stheoryofmodernity

Marxism and the Status of Critique

Page 15 of 17

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: University of North Carolina - Greensboro; date: 14 October 2014

thatgroundsit,notincommunicativeaction,butinthestruggleforrecognitionthatbindstogetherhumanactors:seeTheCritiqueofPowerandTheStruggleforRecognition(Cambridge,1996).

(26)SeeespeciallyKnowledgeandHumanInterests(London,1972).

(27)Habermas,BetweenFactsandNorms,4.

(28)D.Davidson,OntheVeryIdeaofaConceptualScheme,inid.,InquiriesintoTruthandInterpretation(Oxford,1984).

(29)SeeA.Callinicos,AgainstPostmodernism(Cambridge,1989),ch.4,andTheResourcesofCritique(Cambridge,2006),1.1,andP.Anderson,Spectrum(London,2005),chs.5and7.

(30)ErnestLaclauandChantalMouffeadoptedthelabelPost-MarxisminHegemonyandSocialistStrategy(London,1985),butcompareJonElster'sconcludingremarksinMakingSenseofMarx(Cambridge,1985)andJacquesBidet'sambitiousattempttodevelopatheoryofmodernitytorivalHabermas'sinThoriegnrale(Paris,1999).

(31)ThissectiondealslargelywithauthorsdiscussedinmuchmoredetailinTheResourcesofCritique.

(32)SeeespeciallyG.A.Cohen,Self-Ownership,Freedom,andEquality(Cambridge,1995)andIfYoureanEgalitarian,HowComeYoureSoRich?(Cambridge,MA,2000);M.Roberts,AnalyticalMarxism:ACritique(London,1996),andA.Callinicos,Introduction:AnalyticalMarxism,inid.(ed.),MarxistTheory(Oxford,1989),andHavingYourCakeandEatingIt,HistoricalMaterialism,9(2001).

(33)Hardt'sandNegri'svitalistpresuppositionsaremostevidentinEmpire(Cambridge,MA,2000),chs.4.1and4.2.SeealsoA.Negri,LePouvoirconstituant(Paris,1997),ch.7;M.HardtandA.Negri,Multitude(NewYork,2004);andP.Virno,TheGrammaroftheMultitude(NewYork,2004).CriticalresponsestoEmpirearecollectedinG.Balakrishnan(ed.),DebatingEmpire(London,2003)andP.A.PassavantandJ.Dean(eds.),Empire'sNewClothes(NewYork,2004).

(34)See,forexample,P.Macherey,HegelouSpinoza?(Paris,1979).

(35)A.Negri,MarxBeyondMarx(SouthHadley,MA,1984),57.

(36)G.Deleuze,Spinozaetleproblmedexpression(Paris,1968),157.Negri'sownstudyofSpinozaconcentratesonhispoliticalthought:TheSavageAnomaly(Minneapolis,1991).

(37)HardtandNegri,Multitude,100;seeE.Laclau,CanImmanenceExplainSocialStruggles?,inPassavantandDean(eds.),Empire'sNewClothes.

(38)SeeCallinicos,ResourcesofCritique,esp.chs.46.JohnHollowayhasformulatedaversionofMarxismwhosepoliticalconclusionsarequitesimilartothoseofHardtandNegri,butwhosephilosophicalfoundationsareprovided,notbySpinozaandDeleuze(orSpinozareadthroughDeleuze),butbyadevelopmentoftheearlyFrankfurtSchool,andinparticularofAdorno'snegativedialectic,verydifferentfromthatofferedbyHabermas:seeespeciallyJohnHolloway,ChangetheWorldWithoutTakingPower(London,2002).

(39)HardtandNegri,Empire,413.

(40)A.Badiou,SaintPaul(Paris,1997),7.Badiou'stheoryofsubjectivityisthemostimportantarticulationofapreoccupationincontemporaryContinentalphilosophywiththeexceptional:thusamongleadingdeconstructionists,theideaoftheevent(conceivedasBadioudoesasabreakwithnormality)ispowerfullyinfluencedbyCarlSchmitt'stheoryofthepoliticalsovereignastheinstanceofstatepowerthathastheauthoritytodeclareastateofemergency(orstateofexception,Ausnahmezustand)andsuspendtheconstitution:seeC.Schmitt,PoliticalTheology(Cambridge,MA,1985);J.Derrida,PoliticsofFriendship(London,1997);andG.Agamben,HomoSacer(Stanford,1998)andStateofException(Chicago,2005).

(41)A.Badiou,LEtreetlvnement(Paris,1988),195,430.Badioudistinguishesfourkindsofgenericprocedureart,science,love,andphilosophy.PeterHallwardwaswrittenanexcellentandexhaustiveintroductionto

Marxism and the Status of Critique

Page 16 of 17

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: University of North Carolina - Greensboro; date: 14 October 2014

Badiou'sphilosophyingeneralandtoLEtreetlvnementinparticular:Badiou:ASubjecttoTruth(Minneapolis,2003).

(42)Badiou,SaintPaul,5,47,116.

(43)id.,Dundsastreobscur(Paris,1998),7.

(44)id.,Ethics(London,2001),ch.4.

(45)id.,EightThesesontheUniversal,inid.,TheoreticalWritings,trans.anded.R.BrassierandA.Toscano(London,2004).

(46)Badioureportsthiscriticism,apparentlymadefrequentlyinthecorrespondencethattookplacebetweenthetwophilosophersnotlongbeforeDeleuze'ssuicidein1995,inDeleuze(Minneapolis,2000),76,99.ApartfromHallward'sdetailedtreatment,othercriticaldiscussionsofBadiouincludeD.Bensad,Resistances(Paris,2001),ch.II.2;Callinicos,ResourcesofCritique,ch.3;S.Kouvelakis,LaPolitiquedansseslimites,orlesparadoxesdeAlainBadiou,ActuelMarx,28(2000);J.-J.Lecercle,Cantor,Lacan,Mao,Beckett,mmecombat:ThePhilosophyofAlainBadiou,RadicalPhilosophy,93(1999);andS.iek,TheTicklishSubject(London,1999),ch.3.OneofthemaininfluencesonBadiouisJacquesLacan'sinterpretationofpsychoanalysis:thoughSlavojiekhasplayedamajorroleinmakingBadiou'sthoughtmoreaccessibleintheEnglish-speakingworld,healsocriticizeshimforbeinginsufficientlyLacanian.

(47)G.W.F.Hegel,ElementsofthePhilosophyofRight(Cambridge,1991),205,p.237.

(48)MarxandEngels,CollectedWorks,iii.186.

(49)P.Bourdieu,PascalianMeditations(Cambridge,2000),123.BourdieuseemsfirsttohavedevelopedhistheoryoftheintellectualinTheRulesofArt(Cambridge,1996).

(50)Bourdieu,Sciencedelascienceetrflexivit(Paris,2001),136.

(51)Bourdieu,PascalianMeditations,113,120.

(52)See,forexample,iek,GeorgLukcsasthePhilosopherofLeninism,inLukcs,ADefenceofHistoryandClassConsciousness,andKouvelakis,PhilosophyandRevolution.ForfurtherdiscussionofBourdieuonintellectualsseeA.Callinicos,SocialTheoryPuttotheTestofPractice:PierreBourdieuandAnthonyGiddens,NewLeftReview,I/236(1999);PierreBourdieuandtheUniversalClass,forthcominginacollectionofessaysonBourdieueditedbyJimWolfreys;andTheResourcesofCritique,2.2.SeealsoJeremyLane'sadmirablePierreBourdieu:ACriticalIntroduction(London,2000).

(53)SeeespeciallyF.Jameson,ThePoliticalUnconscious(London,1981),LateMarxism(London,1990),Postmodernism,ortheCulturalLogicofLateCapitalism(London,1991),andTheCulturalTurn(London,1998).

(54)Thereare,ofcourse,othercontemporaryattemptstocontinueMarxismphilosophicallythanthestrategysketchedoutintheseconcludingparagraphs.OneofthemostinterestingisDanielBensad'sresorttoBenjaminandDerridatohelpdevelopanon-deterministversionofhistoricalmaterialism:see,forexample,Resistances,Lediscordancedestemps(Paris,1995),MarxforOurTimes(London,2002),andUnmondechanger(Paris,2003).

(55)Forexample,T.Eagleton,TheIdeologyoftheAesthetic(Oxford,1990),MarxandFreedom(London,1997),SweetViolence(Oxford,2002),andAfterTheory(London,2003);A.Callinicos,MakingHistory,2ndedn.(Leiden,2004),TheoriesandNarratives(Cambridge,1995),andTheResourcesofCritique,esp.pt.II.

(56)Forexample,R.LevinsandR.Lewontin,TheDialecticalBiologist(Cambridge,MA,1985);E.Sober,TheNatureofSelection,2ndedn.(Chicago,1993);andS.Rose,Lifelines(London,1998).

(57)R.Bhaskar,ARealistTheoryofScience,2ndedn.(Hassocks,1978)andThePossibilityofNaturalism(Brighton,1979);andA.Collier,CriticalRealism(London,1994).

(58)Eagleton,AfterTheory,155.

Marxism and the Status of Critique

Page 17 of 17

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: University of North Carolina - Greensboro; date: 14 October 2014

(59)See,formoreonthistopic,A.Callinicos,G.A.CohenandtheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy,ScienceandSociety,70(2006).

(60)K.Marx,Capital,i(Harmondsworth,1976),6524.

(61)Forsomefirstfalteringstepsatadialogue,seeA.Callinicos,Equality(Cambridge,2000)andTheResourcesofCritique,ch.7.

(62)See,forexample,T.W.Pogge,WorldPovertyandHumanRights(Cambridge,2002);id.(ed.),GlobalJustice(Oxford,2001);andB.Barry,WhySocialJusticeMatters(Cambridge,2005).

(63)TherecentworkofDavidHarveyisnotablefortheeffortitmakestobringtogethertheexplanatoryandthenormative:see,forexample,AShortHistoryofNeo-liberalism(Oxford,2005).

AlexCallinicosAlexCallinicosisProfessorofEuropeanStudiesatKing'sCollege,London.