DOCSLIB.ORG

Emancipating Open Marxism: E.V

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Emancipating Open Marxism: E.V Emancipating Open Marxism: E.V. Ilyenkov’s Post-Cartesian Anti-Dualism Alex Levant Evald Vasilyevich Ilyenkov has had immeasurably more influence on Soviet and post-Soviet theory than on theory in the West. Despite being ‘intellectually mobbed’,1 prevented from travelling abroad and even- tually from teaching, leading to his premature death, his impact has been profound. Ilyenkov is widely rec- ognised as the most influential Soviet-Marxist philoso- pher in the post-Stalin period. In the West, however, despite the availability of some of his work in English translation, his impact has been marginal. To date, only one major book on Ilyenkov has been written in English. One of the principal objectives of this volume has been to help bring the full weight of his work into dialogue with theoretical problems in the West. Despite sharing certain features with Western Marxism, Ilyenkov has been largely excluded from that tradition. In fact, his work illuminates the subter- ranean world of ‘creative Soviet Marxism’, which does not neatly fit into either Western Marxism or Soviet Marxism. However, in addition to helping us recon- sider certain hidden remainders that have been left out of our intellectual histories, he also offers insights that are germane to current theoretical issues in the West. Ilyenkov’s work should be of particular interest to contemporary theorists who position themselves through a critique of postmodern relativism on the one hand, but who are equally critical of positivistic 1. Oittinen 2000, p. 16. 184 • Alex Levant truth-claims on the other. Although writing in a different context, Ilyenkov’s work has many affinities with contemporary anti-postmodernists such as Slavoj Žižek and Alain Badiou. However, unlike Žižek, Ilyenkov argues for a post-Cartesian subject based upon a Marxist reading of Spinoza’s concept of the thinking body.2 Like Badiou, he is critical of the fixation on language in phenomenological and post-structural thought, and also shares the view that subjectivity is not an inherently human trait, but rather is the product of a social process. However, his position on science would be much closer to someone like John Holloway than Badiou.3 There are also some interesting common elements with Walter Benjamin.4 While all of these connections are worth exploring (and will likely be explored as his work becomes more readily available in English), in this chapter I aim specifically to bring Ilyenkov’s thought to bear on a set of debates about structure and agency that developed in the journal Open Marxism between 1992 and 1995. I focus on Holloway’s contribution to these debates – an important contemporary philosopher in the Western Marxist tradition whose book Change the World without Taking Power has been quite influential and the subject of much debate.5 In addition to Holloway, a broad range of theorists inhabits the theoretical space of Open Marxism, including Werner Bonefeld, Simon Clarke and Tony Negri. Reminiscent of Ilyenkov’s critique of Diamat, its primary objective is to ‘emancipate’ Marxism from ‘the massive dead weight of positivist and scientistic/ economistic strata’,6 what it called a ‘Marxism of structures’.7 What unites them is a project of a certain type of renewal of the Marxist tradition. At the heart of the matter is the question of the power of practice. We know from Marx that we make our history, but not in conditions of our own choos- ing. At issue is the relationship of practice to these conditions. The way this relationship is understood marks the defining line between Open Marxism and its other (‘closed Marxism’), which stands accused of fetishising these conditions and hence limiting the full power of human activity, which ‘accepts the horizons 2. ‘This book thus endeavors to reassert the Cartesian subject’ (Žižek 1999, p. xxiv). ‘There are not two different and originally contrary objects of investigation – body and thought – but only one single object, which is the thinking body [which] does not consist of two Cartesian halves – “thought lacking a body” and a “body lacking thought” . It is not a special “soul”, installed by God in the human body as in a temporary residence, that thinks, but the body of man itself ’; Ilyenkov 1974, pp. 31–2. 3. ‘Badiou’s “knowledge” is closer to (a positivist notion of) science’; Žižek 1999, p. 147. 4. Levant 2011b. 5. For instance, see Hearse 2007. 6. Bonefeld et al. 1995, p. 1. 7. Bonefeld et al. 1992a, p. x..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 Marxism and Educational Theory Mike Cole Summary While Marx
    1 Marxism and Educational Theory Mike Cole Summary While Marx and Engels wrote little on education, the educational implications of Marxism are clear. Education both reproduces capitalism and has the potential to undermine it. This entry, therefore, takes each of these propositions in turn. With respect to reproduction, it is informative to look at key texts by Althusser and Bowles and Gintis (and the latter’s legacy). As far as challenging capitalism is concerned, considerations are given of both theoretical developments and practical attempts to confront neoliberalism and enact socialist principles, the combination of which Marxists refer to as praxis. There have been constant challenges to Marxism since its conception, and the entry concludes with a look at two contemporary theories - Critical Race Theory and its primacy of ‘race’ over class - and intersectionality which has a tendency to marginalize class. Keywords: Marxism, Educational Theory, education and the reproduction of capitalism, Althusser, Bowles and Gintis, education and the undermining of capitalism, Rikowski, Neary and Saunders, contemporary theoretical challenges to Marxism. Marx and Engels on Education As Ronald F. Price (1977, p. 68) has argued, Marx’s vision of communism as the transcendence of alienation, and of a period when people become increasingly self-conscious and self- determining has manifold implications for education. However, for Marx and Engels the transformation of society is to come about through class struggle, and class action, rather than as a result of the spread of enlightened opinion throughout society; thus education did not figure prominently in their work, at least in the sense of being educated formally in institutions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Critique of Real Abstraction: from the Critical Theory of Society to the Critique of Political Economy and Back Again
    The Critique of Real Abstraction: from the Critical Theory of Society to the Critique of Political Economy and Back Again Chris O’Kane John Jay, CUNY [email protected] There has been a renewed engagement with the idea of real abstraction in recent years. Scholars associated with the New Reading of Marx, such as Moishe Postone, Chris Arthur, Michael Heinrich, Patrick Murray, Riccardo Bellofiore and others,1 have employed the idea in their important reconstructions of Marx’s critique of political economy. Alberto Toscano, Endnotes, Jason W. Moore and others have utilized and extended these theorizations to concieve of race, gender, and nature as real abstractions. Both the New Reading and these new theories of real abstraction have provided invaluable work; the former in systematizing Marx’s inconsistent and unfinished theory of value as a theory of the abstract social domination of capital accumulation and reproduction; the latter in supplementing such a theory. Yet their exclusive focus on real abstraction in relation to the critique of political economy means that the critical marxian theories of real abstraction -- developed by Alfred Sohn- Rethel, Theodor W. Adorno and Henri Lefebvre -- have been mostly bypassed by the latter and have largely served as the object of trenchant criticism for their insufficient grasp of Marx’s theory of value by the former. Consequently these new readings and new theories of real abstraction elide important aspects of Sohn-Rethel, Adorno and Lefebvre’s critiques of real abstraction; which sought to develop Marx’s critique of political economy into objective-subjective critical theories of the reproduction of capitalist society.2 However, two recent works by 1 Moishe Postone’s interpretation of real abstraction will be discussed below.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on Hardt and Negri and John Holloway. A
    Page 1 of 28 Occupy: ‘struggles for the common’ or an ‘anti-politics of dignity’? Reflections on Hardt and Negri and John Holloway. Abstract This article provides a critical examination of Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s and John Holloway’s theory of revolutionary subjectivity, and does so by applying their theories to the Occupy movement of 2011. Its central argument is that one should avoid collapsing ‘autonomist’ and ‘open’ Marxism, for whilst both approaches share Tronti’s (1979) insistence on the constituent role of class struggle, and also share an emphasis on a prefigurative politics which engages a non-hierarchical and highly participatory politics, there nevertheless remain some significant differences between their approaches. Ultimately, when applied to Occupy Movement whilst their theory isn’t entirely unproblematic, I will argue that Hardt and Negri’s ‘autonomist’ approach offers the stronger interpretation, due mainly to their revised historical materialism. Introduction Some years ago, writing in this journal Martin Spence (2010) argued that, because of its specific Italian heritage, the body of thought labelled ‘autonomism’ had become ‘misleading. The reason for this lay in the diversity of its authors, ranging from Mario Tronti and Antonio Negri, to Harry Cleaver and John Holloway. We might add here the inclusion of others, such as Werner Bonefeld and Simon Clarke, and Massimo De Angelis and Nick Dyer-Witheford. For his own purposes, Spence (2010) replaced the category of ‘autonomism’ with that of ‘open Marxism’, arguing its usefulness as an ‘appropriate tag for the field as a whole’ (Spence 2010, p.99). In some ways this was an unusual move.
    [Show full text]
  • Fetishism and Revolution in the Critique of Political Economy
    CONTINENTAL THOUGHT & THEORY: A JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM Fetishism and Revolution in the Critique of Political Economy Volume 1 | Issue 4: 150 years of Capital 365-398 | ISSN: 2463-333X Fetishism and Revolution in the Critique of Political Economy: Critical Reflections on some Contemporary Readings of Marx’s Capital Guido Starosta Abstract The aim of this article is to examine a series of recent contributions to the reading of Marx’s Capital that stress its specific determination as a dialectical investigation of objectified or fetishised forms of social mediation in capitalist society: on the one hand, the so-called Neue Marx-Lektüre originated in Germany towards the end of the 1960s and, on the other, the more widely circulated work of authors associated with so-called Open Marxism. The interesting aspect of these works is that they draw the implications of Marx’s critique of political economy not only for the comprehension of the fetishised forms of social objectivity in capitalism, but also for the comprehension of the forms of subjectivity of the modern individual. More specifically, all these contributions broadly share the insightful view that the content of the simplest determination of human individuality in the capitalist mode of production is its alienated existence as ‘personification of economic categories’. However, this article 365 CONTINENTAL THOUGHT & THEORY: A JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM Fetishism and Revolution in the Critique of Political Economy argues that the limits of these perspectives become apparent when it comes to uncovering the grounds of the revolutionary form of subjectivity which carries the potentiality to transcend capitalist alienation.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Revisiting the Debate on Open Marxist Perspectives Pinar Donmez
    Revisiting the Debate on Open Marxist Perspectives Pinar Donmez and Alex Sutton Abstract This article seeks to review the recent incarnation of a long-standing engagement in international political economy (IPE) and critical theory between open Marxist perspectives (OMPs) and their critics. The paper aims to identify the enduring relevance of this debate in order to think about the possibility and future of critical social inquiry in our time constructively. It criticises elements on both sides of the debate that no longer serve but rather hinder achieving this objective. We argue that the recent criticisms make a number of important constructive points that could help enhance the explanatory power of OMPs yet still portray the latter uncharitably. We propose to take the emphasis on openness in OMPs seriously as a scholarly and political orientation without immersing the debate with the charges of reductionism, instrumentalism, determinism and functionalism which are frequently raised by various versions of Marxism against one another – often to little avail. 1. Introduction In this paper our key objective is to revisit a long-standing scholarly debate to explore and assess the possibility and future of critical social inquiry within politics and international studies- an endeavour initiated originally by Bieler and Morton (2003: 467) in the early 2000s. To this end we aim to review and critically engage with a number of criticisms (Bruff, 2009; Bieler et. al., 2010; Tsolakis, 2010; Susen, 2012; Elden and Morton, 2015) directed against a heterogeneous body of scholarship which has come to be identified as open Marxism1. These criticisms have focused on OMPs’ explanation of the dynamics of international political economy and the interaction between globally-defined capital and the territorially-defined state-form.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Marxism and Critical Theory: Negative Critique and Class As Critical Concept Christos Memos
    Open Marxism and critical theory: negative critique and class as critical concept Christos Memos This is the Accepted Manuscript of the book chapter: Memos, C. 2018. Open Marxism and critical theory: negative critique and class as critical concept. In: B. Best, W. Bonefeld & C. O'Kane (eds.). The SAGE handbook of Frankfurt school critical theory. London: SAGE, pp. 1314-1331. It has been published in final form at doi: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.4135/9781526436122.n80 Memos, Christos (2018) ‘Open Marxism and Critical Theory: Negative Critique and Class as Critical Concept’, in Beverley Best, Werner Bonefeld, Chris O’Kane, Neil Larsen (eds.) Handbook of Frankfurt School Critical Theory – A three-volume set to be published by Sage. OPEN MARXISM AND CRITICAL THEORY: NEGATIVE CRITIQUE AND CLASS AS CRITICAL CONCEPT Christos Memos Abertay University, Dundee ‘Revolutionary transformation has a tradition that must continue’ (Horkheimer, 2007:104) ‘Dialectics opens concepts. It focuses on social contents and does so by moving within their social forms. It is tasked with subverting the economic categories by revealing their social basis’ (Bonefeld, 2014: 68) INTRODUCTION “Every age”, according to Walter Benjamin, “must strive anew to wrest tradition away from the conformism that is working to overpower it” (1969: 255). In this astute observation, Benjamin opposes any kind of falsification and forgetting of the struggles against exploitation and repression. He emphasises the dangers of dogmatism, orthodoxy and conformism that, have repeatedly stifled the advancement of radical and emancipatory movements and, by extension, the interests of the oppressed. He lays the groundwork for a subversive thought that seeks to draw a line of demarcation between critical social theory and the survival of positivism—of whichever variety.
    [Show full text]
  • 288381679.Pdf
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Loughborough University Institutional Repository This item was submitted to Loughborough University as a PhD thesis by the author and is made available in the Institutional Repository (https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/) under the following Creative Commons Licence conditions. For the full text of this licence, please go to: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ Towards a Libertarian Communism: A Conceptual History of the Intersections between Anarchisms and Marxisms By Saku Pinta Loughborough University Submitted to the Department of Politics, History and International Relations in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Approximate word count: 102 000 1. CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY This is to certify that I am responsible for the work submitted in this thesis, that the original work is my own except as specified in acknowledgments or in footnotes, and that neither the thesis nor the original work contained therein has been submitted to this or any other institution for a degree. ……………………………………………. ( Signed ) ……………………………………………. ( Date) 2 2. Thesis Access Form Copy No …………...……………………. Location ………………………………………………….……………...… Author …………...………………………………………………………………………………………………..……. Title …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Status of access OPEN / RESTRICTED / CONFIDENTIAL Moratorium Period :…………………………………years, ending…………../…………20………………………. Conditions of access approved by (CAPITALS):…………………………………………………………………… Supervisor (Signature)………………………………………………...…………………………………... Department of ……………………………………………………………………...………………………………… Author's Declaration : I agree the following conditions: Open access work shall be made available (in the University and externally) and reproduced as necessary at the discretion of the University Librarian or Head of Department. It may also be digitised by the British Library and made freely available on the Internet to registered users of the EThOS service subject to the EThOS supply agreements.
    [Show full text]
  • Marxism and Deconstruction Ryan, Michael
    Marxism and Deconstruction Ryan, Michael Published by Johns Hopkins University Press Ryan, Michael. Marxism and Deconstruction: A Critical Articulation. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982. Project MUSE. doi:10.1353/book.68454. https://muse.jhu.edu/. For additional information about this book https://muse.jhu.edu/book/68454 [ Access provided at 29 Sep 2021 16:43 GMT with no institutional affiliation ] This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. HOPKINS OPEN PUBLISHING ENCORE EDITIONS Michael Ryan Marxism and Deconstruction A Critical Articulation Open access edition supported by the National Endowment for the Humanities / Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Humanities Open Book Program. © 2019 Johns Hopkins University Press Published 2019 Johns Hopkins University Press 2715 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218-4363 www.press.jhu.edu The text of this book is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. CC BY-NC-ND ISBN-13: 978-1-4214-3206-9 (open access) ISBN-10: 1-4214-3206-4 (open access) ISBN-13: 978-1-4214-3205-2 (pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 1-4214-3205-6 (pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN-13: 978-1-4214-3207-6 (electronic) ISBN-10: 1-4214-3207-2 (electronic) This page supersedes the copyright page included in the original publication of this work. MARXISMAND DECONSTRUCTION MARXISM AND DECONSTRUCTION A Critical Articulation Michael Ryan The Johns Hopkins University Press Baltimore and London Copyright © 1982 by The Johns Hopkins University Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Originally published, 1982 Johns Hopkins Paperbacks edition, 1984 Second printing, 1986 Third printing, 1989 The Johns Hopkins University Press 701 West 40th Street Baltimore, Maryland 21211 The Johns Hopkins Press Ltd., London Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Ryan, Michael, 1951- Marxism and deconstruction.
    [Show full text]
  • Marx's Open-Ended Critique
    The Jus Semper Global Alliance In Pursuit of the People and Planet Paradigm Sustainable Human Development February 2021 ESSAYS ON TRUE DEMOCRACY AND CAPITALISM Marx’s Open-ended Critique John Bellamy Foster wo hundred years after Karl Marx’s birth, the influence of his critique of capital is now as great as ever, in the T context of what has been called the “Marx revival.”1 For those who believed that Marxism had simply died out with the fall of the Berlin Wall, a casualty of what Francis Fukuyama pronounced “the end of history,” this is no doubt a startling development.2 In 1942, during what he dubbed the “Marxian revival” of his own day, the great conservative economist Joseph Schumpeter wrote that Most of the creations of the intellect or fancy pass away for good after a time that varies between an after-dinner hour and a generation. Some, however, do not. They suffer eclipses but they come back again, and they come back not as unrecognisable elements of a cultural inheritance, but in their individual garb and with their personal scars which people may see and touch. These we may well call the great ones—it is no disadvantage of this definition that it links greatness to vitality. Taken in this sense, this is undoubtedly the word to apply to the message of Marx.3 I will argue that the “greatness” and “vitality” of Marxian social science that Schumpeter notes derives primarily from its inner logic as a form of open- Olga Klimbims https://www.flickr.com/photos/22155693@N04/ 1 ↩ See Marcello Musto, ed., The Marx Revival (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming); Marx for Today (London: Routledge, 2013), introduction; Marcello Musto, “The Rediscovery of Karl Marx,” International Review of Social History 52 (2007): 496–97.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Marxism
    OPEN MARXISM Edited by Werner Bonefeld, Richard Gunn and Kosmas Psychopedis VOLUME II THEORY AND P.RACTICE PLUTO 4~ PRESS Contents vi Acknowledgements First published 1992 by Pluto Press vii Contributors 345 Archway Road, London N65AA xi Introduction Werner Bonefeld, Richard Gunn, Kosmas Psychopedis Copyright © 1992 individual authors 1 Against Historical Materialism: Marxism as First-Order 1 Discourse All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced in Richard Gunn whole or in part by any means without the prior 46 permission of the publisher 2 Historical Materialist Science, Crisis and Commitment Joseph Fracchia and Cheyney Ryan A catalogue record for this book is availablefrom the British Library 3 Interpretation of the Class Situation Today: Methodological Aspects 69 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Antonio Negri Open Marxism/edited by Werner Bonefeld, Richard Gunn, 4 The Inversion of Class Perspective in Marxian Theory: and Kosmas Psychopedis. 106 390 p. 22 cm. From Valorisation to Self-Valorisation Includes bibliographical references and indexes. Harry Cleaver Contents: vv L Dialectics and history - v. 2. Theory and 145 practice. 5 Crisis, Fetishism, Class Composition ISBN 0-7453-0424-9 (v.1) ISBN 0-7453-0425-7 hb (v.2): John Holloway ISBN 0-7453-0424-9 (v.1) ISBN 0-7453-6425-7 hb (v.2): 170 I. Philosophy, Marxist. I. Bonefield, Werner, 1960- Index II. Gunn, Richard, 1947- III. Psychopedis, Kosmas. BF809.8.058 1991 335.4'11 - dc20 91-8323 elP Typeset by Centracet, Cambridge Printed and bound by Antony Rowe Ltd, Eastbourne ._------_---.~ Acknowledgements Notes on Contributors We should like to extend thanks to Michael Hardt who translated Werner Bonefeld lecturer in Politics at the University of Edinburgh, the article .by Negri.
    [Show full text]
  • Marx's Concept of the Transcendence of Value Production
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 2011 Marx's Concept of the Transcendence of Value Production Peter Hudis Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Hudis, Peter, "Marx's Concept of the Transcendence of Value Production" (2011). Dissertations. 204. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/204 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 2011 Peter Hudis LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO MARX’S CONCEPT OF THE TRANSCENDENCE OF VALUE PRODUCTION A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY PROGRAM IN PHILOSOPHY BY PETER HUDIS CHICAGO, IL AUGUST 2011 Copyright by Peter Hudis, 2011 All rights reserved ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank Prof. David Schweickart of the Department of Philosophy for his insightful comments and guidance in my development of this dissertation. He has been tremendously encouraging through all stages of its development. I also wish to thank Prof. Thomas Wren of the Department of Philosophy for his assistance and advice throughout my experience in the graduate program at Loyola
    [Show full text]
  • The Path of Negative Totality: from the Critique of Political Economy to a New Reading of the Critical Theory of the Negative Totality of Capitalist Society
    The Path of Negative Totality: From The Critique of Political Economy to a New Reading of the Critical Theory of The Negative Totality of Capitalist Society Chris O’Kane Department of Economics, John Jay, CUNY [email protected] Introduction 1984 marked the publication of Martin Jay’s Marxism and Totality, a magisterial intellectual history of the rise and eclipse of Western Hegelian-Marxism’s principle category of social and political theory: social totality. As Jay shows, between the late 1960s and the early 1980s the latter had come into “strong disrepute”1 amongst prominent critical theorists.2 Louis Althusser and Jurgen Habermas had formulated surprisingly similar criticisms of “expressive” totality’s reductive model of society which eschewed social and political complexity due to its monocausal reliance on “Hegelian-Marxist” philosophical anthropology3 This critique was echoed, and even amplified, by “the challenge of post- structuralism.”4 1 Martin Jay, Marxism and Totality, p. 514 2 I intentionally follow the convention of using critical theory to characterize a variety of approaches in continental social and political thought. In contrast, I use Critical Theory in a narrow sense to refer to the heterodox Marxian approach to social and political thought developed by the early Frankfurt School and elaborated by the thinkers discussed in this chapter. In do so to mark the important distinctions between critical theory and Critical Theory I discuss in what follows. 3 Habermas’s critique of this notion of Hegelian-Marxist philosophical anthropology is put forward in his critique of the production paradigm. (see The Philosophical Discourses of Modernity). Althusser’s in his critique of humanism and of the Hegelian-Marxist notion of expressive totality ( Lukacs and humanist marxism) see Louis Althusser, For Marx and Reading Capital especially p 204 4 Jay treats this challenge as so substantive that the epilogue (510-537) bears its name.
    [Show full text]