Description of the Module Items Description of the Module Subject Name Sociology Paper Name Contemporary Social Theory Module Name/Title Neo Marxist perspectives : introductory overview Objectives This module seeks to introduce the readers to the transition in Marxian thinking and new modes of understanding social reality that were being produced in the 1960s and 70s. Neo-Marxism dealt with a variety of issues and also grappled with methodological questions of how to study society. Neo-Marxism covers newer and newer areas, in which Marxist research has ventured into since Marx and Engels. Key words Destalinisation, Crisis of Capitalism, Hegemony, Ideological state apparatus, Public sphere, Module Structure Neo Marxist Perspectives Introduction, The Marxism in Crisis and the Orthodoxy of Economic Determinism, The Foundation of Gramscian Neo-Marxism as Hegelian Marxism, “Destanilization” as the Next Crisis and Althusser‟s Structural Marxism, the Critical Theory of Habermas, Summary, References, Learn More. Role Name Affiliation Subject Coordinator Prof. Sujata Patel Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Hyderabad Paper Coordinator Dr. Dev Pathak Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, South Asian University Content Writer Anubhav Sengupta & Research Scholar, JNU Dr. Dev Pathak Content Reviewer Prof. Sujata Patel Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Hyderabad Language Editor Prof. Sujata Patel Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Hyderabad NEO MARXIST PERSPECTIVES Introductory Overview 1. Introduction: Towards a definition of Neo-Marxism Neo-Marxism is a corpus of social theorization derived from the works of Marx and Engels. Neo- Marxism can include a wide range of theorization cutting across disciplines. According to George Ritzer, a prominent contemporary sociological thinker, the following schools of thought forms part of Neo- Marxist tradition: Economic Determinism, Hegelian Marxism, Critical Theory, Neo-Marxian Economic Sociology, Historically Oriented Marxism, Neo-Marxian Spatial Analysis, Post Marxist Theory (Ritzer 2011).Gordon Marshall defines Neo-Marxism in A Dictionary of Sociology (2003), as „A term loosely applied to any social theory or sociological analysis which draws on the ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, but amends or extends these, usually by incorporating elements from other intellectual traditions…”. Jacques Bidet and Stathis Kouvelakis adds that Neo-Marxism is more of a response to „the crisis of Marxism‟ in the beginning of twentieth century and an effort by various groups, individuals engaged in social theorization to reclassify and innovate within Marxist critical thinking as a challenge to Marxist orthodoxy. In what follows, we therefore begin from this crisis of Marxism in general as the rise of orthodox Marxism. We try to define orthodox Marxism. Then we try to analyze how the journey of Neo-Marxism began as a response to orthodox Marxism in the form of Hegelian Marxism. Then, the next crisis of Marxism is described in 1950s and how Althusserian Structural Marxism emerged as another Neo Marxist response to this crisis. In the end, a brief excursion is made to see how another school of Neo- Marxism, the critical theory responds to the crisis of capitalist society in general. 2. The Marxism in Crisis and the Orthodoxy of Economic Determinism Socialism as a political idea existed even before Marx. But Marx and later Engels established idea of socialism on a scientific basis. Before Marx, there were socialist thinkers who critiqued injustice, oppression and exploitation prevailing in society from a moral stand-point. They were seeking change because that was ethically good for whole humanity. Separating from this, Marx and Engels gradually developed an analysis of history and capitalism in particular. Instead of appealing to conscience of the humanity that capitalism is wrong, they actually showed capitalism as a system cannot survive because it is inherently contradictory. This enabled, Marx and Engels to demonstrate that it is not dependent on voluntary action of few individuals or good will of a section of society to change this inhuman capitalist system to more human socialism. History is a process, consisting of class struggles and when studied, history shows that capitalism would be overcome by socialism. The class struggle between proletariat and capitalists would lead to socialism as through their class struggle, proletariat becomes conscious of this historical trajectory of human society (ibid.). The scientific discovery of human history, that Marx and Engels made, hinges on the discovery of the dialectic relationship in which society is structured. In its fundamental form, in any given epoch, a society can be thought of consisting of two elements: the base (or economy) and the superstructure (ideology, culture, politics and state etc.). The relationship between the two is dialectical. The ways in which the economy in a society is structured influences way in which its legal institutions, ideology, culture will shape; on the other hand, the latter will have impact on the organization of economy. So according to Marx and Engels, studying a society is to study these organizations of economic activities, various relations within it and relationships between the economy and other institutions. Depending of various combinations of the unity of base and superstructure, Marx and Engels show, human history has passed through various stages to reach today‟s capitalism. There was however a tension in this Marxist conception. Marx and Engels were just not using dialectical method, which they borrowed from German philosopher Hegel. They also insisted on being materialistic in their philosophical approach. It was a departure from Hegel who was an idealist. For materialist philosophers, matter is the primary object of investigation; while for an idealist philosopher, it is the idea of the matter, which requires attention. Roughly translated, for an idealist philosopher like Hegel, it was superstructural element like the state which was more important in understanding human history and its development. But for materialists like Marx and Engels, the economy as the organization of material life of human society became the primary object in studying society. The tension was surrounding to what extent the primacy of the base in studying society to be accorded; and where to place the importance of superstructure elements like culture, ideas and ideology, the state institutions, and human actions which seem more significant to us, as members of society living everyday life. This debate seemed to find its temporary closure when in 1876 Engels wrote the book called „Anti- Duhring‟. The book directly addresses the issues of the dialectics, materialist dialectics in detail. Engels used various inventions that were taking place in scientific field to argue that dialectics is a natural law. By natural law Engels meant that just like gravitation-pull is objectively out there working on all of us, without us wanting or not, the law of dialectics is also such naturally given law. For Engels, dialectics is everywhere working in the nature and on human society. By early years of 20th century, key Marxist figures like Karl Kautsky started championing this objective, external character of dialectics, independent of human will or intervention. Second International, led by Karl Kautsky, adopted a position where it was seen that capitalism by „natural necessity‟ would be replaced by socialism. Kautsky and his followers were taking the clue directly from Engel‟s Anti-Duhring. Kautsky and others in Second International extended Engel‟s proposition and claimed dialectical development of capitalism to socialism is therefore equally a natural course of development of society. It is like throwing an apple in the air, we want or don‟t want, the apple is going to come down to the earth. Human society wants or does not want, revolutionary transformation of capitalism to socialism is going to happen anyway. The human society is destined to move towards socialism. The above mentioned view came to dominate as the official Marxism or later came to be known as orthodox Marxism. It was a form of economic determinism. The base i.e. economic development became all too important while politics and revolutionary actions were reduced to secondary position. The political manifestation of this orthodoxy then reflected into reformism from socialists‟ part. In so long as revolution was bound to come, there was no rush to impose revolution by the proletariat on the natural course of history. The role of a communist party of the workers is to fight for reforms so that condition of existence remains human, till socialism comes and solves all the problems. It was just a wait and watch policy for these Marxists with orthodox economic deterministic view (Callinicos 1976). 3. The Foundation of Gramscian Neo-Marxism as Hegelian Marxism By 1920s, right after the First World War and Russian Revolution, a new impetus to think Marxism afresh was evident. There were numbers of intellectual and activist who protested against caricature of the revolutionary potential of Marxism in the hands of Second International. Out of these, a particular paradigm of thinking emerged as the Hegelian school of Marxism with three key figures: Georges Lukacs, Karl Korsch and Antonio Gramsci. Not necessarily these three thinkers worked together to develop a systematic body of interpretation of Marxist method and concepts. It is