[lbo-talk] Marxism and Contingency (was The Ontology of Two Chairs)

Doug Henwood dhenwood at panix.com
Thu Jan 6 13:54:49 PST 2005


[bounced because some appended stuff boosted length over the limit - here's the core of it]

Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 13:40:25 -0800 (PST) From: Manjur Karim <piashkarim at yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk]

Charles,

I didn't mean that Marxism is deterministic in a simple sense. There were contradictory moments of structure and agency in Marx's own texts. In his best moments, Marx recognized that capitalism will not fall under the weight of its own structural contradictions, unless mediated/intervened by active class struggle. Also, historical relationality is a powerful instance in Marx's method. Lenin's formulation of the vanguard party, I would argue, is one way of articulating that human agency. Also, Lukacs' defense of the vanguard party as a dialectical mediation between the objective reality of exploitation and a subjective awareness of it is an instance of that uncertainty. IMHO, this particular instance of Lukacs's Hegelian-Marxism can be translated in to poststructural vocabulary without much effort. Or when Luxemburg talked about "socialism or barbarism" there is more than a touch of indeterminacy there. Capitalism does not inevitably leads to socialism- there is always a historical possibility that barbarism may emerge. Gramsci's hegemony is another way of making sense of that contingency. But with all that, there are prevailing tones of a teleology and determinism in the Marxist view of history. Post-Marxism is one way of deconstructing that without abandoning the Marxist imaginary of a unalienated life.

As far as hope is concerned, Gramsci's "pessimism of intellect, optimism of thought" is perhaps still the best Marxist way to underscore the dialectic of pessimism and optimism. I remember reading somewhere that it was also Walter Benjamin's favorite phrase. However, I would go beyond Gramsci by arguing that the very binary opposition between "optimism" and "pessimism" itself is a western Rationalist construct. It is possible to re articulate a radical politics, a dissolution of that dichotomy, through radically open-ended praxis.

the last time I took a close look at "Anti-Duhring" was at least 7-8 years ago. Let me see whether I manage the time to take a quick look at it in next few days before I can seriously engage in a debate. In the mean time, other folks who know much more about Marxist philosophy of science than I do may jump in to the the discussion.

Manjur



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list