File spoon-archives/marxism-theory.archive/marxism-theory_1997/marxism-theory.9711, message 17


From: MSalter1-AT-aol.com
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 14:06:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Post-Marxism and Paleo-Marxism


I would agree with much of Leo's comments, but am curious at the idea that
class in-itself graduating to class-for-itself is central to Hegelianism.
This might be true for Hegelian-Marxism of the early Lukacs variety, but
there is little textual support for this in Hegel. Yes there is a projection
of the need for a move from unreflective customary / traditionalistic
consciousness of social life to the internal ideal of a more reflexive,
self-critical and accountable form of social organisation. (a similar element
is found in Habermas's work on modernity and posttraditional societies) But
no specific social class is seen as possessing or even being the bearer of
this enhanced mode of consciousness. It is the lack of class reductionism and
the reference to all overarching conception of culture or geist which
(despite other difficulties) makes the movement from (some more
positivistic/deterministic elements of) Marxism to (some
leftist/communitarian version of) Hegel movement attractive to many,
including Adorno/Marcuse etc.


In a message dated 05/11/97 04:58:59 GMT, Leo writes

<< 
 From my point of view, the problem is at least as much how the Marxist
 tradition conceptualizes class and the working class, as the central and
 primary role it gives to both. The fact that virtually all of my political
 work now takes place within the labor movement and on issues of education is
 an indication that I do not dismiss or even treat lightly the important role
 of the working class movement in social change. What I can not accept,
 however, is the idea that there are immanent laws of social development
which
 in the era of captialism lead -- not necessarily in a direct or simple way,
 but still, "in the final instance", do lead -- to the emergence of a working
 class-for-itself, a class conscious proletariat, which then constructs
 socialism. I would argue that notions of immanent historical laws are the
 traces of Hegelian idealism, 'turned on its feet', in Marxism, and I give
much
 more weight to historical contingency. History is explicable, but not by
 reference to universal laws of historical development. .....

 I also would argue that the Marxist framework for understanding social class
 and working class development has severe limitations for understanding the
 actual processes going on around us, and for fashioning our interventions.
 This is a long topic by itself, but let it suffice to say that Hegelian
 notions of classes-in-themselves and for-themselves, separations of social
 being and consciousness, do not, IMO, take us very far. The most interesting
 labor history today, again IMO, takes the form of applying discourse
analysis
 of various sorts to the study of different working classes at different
points
 in history. Further, my attraction to Gramsci was rooted in, among other
 things, the ways in which I could use his conceptual framework to think
 through actual political interventions in given conjunctures; I don't think
 that Marxism is very good at this task, and I don't believe that this is
just
 because Marx never got around to the issue in Capital before he died.
 
 Leo Casey
  >>



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005