Last part is interesting. The utopianism of the older generations. We're scarcely aware of that more than abstractly. I'm trying to come to terms with it in my family history (I'm working on an essay called Pink Twilight). Four generations of social democrats in England and Canada. Every generation the same points are reinterpreted in a less visionary way. It's difficult for me to access my great grandparents' optimism about the possibility of socialism, of what that meant, relative even to their children's more reformist notions. You sort of have to read between the lines and use inference.
For myself as a millennial in undergrad I was extremely enthused by the constructivist film and manifesto writings of Dziga Vertov in media studies class, “Kino-Eye” and the like. I was impressed by the ambition and saw what classmates took as hubris as sober and serious for its time. And I recognized no utopian visionary quality or formal radicality of that scope in Godard’s nominal appropriation of Vertov, even if it was “cooler” to appreciate him or discuss his contribution to film history. I always felt vindicated by the Situationists’ hatred of Godard as well, even as Debord’s films reflect the passing of an earlier modernist moment he at least is substantially more sympathetic to its spirit than Godard.
Watching this started out cool because I think we should know the one example where workers took over a country - but then it devolved into a recursive nerd lore abstraction-measuring-contest framed by own-fart-sniffing so removed from any actual worker's mind or conversation or any utility to inspiring change as to resemble a dog circling to lay down for an hour and then just walking away instead. C+.
Yes we got derailed off topic and did not follow through on the entirety of my essay and its implications for the struggle for proletarian socialism today.
The "contradiction" without the proletariat is what Sismondi already described, at best (and no, that Sismondi is an "underconsumptionist," that a complete myth). He already said that value is overproduced because of a self-contradiction in the modern system and has caught society in a centripetal but decentralizing, self-destructive loop. This is *not* what Marx thought. He would consider Sismondi "utopian" because Sismondi could not give an account of why he could see what he could see. The only reason Marx could was because of workers organized into a proletariat. It would behoove one to read Sismondi or Cherbuliez or Richard Jones or Roscher or any of these 1810-1830s dissident political economists to recognize just how much they ascribe to Marx, especially when trying to say what is """"contradictory"""" about capitalism. Marx doesn't "correct" their theories like some dilettantes like to portray it but give a critique i.e., an account of why they can recognize what they can (and how that also determines their very standpoint). Contradictions do not simply exist, whether or not one recognizes it. The very term ("capital-ism") presupposes the self-contradiction of the subject struggling to overcome it. Without the proletariat, the contradiction does not even become. One can't rest their hat on Das Kapital - let alone what sounds like selections of parts of Kapital that the MHI sit on and are no more precise than what Adam Smith already said a 100 years prior. Das Kapital has itself *necessary political moments in the account i.e., the 10-hour day, the whole section on the Bank Act of 1844, the end of Volume 3, etc. Value is "historical and social"; it is only constituted socially. You don't get to have Das Kapital without the proletariat. The content of all the categories that are regularly reached for - "value", money, "surplus-value," "abstract labor," "dead labor" etc - do not mean anything outside of the totality, which *is the class struggle for Marx.* This obviously was a lesson passed down from Hegel (and Kant) to Marx. One is trying to sidestep the collapse of a party. The constant reiteration of """""value-critique"""" is unfortunately, when these conversations become most dogmatic. Without the class struggle, capitalism does not "attain to its concept" - the contradiction (which is not in value but that the totality is contradictory - hence) Meaning, it is equally determined (if not more) by non-value, not-abstract labor, etc.
Timestamping 27:45 because I'll need to hear it again and again. It's a truth that one wishes to be a lie making it one step ahead of the truth itself.
This is one of your best conversations yet! When I am in my studio, I keep thinking lately -- how could I make a painting today that is as good as El Lessitzky and Rodechenko?? Very timely.
As usual you didn't talk about the actual topic but instead meandered around valuetheory. You two guys have always the same back and forth about what capitalism really is and what the problem with it really is which is fine but then please change the title from "Understanding the Russian Revolution" to "Chris and Doug discuss what the Value-Form really is Episode #76"
Yes we wandered too far afield. I should have stuck closely or returned to my essay we started with. Doug actually tried to turn us back but we were interrupted by internet connection failure and lost track.
Chris I hope you speak more about how Marx thought the workers brought about the Industrial Revolution in your upcoming course with Theory Underground. I feel like dogmatic Marxism obscures this dialectical contradiction in favor of simpler explanations that don’t really hit the mark
Marx is definitely literature in some way that the rest aren't. And not just stylistically, but in the sense his writing refracts thought and is ever-green.
Hi guys just a question about the Springfield Haitian workers issue. When it was mentioned that they were subsidised workers how exactly are they? What federal government supports do they actually get?
what Cutrone insists on : the dialectical dimension as central really needs further unpacking.... in relation to what he calls the hangover of Althusserian thinking (or structural marxism). one point of clarity. Lain notes for a moment that structuralism is about the signifier and/or linguistics. This is confusing the location of the development of what is called "structuralism:" with Saussure's particular work in linguistics. While certainly a cornerstone, its not really linguistics per se that is the legacy and significance on the focus on structures and 'structural' analysis, which carries into stuctural anthropology etc. -- what is of issue is the focus on not simply diachronic relations but synchronic. That is why in structural anthropology you have a lot of focus on the logical relationships internal to the social order of cousins, second cousins, mother in laws to sisters, etc. etc. etc. as in a way a genus, a map, a circuit, a dynamic that governs the power relations and the inter-course as such, with taboos, customs, 'proper behaviour' etc. etc. .. this carries into all structures of the social order as such of any society. the structure of not simply "the culture" but the actual, concrete rules of the road, all the way up and down. that is why it can go so far as to emphasize that from a structuralist point of view, people have agency primarily thru their relation to the structure. you as a doctor have power as a doctor by your relationship to the institution of medical practice. not by virtue of you ... being a person who just wants to heal others. not by simply your will to do good. or such. but by your actual relation to the very structures that already precede you in the order of differences as such. That is why then also you have 'post-structuralists' aim to map out a way of understanding agency that is not bound by this over-determined structure as such. in any case, i think the problem here is how to really develop an analysis after "the hangover" of structural marxism, without falling into just dimissing it all as some bad party that went wild (to reduce it to some free for all by a suburban pool). for one that would entirely miss how and why it from the start aimed to break from what became euro communism (and why), how it offereed a particular critique of humanism (which does not mean to be inhuman or lack compassion), and stand in contrast to the stagnancy of euro stalinism etc.
I have an essay on "The negative dialectic of Marxism" included in the book Marxism and Politics that addresses this issue of the historical symptom of rejection of Hegelian dialectics (by e.g. Althusser et al.) as a rejection of Stalinism as a form of Right Hegelianism or of the affirmative or positive dialectic. The issue of structuralism (anthropological as well as linguistic) is different in that it attacks the idea and reality of the subject falsely as it appears under capitalism and turns subjectivity into a function of culture. On the linguistic front it goes to Lacan's "the unconscious is structured like a language" and treats language and thus the psyche as a technology in Heidegger's sense. Of course I uphold Adorno on the dialectical critique of such reification as necessary form of appearance of reality in capitalism, with its highest object the proletarian struggle for socialism itself. As Marx put it, "The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth - i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question." On post-structuralism I think that Marxism with its roots in bourgeois philosophy is much better on agency and subjectivity in history.
@@ccutrone im not sure that i understand your first first paragraph here but if you are saying that structural marxism rejection of (euro) stalinism (economism, social realist humanism, etc.) was a rejection of Right Hegelianism: yes, at the time Hegelian logic/analysis was largely taught and understood as rightist by and large, in France. which tended to skew many french marxist analysis at the time (making it excessively spinozist at turns). not sure that structural anthropology then or now reduces the subject into a 'function" of culture. for one they are by no means functionalists. My main aim here was to drive as to what is of use , and so why wanted to emphasize the synchronic difference (relation between elements in a system -- in difference from a historicist or narrativistic ordering of events in time -- which does not mean purely once and for all abandoning any recourse or use of historicizing etc.) . Arguably you have this consistently in how Marx analyzes the structure of say the commodity, the work day etc. in regards to Lacan and his innovative use of structural linguistics (he makes some key differences in relation to the role of the signifier, for example), its largely, in many key ways an extension of Freud's emphasis on diplacement, condensation, etc. but with reconsidered tools of structural linguistics, allowing for greater precision actually. Lacanian psychoanalysis is not a subset of heidegerrian post-metaphysics, though in Lacan's earlier seminars heideggerian concepts play a role (less and less so as he moves into re-considering the Real) . the famous "the unconscious is structured like a language" does not mean is the same as language. nor to be worked with as purely a technical device or intellectual beorgoise play thing, (wherein it turns psychoanalysis into a philosophical tennis match and there is no repression, sexuality, suffereing, etc. etc. to and of the subject (for which they have sought out analysis per se). upholding Adorno's critique with diff types of reification (including the literature of realism that Lukacs over-idealized) is not in question, and certainly there are forms of psychologizing and psychoanalysis that largely aim to produce the 'well adjusted' etc. high functioning imaginary figure (i.e. CBT, or object relations etc.) but not sure that can be said for lacanian psychoanlysis (in general) to nearly such a degree, at all.
Stalinism was blamed on Hegelianism which led to the postmodernist rejection of Marxism and of the dialectic per se. Anything and everything (e.g. Spinoza) was dredged up against Hegel and ultimately Marxism. It wasn't a deliberate programme but a phenomenon of the failure of and disenchantment with "Marxism" (Stalinism, but more deeply) -- the failure of proletarian socialist revolution, which used to be much more keenly felt in the mid-20th century when it was still within living memory by contrast with today. Today we just have "philosophies"/"theories"/"methods" etc. with no actual substance in relation to the world but just a more or less narcissistically captivating mental game.
@@ccutrone but dont you think that is in part due to the erosion of labor politics in 'the west'? ... i mean from pullman strike times repression on rad worker union movement (which explicity sought for revolution, vis a vis "wobbly" action etc. etc) -- then fast fwd to post-war years , and the rise of hannah arendt liberal capitalist realism policy (capitalism is crap but its better then fascism/totalitarian state) ..which pushed/pulled for a keynesian logic of labor having rights, union powers etc. (as long as dont aim for more then two car garage, type thing or in europe etc. a full scale welfare state, including access to decent housing, good education, etc.) , and then with various crisis in late 60s (fall of rate of profit among others), the eviseration of "fordism" and then rise of neo liberalism (which not only instituted end of capital flight restrictions but also ramped up repression of labor politics in a new way in the west)... so in a kind of long dure of capitalist dominance (or beorgoise modes of production as Marx often put it) ... we now have pockets of radical marxist theory, and very little organization in a classical labor politics way... (?) or is this too simplistic a way to read the history so to say?
Yes there are deep questions to this history. From my perspective Marxism failed and was not merely defeated. And yet it still speaks to us today - despite the manifest failure of proletarian socialism more widely. The question of worker militancy is a separate issue, since it still exists especially in newly industrialized regions - which can also include deindustrialized and reindustrialized areas - that could lead to a more unified movement. I do think there's an ideological problem regarding reforming capitalism and calling that "socialism." And of course Stalinism stands as an ideological problem as well: will American or European or really any workers anywhere want things to become like China? No.
As someone that learned a great deal from reading Grossman can somebody clarify exactly where he goes wrong prior to his Stalinism? Or perhaps the problem is how he is being taken up by his acolytes? Grossman is unequivocal that his interpretation of Marx presupposes a working class organising for socialism. There is no crisis without both the objective and subjective factors. In his private letters he laments the fact that he was being interpreted as saying a crisis was automatic, in the sense that his account did not require a working class organised for socialism. He is a 2nd International Marxist so of course he takes this for granted. He also has an account of capital reconstituting itself which becomes increasingly destructive the longer capitalism drags itself out - is this being interpreted as a terminal crisis? And as far as there being a ‘final crisis’, I interpreted this as saying the final crisis of capitalism (and thus the revolution for socialism) will necessarily meet the conditions he lays out. This is a direct attack on the revisionists that believed capitalism had overcome its tendency toward crisis. Ultimately I don’t think Grossman was trying to innovate Marx at all. Rather he was trying to clarify what was at stake.
The main problem is a positivistic and hence undialectical view. This is what his eventual or default “Stalinism” means, since many pre-1917 “anti-Revisionist”/“orthodox” Marxists went along with it. Luxemburg was similarly misapprehended but then there’s a problem with how the ideas are presented. So the issues are subtle and not to be overstated. As usual it’s the -ism that’s the problem. But often thinkers can even reify their own work/ideas and compound the interpretive difficulties.
You are right, qaq89. There is nothing in Grossman's theory of crisis that is Stalinist, either voluntarist or determinist. That is why Paul Mattick takes inspiration from him. In his reply to you, Chris Cutrone Is splitting hairs.
@@felooosailing957 In the early 20c Marxism had really entered a crisis that ultimately led to its collapse. We cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand about it, only coming up for air to endlessly debate and pick sides in a dispute that was historically contingent. The historical participants may be forgiven because it’s always difficult to make sense of things while you’re participating in it - ironically this is/was the point of Marxism. On the other hand, a lot of time has passed since and we ought to take a more global view of things and with cooler heads if our constitution allows it. These are not our debates to have, they do not belong to us or our time. The point of Chris’ comment is not to cast Grossman or the reception of Grossman’s work as the villain but rather as a symptom. It appears that even Marxism was not safe from the mid to late 19c positivist turn that capitalism demanded, whatever side of the split you were on. Making sense of all of this is extremely messy and not for the faint of heart. Admittedly I am still thinking these things through and it’s possible that I will never fully grasp the weight and significance - maybe the past really is ancient history? However I have found Chris to be an invaluable teacher through his books, articles and lectures.
@@qaq89 Grossman was not a positivist. Positivism in Marxism developed in Bersteinianism, Austro-Marxism and the Plekhanov wing of social democracy, not in the "revolutionary" wing of the Second International. And Marxism did not enter into a crisis in the early XXth Century. It had revolution in Russia, Germany, Hungary, etc. What people call crisis Is counterrevolution. And this has no bearing on my position on Chris Cutrone. He Is a real Communist, unlike Doug Lain.
@@felooosailing957 Have you read Chris’ ‘The Marxist Hypothesis’? Also I’m curious to know, because you brought him up earlier, how you make sense of Mattick’s rejection of the revolutionary wing of the second international and his fundamental disagreements with figures like Luxemburg and Lenin.
Everyone who wants to see Lenin's cultural and economic ultimate legacy from common man's perspective, watch "Good buy Lenin". Or if you're adventurous and can afford it, visit Soviet monument park in Lithuania or an occupation museum in any of Baltic countries (the latter will have something beyond entertainment). Especially if you want to celebrate 100 years since his mummy.
P.S. Wooah guys, be careful discussing Ukraine and Zelensky, as you seem to be as out of touch here as vast majority of Americans. Zelensky DID NOT endorse K. Harris, because he and everyone else in that circle knows it would be judged as interferance. Even more bizarre that you're repeating this MAGA sound bite on the day Zelensky visited Trump in his own tower. Yes, it was akward. Also yes, it's Putin who publically did that endorsment, even if he did not really.. mean it. I see you're reasonably well-read, so should get it, this one's simple. If not: basically, Zelensky has had a close professional relationship with both Biden and Harris during the fullscale war, even if he's criticised them too. That's partnership, not endorsement. He also cheekily accepted Trump's pointless bragging about ending the war in a day saying ~ very well, go ahead, i want to see that. Situation is like this: for Zelensky and Ukraine it's pretty important that Democrats get their president, whoever it is, as long as MAGA candidate (and their other top dogs) are the alternative. For Ukraine it's ideal that they win confidently, it's actually existential. Marginal win is dangerous for stability of US and allied aid cooperation, but still better than a MAGA win. The worst option for them (and for all of democratic US allies, especially in Europe) is Trump's win, marginal or not. Even if it seems he's unpredictable and some Trumpists imply decisive action, chances of good outcome for Europe and Ukraine are slim, based on track record of all of them. Only thing, neither Zelensky nor Rada can endorse anyone publically, as it would backfire and cause harm. That's why MAGA propagandists claim he did. Now for Kremlin, Putin played a game called "maximum damage with words". For them, situation is nearly other way around, but this election chaos is more favourable in most case scenarios. Putin prefers Trump's win, marginal or not. However a marginal Harris' win is just about OK too, as he predicts unrest and possible crisis, for which you can bet your ass they (all their strategic communication agencies) are preparing a gigaton of oil to throw onto flames. So Harris winning by a small and predictably will-be-contested margin is nearly as beneficial as a MAGA win. The only thing that will rain on Kremlin's plans is a confident democrat win, irrespective of the candidate. From what i've seen today, Harris already poses more difficulties to Putin than Biden. I won't comment on MAGA as you'll find out sooner or later what's been up with them and Kremlin. I see it because i live a few h drive from Russia's border and know how they think, including Putin. A few more hours after crossing that border from me in a stright line i would be in the Red square. A kamikaze and surveillance drones already hit my country recently. Hint: it's not Ukraine.
Dude, everybody knows there aren't any Soviet monuments left there. Don't bother going unless you've always wanted to march in a Nazi parade without bystanders pelting you with bottles filled with piss and calling you out as the freak you are: a revisionist, Holocaust-denying POS
Lenin was probably a genius and responsible for the only proletarian revolution ever but according to zizek it was Trotsky who convinced Lenin that he needed to take control of the trains and infrastructure etc and not just leave it up to the mob to take power and moved it beyond a protest to a real revolution.
And if one is to actually read Lenin they would understand that this is utter rubbish. It is utter rubbish to any Marxist. Let the mob take control without centralized organization and planning is more of an anarchist position.
Keynesiasm was deoendent on exploitation of the global south.(That's why even moderate social democratic systems weren't allowed there.) Technological progress will keep rolling under any political system and result in some form of improvenment in global living standards, up to a point. Now that's already reversing . A lower middle class worker in Mumbay might be better fed and own a smart phone, but his parents lived longer, while the smog will give him cancer before he's old enough to retire.
It’s hard to quantify these things since the issue is not concrete “living standards” but the increasing disparity between capital and labor, or as Marx put it the inadequacy of labor as the basis for the social appropriation of capital. Hence the need for political action. The post-colonial developmental state was the Keynesianism in the “Global South” (not a good but a misleading category!) which involved all sorts of subsidization of the working class that came into crisis in the 1970s and more recently post-2008 but still continue - just as Keynesianism has continued in the metropolitan countries.
Based shoutouts to @theoryunderground and I
i love when my parasocial theory friends get along! (but really i do)
Last part is interesting. The utopianism of the older generations. We're scarcely aware of that more than abstractly. I'm trying to come to terms with it in my family history (I'm working on an essay called Pink Twilight). Four generations of social democrats in England and Canada. Every generation the same points are reinterpreted in a less visionary way. It's difficult for me to access my great grandparents' optimism about the possibility of socialism, of what that meant, relative even to their children's more reformist notions. You sort of have to read between the lines and use inference.
For myself as a millennial in undergrad I was extremely enthused by the constructivist film and manifesto writings of Dziga Vertov in media studies class, “Kino-Eye” and the like. I was impressed by the ambition and saw what classmates took as hubris as sober and serious for its time. And I recognized no utopian visionary quality or formal radicality of that scope in Godard’s nominal appropriation of Vertov, even if it was “cooler” to appreciate him or discuss his contribution to film history. I always felt vindicated by the Situationists’ hatred of Godard as well, even as Debord’s films reflect the passing of an earlier modernist moment he at least is substantially more sympathetic to its spirit than Godard.
Watching this started out cool because I think we should know the one example where workers took over a country - but then it devolved into a recursive nerd lore abstraction-measuring-contest framed by own-fart-sniffing so removed from any actual worker's mind or conversation or any utility to inspiring change as to resemble a dog circling to lay down for an hour and then just walking away instead. C+.
Yes we got derailed off topic and did not follow through on the entirety of my essay and its implications for the struggle for proletarian socialism today.
good discussion! please do another one where you get back into the Russian Revolution history!
The "contradiction" without the proletariat is what Sismondi already described, at best (and no, that Sismondi is an "underconsumptionist," that a complete myth). He already said that value is overproduced because of a self-contradiction in the modern system and has caught society in a centripetal but decentralizing, self-destructive loop.
This is *not* what Marx thought. He would consider Sismondi "utopian" because Sismondi could not give an account of why he could see what he could see. The only reason Marx could was because of workers organized into a proletariat.
It would behoove one to read Sismondi or Cherbuliez or Richard Jones or Roscher or any of these 1810-1830s dissident political economists to recognize just how much they ascribe to Marx, especially when trying to say what is """"contradictory"""" about capitalism. Marx doesn't "correct" their theories like some dilettantes like to portray it but give a critique i.e., an account of why they can recognize what they can (and how that also determines their very standpoint).
Contradictions do not simply exist, whether or not one recognizes it. The very term ("capital-ism") presupposes the self-contradiction of the subject struggling to overcome it.
Without the proletariat, the contradiction does not even become. One can't rest their hat on Das Kapital - let alone what sounds like selections of parts of Kapital that the MHI sit on and are no more precise than what Adam Smith already said a 100 years prior. Das Kapital has itself *necessary political moments in the account i.e., the 10-hour day, the whole section on the Bank Act of 1844, the end of Volume 3, etc. Value is "historical and social"; it is only constituted socially. You don't get to have Das Kapital without the proletariat.
The content of all the categories that are regularly reached for - "value", money, "surplus-value," "abstract labor," "dead labor" etc - do not mean anything outside of the totality, which *is the class struggle for Marx.* This obviously was a lesson passed down from Hegel (and Kant) to Marx.
One is trying to sidestep the collapse of a party. The constant reiteration of """""value-critique"""" is unfortunately, when these conversations become most dogmatic.
Without the class struggle, capitalism does not "attain to its concept" - the contradiction (which is not in value but that the totality is contradictory - hence)
Meaning, it is equally determined (if not more) by non-value, not-abstract labor, etc.
I agree. - I hope that this was clear from what I have said.
@@ccutrone Yes, I think you had many great points (e.g., structural vs dialectical) and were clear about this from what you said.
Timestamping 27:45 because I'll need to hear it again and again. It's a truth that one wishes to be a lie making it one step ahead of the truth itself.
This is one of your best conversations yet!
When I am in my studio, I keep thinking lately -- how could I make a painting today that is as good as El Lessitzky and Rodechenko??
Very timely.
Love the blue polo 👕
As usual you didn't talk about the actual topic but instead meandered around valuetheory. You two guys have always the same back and forth about what capitalism really is and what the problem with it really is which is fine but then please change the title from "Understanding the Russian Revolution" to "Chris and Doug discuss what the Value-Form really is Episode #76"
Yes we wandered too far afield. I should have stuck closely or returned to my essay we started with. Doug actually tried to turn us back but we were interrupted by internet connection failure and lost track.
Still a good chat tho
Chris I hope you speak more about how Marx thought the workers brought about the Industrial Revolution in your upcoming course with Theory Underground.
I feel like dogmatic Marxism obscures this dialectical contradiction in favor of simpler explanations that don’t really hit the mark
Great work.
Marx is definitely literature in some way that the rest aren't. And not just stylistically, but in the sense his writing refracts thought and is ever-green.
Hi guys just a question about the Springfield Haitian workers issue. When it was mentioned that they were subsidised workers how exactly are they? What federal government supports do they actually get?
They are "temporary protected status" refugees who receive government living expense subsidies.
what Cutrone insists on : the dialectical dimension as central really needs further unpacking.... in relation to what he calls the hangover of Althusserian thinking (or structural marxism). one point of clarity. Lain notes for a moment that structuralism is about the signifier and/or linguistics. This is confusing the location of the development of what is called "structuralism:" with Saussure's particular work in linguistics. While certainly a cornerstone, its not really linguistics per se that is the legacy and significance on the focus on structures and 'structural' analysis, which carries into stuctural anthropology etc. -- what is of issue is the focus on not simply diachronic relations but synchronic. That is why in structural anthropology you have a lot of focus on the logical relationships internal to the social order of cousins, second cousins, mother in laws to sisters, etc. etc. etc. as in a way a genus, a map, a circuit, a dynamic that governs the power relations and the inter-course as such, with taboos, customs, 'proper behaviour' etc. etc. .. this carries into all structures of the social order as such of any society. the structure of not simply "the culture" but the actual, concrete rules of the road, all the way up and down. that is why it can go so far as to emphasize that from a structuralist point of view, people have agency primarily thru their relation to the structure. you as a doctor have power as a doctor by your relationship to the institution of medical practice. not by virtue of you ... being a person who just wants to heal others. not by simply your will to do good. or such. but by your actual relation to the very structures that already precede you in the order of differences as such. That is why then also you have 'post-structuralists' aim to map out a way of understanding agency that is not bound by this over-determined structure as such.
in any case, i think the problem here is how to really develop an analysis after "the hangover" of structural marxism, without falling into just dimissing it all as some bad party that went wild (to reduce it to some free for all by a suburban pool). for one that would entirely miss how and why it from the start aimed to break from what became euro communism (and why), how it offereed a particular critique of humanism (which does not mean to be inhuman or lack compassion), and stand in contrast to the stagnancy of euro stalinism etc.
I have an essay on "The negative dialectic of Marxism" included in the book Marxism and Politics that addresses this issue of the historical symptom of rejection of Hegelian dialectics (by e.g. Althusser et al.) as a rejection of Stalinism as a form of Right Hegelianism or of the affirmative or positive dialectic.
The issue of structuralism (anthropological as well as linguistic) is different in that it attacks the idea and reality of the subject falsely as it appears under capitalism and turns subjectivity into a function of culture.
On the linguistic front it goes to Lacan's "the unconscious is structured like a language" and treats language and thus the psyche as a technology in Heidegger's sense.
Of course I uphold Adorno on the dialectical critique of such reification as necessary form of appearance of reality in capitalism, with its highest object the proletarian struggle for socialism itself. As Marx put it, "The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth - i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question."
On post-structuralism I think that Marxism with its roots in bourgeois philosophy is much better on agency and subjectivity in history.
@@ccutrone im not sure that i understand your first first paragraph here but if you are saying that structural marxism rejection of (euro) stalinism (economism, social realist humanism, etc.) was a rejection of Right Hegelianism: yes, at the time Hegelian logic/analysis was largely taught and understood as rightist by and large, in France. which tended to skew many french marxist analysis at the time (making it excessively spinozist at turns).
not sure that structural anthropology then or now reduces the subject into a 'function" of culture. for one they are by no means functionalists. My main aim here was to drive as to what is of use , and so why wanted to emphasize the synchronic difference (relation between elements in a system -- in difference from a historicist or narrativistic ordering of events in time -- which does not mean purely once and for all abandoning any recourse or use of historicizing etc.) . Arguably you have this consistently in how Marx analyzes the structure of say the commodity, the work day etc.
in regards to Lacan and his innovative use of structural linguistics (he makes some key differences in relation to the role of the signifier, for example), its largely, in many key ways an extension of Freud's emphasis on diplacement, condensation, etc. but with reconsidered tools of structural linguistics, allowing for greater precision actually. Lacanian psychoanalysis is not a subset of heidegerrian post-metaphysics, though in Lacan's earlier seminars heideggerian concepts play a role (less and less so as he moves into re-considering the Real) . the famous "the unconscious is structured like a language" does not mean is the same as language. nor to be worked with as purely a technical device or intellectual beorgoise play thing, (wherein it turns psychoanalysis into a philosophical tennis match and there is no repression, sexuality, suffereing, etc. etc. to and of the subject (for which they have sought out analysis per se).
upholding Adorno's critique with diff types of reification (including the literature of realism that Lukacs over-idealized) is not in question, and certainly there are forms of psychologizing and psychoanalysis that largely aim to produce the 'well adjusted' etc. high functioning imaginary figure (i.e. CBT, or object relations etc.) but not sure that can be said for lacanian psychoanlysis (in general) to nearly such a degree, at all.
Stalinism was blamed on Hegelianism which led to the postmodernist rejection of Marxism and of the dialectic per se. Anything and everything (e.g. Spinoza) was dredged up against Hegel and ultimately Marxism. It wasn't a deliberate programme but a phenomenon of the failure of and disenchantment with "Marxism" (Stalinism, but more deeply) -- the failure of proletarian socialist revolution, which used to be much more keenly felt in the mid-20th century when it was still within living memory by contrast with today. Today we just have "philosophies"/"theories"/"methods" etc. with no actual substance in relation to the world but just a more or less narcissistically captivating mental game.
@@ccutrone but dont you think that is in part due to the erosion of labor politics in 'the west'? ... i mean from pullman strike times repression on rad worker union movement (which explicity sought for revolution, vis a vis "wobbly" action etc. etc) -- then fast fwd to post-war years , and the rise of hannah arendt liberal capitalist realism policy (capitalism is crap but its better then fascism/totalitarian state) ..which pushed/pulled for a keynesian logic of labor having rights, union powers etc. (as long as dont aim for more then two car garage, type thing or in europe etc. a full scale welfare state, including access to decent housing, good education, etc.) , and then with various crisis in late 60s (fall of rate of profit among others), the eviseration of "fordism" and then rise of neo liberalism (which not only instituted end of capital flight restrictions but also ramped up repression of labor politics in a new way in the west)... so in a kind of long dure of capitalist dominance (or beorgoise modes of production as Marx often put it) ... we now have pockets of radical marxist theory, and very little organization in a classical labor politics way... (?) or is this too simplistic a way to read the history so to say?
Yes there are deep questions to this history. From my perspective Marxism failed and was not merely defeated. And yet it still speaks to us today - despite the manifest failure of proletarian socialism more widely.
The question of worker militancy is a separate issue, since it still exists especially in newly industrialized regions - which can also include deindustrialized and reindustrialized areas - that could lead to a more unified movement. I do think there's an ideological problem regarding reforming capitalism and calling that "socialism." And of course Stalinism stands as an ideological problem as well: will American or European or really any workers anywhere want things to become like China? No.
Educate me
Marx was a practitioner of "muddled speech " Only by waking up to a much more dystopian reality can we start to see.
As someone that learned a great deal from reading Grossman can somebody clarify exactly where he goes wrong prior to his Stalinism? Or perhaps the problem is how he is being taken up by his acolytes?
Grossman is unequivocal that his interpretation of Marx presupposes a working class organising for socialism. There is no crisis without both the objective and subjective factors. In his private letters he laments the fact that he was being interpreted as saying a crisis was automatic, in the sense that his account did not require a working class organised for socialism. He is a 2nd International Marxist so of course he takes this for granted.
He also has an account of capital reconstituting itself which becomes increasingly destructive the longer capitalism drags itself out - is this being interpreted as a terminal crisis? And as far as there being a ‘final crisis’, I interpreted this as saying the final crisis of capitalism (and thus the revolution for socialism) will necessarily meet the conditions he lays out. This is a direct attack on the revisionists that believed capitalism had overcome its tendency toward crisis.
Ultimately I don’t think Grossman was trying to innovate Marx at all. Rather he was trying to clarify what was at stake.
The main problem is a positivistic and hence undialectical view. This is what his eventual or default “Stalinism” means, since many pre-1917 “anti-Revisionist”/“orthodox” Marxists went along with it. Luxemburg was similarly misapprehended but then there’s a problem with how the ideas are presented. So the issues are subtle and not to be overstated. As usual it’s the -ism that’s the problem. But often thinkers can even reify their own work/ideas and compound the interpretive difficulties.
You are right, qaq89. There is nothing in Grossman's theory of crisis that is Stalinist, either voluntarist or determinist. That is why Paul Mattick takes inspiration from him. In his reply to you, Chris Cutrone Is splitting hairs.
@@felooosailing957 In the early 20c Marxism had really entered a crisis that ultimately led to its collapse. We cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand about it, only coming up for air to endlessly debate and pick sides in a dispute that was historically contingent. The historical participants may be forgiven because it’s always difficult to make sense of things while you’re participating in it - ironically this is/was the point of Marxism. On the other hand, a lot of time has passed since and we ought to take a more global view of things and with cooler heads if our constitution allows it. These are not our debates to have, they do not belong to us or our time.
The point of Chris’ comment is not to cast Grossman or the reception of Grossman’s work as the villain but rather as a symptom. It appears that even Marxism was not safe from the mid to late 19c positivist turn that capitalism demanded, whatever side of the split you were on. Making sense of all of this is extremely messy and not for the faint of heart. Admittedly I am still thinking these things through and it’s possible that I will never fully grasp the weight and significance - maybe the past really is ancient history? However I have found Chris to be an invaluable teacher through his books, articles and lectures.
@@qaq89 Grossman was not a positivist. Positivism in Marxism developed in Bersteinianism, Austro-Marxism and the Plekhanov wing of social democracy, not in the "revolutionary" wing of the Second International.
And Marxism did not enter into a crisis in the early XXth Century. It had revolution in Russia, Germany, Hungary, etc. What people call crisis Is counterrevolution.
And this has no bearing on my position on Chris Cutrone. He Is a real Communist, unlike Doug Lain.
@@felooosailing957 Have you read Chris’ ‘The Marxist Hypothesis’?
Also I’m curious to know, because you brought him up earlier, how you make sense of Mattick’s rejection of the revolutionary wing of the second international and his fundamental disagreements with figures like Luxemburg and Lenin.
Magick is real. Worship Lenin like a god and he will bless you
Lennon
Lemon
Linen
Limon
20 Yards of Lenin
Everyone who wants to see Lenin's cultural and economic ultimate legacy from common man's perspective, watch "Good buy Lenin". Or if you're adventurous and can afford it, visit Soviet monument park in Lithuania or an occupation museum in any of Baltic countries (the latter will have something beyond entertainment). Especially if you want to celebrate 100 years since his mummy.
P.S. Wooah guys, be careful discussing Ukraine and Zelensky, as you seem to be as out of touch here as vast majority of Americans. Zelensky DID NOT endorse K. Harris, because he and everyone else in that circle knows it would be judged as interferance. Even more bizarre that you're repeating this MAGA sound bite on the day Zelensky visited Trump in his own tower. Yes, it was akward. Also yes, it's Putin who publically did that endorsment, even if he did not really.. mean it.
I see you're reasonably well-read, so should get it, this one's simple. If not:
basically, Zelensky has had a close professional relationship with both Biden and Harris during the fullscale war, even if he's criticised them too. That's partnership, not endorsement. He also cheekily accepted Trump's pointless bragging about ending the war in a day saying ~ very well, go ahead, i want to see that.
Situation is like this: for Zelensky and Ukraine it's pretty important that Democrats get their president, whoever it is, as long as MAGA candidate (and their other top dogs) are the alternative. For Ukraine it's ideal that they win confidently, it's actually existential. Marginal win is dangerous for stability of US and allied aid cooperation, but still better than a MAGA win. The worst option for them (and for all of democratic US allies, especially in Europe) is Trump's win, marginal or not. Even if it seems he's unpredictable and some Trumpists imply decisive action, chances of good outcome for Europe and Ukraine are slim, based on track record of all of them. Only thing, neither Zelensky nor Rada can endorse anyone publically, as it would backfire and cause harm. That's why MAGA propagandists claim he did.
Now for Kremlin, Putin played a game called "maximum damage with words". For them, situation is nearly other way around, but this election chaos is more favourable in most case scenarios. Putin prefers Trump's win, marginal or not. However a marginal Harris' win is just about OK too, as he predicts unrest and possible crisis, for which you can bet your ass they (all their strategic communication agencies) are preparing a gigaton of oil to throw onto flames. So Harris winning by a small and predictably will-be-contested margin is nearly as beneficial as a MAGA win.
The only thing that will rain on Kremlin's plans is a confident democrat win, irrespective of the candidate. From what i've seen today, Harris already poses more difficulties to Putin than Biden. I won't comment on MAGA as you'll find out sooner or later what's been up with them and Kremlin. I see it because i live a few h drive from Russia's border and know how they think, including Putin. A few more hours after crossing that border from me in a stright line i would be in the Red square. A kamikaze and surveillance drones already hit my country recently. Hint: it's not Ukraine.
Dude, everybody knows there aren't any Soviet monuments left there. Don't bother going unless you've always wanted to march in a Nazi parade without bystanders pelting you with bottles filled with piss and calling you out as the freak you are: a revisionist, Holocaust-denying POS
Lenin was probably a genius and responsible for the only proletarian revolution ever but according to zizek it was Trotsky who convinced Lenin that he needed to take control of the trains and infrastructure etc and not just leave it up to the mob to take power and moved it beyond a protest to a real revolution.
And if one is to actually read Lenin they would understand that this is utter rubbish. It is utter rubbish to any Marxist. Let the mob take control without centralized organization and planning is more of an anarchist position.
Keynesiasm was deoendent on exploitation of the global south.(That's why even moderate social democratic systems weren't allowed there.) Technological progress will keep rolling under any political system and result in some form of improvenment in global living standards, up to a point. Now that's already reversing . A lower middle class worker in Mumbay might be better fed and own a smart phone, but his parents lived longer, while the smog will give him cancer before he's old enough to retire.
It’s hard to quantify these things since the issue is not concrete “living standards” but the increasing disparity between capital and labor, or as Marx put it the inadequacy of labor as the basis for the social appropriation of capital. Hence the need for political action.
The post-colonial developmental state was the Keynesianism in the “Global South” (not a good but a misleading category!) which involved all sorts of subsidization of the working class that came into crisis in the 1970s and more recently post-2008 but still continue - just as Keynesianism has continued in the metropolitan countries.