Post-Marxism In Terms Of Revolutionary Subjectivity Theory

Introduction

In the words of Lenin (as cited in Johari, 2005:72 in Ugumanin & Maurice, 2014) ‘‘liberal’’ or ‘‘democratic’’ a state claims to be, it is mainly an instrument for the domination, oppression, and exploitation of the economically weak class by the powerful and dominant class.

Post-Marxism is not a very straightforward term. According to Dandaneau (1992), it is a paradigm shift, a “qualitative” or “totalizing” break with Marxism. Post- Marxism can be categorized into two, one is of the view, that the development of Marx’s work was built on the principles that were always wrong while the other categories view it as building upon Marx’s principles or rather going beyond (Laclau & Mouffe, 2001: 4 in Harrison, 2012)

Aims and objectives of the article

1. To demonstrate the doubt or confusion surrounding “Post-Marxism” using the theories of revolutionary subjectivity by Laclau & Badiou.
2. To know the extent Laclau & Badiou’s theories can be considered as Post-Marxist
3. To know the extent Gramsci & Mao theories can be seen as the legacies of Laclau & Badiou in the Post-Marxist thought

Summarising the author’s theoretical framework on post-marxism

The lasting way the working class could sustain its revolutionary subjectivization was raising itself to the position of ruling class (Marx 1993: 86 in Harrison, 2012). Hence the establishment of a communist society capable of liberating and providing for all (Marx, 1992:355 in Harrison). With tactical alliances that will move beyond the economic corporate interest of the working class to integrate into a united social bloc, while Mao emphasizes on the importance of political practice, the search for knowledge and truth (Tse-Tung 1965 in Harrison, 2012).

The nexus between the author’s framework and the thinkers theory

Laclau: strategy employs the alternative logic of equivalence in which each demand becomes equivalent to one another, with at least one demand dissolving its own particularity and becoming universal. ‘Hegemony’ ( Laclau, 1996: 81 in Harrison, 2012). Gramsci’s notion of hegemony was an influence at this point. He sees the need to create a tactical ‘social bloc’ that will go beyond particularism and seeks the possibility of universality ( Laclau 200b: 299, 300 in Harrison).

Badiou: sees every event as a reaction within a particular situation, the event is seen as a highly indiscernible structural crisis that can be said to revolutionize a situation (Badiou, 2002: 72 in Harrison, 2012). Mao at this point laying emphasis on political practice becomes clear. (Badiou 2005: 207 in Harrison, 2012). Although, before an event, every situation is composed merely of individuals, not subjects. The transformation of the former into the latter only occurs through a sustained engagement with the consequences or the truth of an event itself (Badiou 200: 40; Badiou, 1999: 108 in Harrison).

Conclusion

Like Marx, Laclau and Badiou’s theory of revolutionary subjectivity all agreed on the occurrence of some form of structural or objective crisis. Although this crisis in itself is not enough to guarantee the emergence of revolutionary subjectivity. However, revolutionary subjectivity for Laclau and Badiou emerges alongside objective anomalies dislocations or events that fundamentally disrupt any historical narrative that purports to understand why, and indeed predict when, they might occur (Badiou, 2002: 16 in Harrison, 2012).

Reference

1. Dandaneau S. P. 1992. An Immanent “Critique of Post-Marxism” Current Perspectives in Social Theory 12: pp155-77
2. Harrison. O. 2012. ‘Revolutionary subjectivity in Post-Marxism thought: the case of Laclau & Badiou’, in Johnson, M. Ed. (2012), The Legacy of Marxism Contemporary Challenges, and developments. London: Continuum Press. pp. 183-98
3. Ugumanin B. O & Maurice A. C 2014. The Marxist Theory of the State: An Introductory Guide. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol 5 No 4, https://www. mcser. org (Accessed 13, October 2019)