Why not Marx?
Yonathan
in postmodernism. Why doesn't Marx, or a _Marx for Beginners_, ever come
up? Can't answers to the present (today's) condition of confusion be found
in Marx's 'historical materialism'? Doesn't historical materialism dictate
that change in ideology/culture/society is inevitable as it is challenged
by newer economic developments that solidify class(es) that is (are) in a
position to challenge and change the economic mode of production? That is,
isn't it a possibility that we are approaching a different epoch in history
today? What does postmodernism have to say about this, our present
situation other than the fact that it is different and multi-layered?
Marx's method of 'historical materialism,' it seems to me, would have both
an answer to today's condition as well as a vision. Is it because Marxism
has an answer (though many answers) and a vision of socialism that it is
not considered postmodern? This leads me full circle to my first and so far
only non-rhetorical declarative statement, i.e., I believe it is necessary
to understand Marxism and modernity before reading on postmodern theories.
Perhaps some anti-Marxist post-modernist has shown the inconsistencies of
that dynamic idea called historical materialism. If so, who is it and what
does she say?
--Yonathan
Kennan Ferguson
Of course one needs understand Marx to understand much of what folks in this
group like to sling under this rubric of "Postmodern." One also needs to
understand Kant, and Hegel, and Nietzsche and Freud. Of course, as many
Heideggerians have pointed out, one can not understand them independently
of the uses to which they are put in our present society. For most
of us, it is impossible to read what the Straussians want us to read:
the "Text itself."
In other words, one should not (as you seem to want to do) read authors
as if all they do is fit one way or another into Marx's categories.
(see the most recent issue of _strategies_ for examples).
Also, for the person who was complaining about Lacan's impenetrability,
can I recommend Zizek?
Andy Perry
In article <ydessal1-2...@mac04.worth2.swarthmore.edu>,
ydes...@cc.swarthmore.edu (Yonathan ) wrote:
Hi, Yonathan! 'Tsup? I see you're living in Worth now...Anyway:
Marxism is very contested territory at the moment. To the point where some
people capitalize it and others (very pointedly) don't. Always a sign that
something's up. I believe the previous response to your message talked
about the uses to which Marx is put these days. You might want to take a
look at them. Jameson's a good place to look, as is Althusser. Also
materialist feminism, such as Teresa De Lauretis, or Rosemary Hennessy,
among many others. There's a major trend right now, arguably picking up
from Althusser, towards trying to save marxism by denying the simple
economic base/superstructure model to which you allude above. One strand
of this trend leads straight into marxist cultural studies and Stuart Hall,
who you might also want to check out.
The problem with understanding Marx before reading postmodern theory is
that readings of one determine the other, so that it's really quite hard to
get a fix on what a "pure" reading of either would look like. Same thing
holds true for any of the other big name precusors mentioned around here.
It's no more possible (for me, anyway) to read Hegel, Marx, Freud, or
Nietzsche in a non-postmodern way than it is (for example) to read Foucault
in a non-Nietzschean way.
I will say, I think that if you attempt to retain a Marxist model wherein
everything is reducible to the economic, you're in trouble. Rather, you
should try to expand your conception of what might count as "production."
(Not to mention refusing to privilege "production" over "reproduction.")
--
Andy Perry Struggling myself don't mean a whole lot;
Brown University I've come to realize
Dept of English That teaching others to stand up and fight
Andrew...@Brown.edu OR Is the only way our struggle survives.
st00...@Brownvm.bitnet -- Sweet Honey in the Rock
Jason Lamport
ydes...@cc.swarthmore.edu (Yonathan ) writes:
[A whole buncha stuff about Marx, deleted to save precious usenet
bandwidth...]
Part of the reason we don't discuss Marx is because in many ways
postmodernism was a revolt _against_ the older generation of Marxists that
had become a dominating force in the liberal sectors of academia around
the 50s and 60s. In many ways, Marxism is the modernist historical theory
_par_excellence_. I'm not saying that this is a reason not to read him.
In fact this is a reason _to_ read him, because in many ways one can't
understand postmodernism until one understands modernism (and even
vice-versa). But this _is_ a reason why one wouldn't want to put him down
as a "postmodern" thinker.
I don't know much about Marxist theory, so correct me if what I say is
incorrect, but as I understand it, "historical materialism" is precisely
that sort of meta-narrative which Lyotard defines as the antithesis of
postmodernism. Moreover, "historical materialism" is not only a
meta-narrative, but a _teleological_ one at that. These days, most people
will just laugh at you if you try to say that there is actually a
"purpose" to history.
As for "postmodern" refutations of historical materialism, see Lyotard.
For a not-so-postmodern refutation, see C.S. Lewis's essay "On
Historicism". I believe it's in the collection called "The Seeing Eye".
The similarities between C.S. Lewis and postmodernists like Lyotard are in
many cases striking.
-jason
(no, I don't have a cute .sig file. and I NEVER use smileys.)
Alan Rosiene (Humanities)
I have yet to see it, but advance word sounds very promising.
Some of us have been waiting for this for a long time (cf. D's tantalizing
remarks in "Positions" (60ff.) when pressed by Houdebine to express
an opinion--any opinion--on dialectical materialism).
I'm somewhat surprised that no one has mentioned Baudrillard's _Mirror of
Production_ which, in a nutshell, criticizes Marx's emphasis upon
"productivity" and "labor" as defining characteristics of man. A very
good read, especially for the more theoretical Marxists.
Guattari and Negri's _Communists Like Us_ is a breezy take on the postmod
condition of Marx. Negri especially knows of what he speaks.
I also note that Semiotext(e) put out a volume entitled _Rethinking
Marxism: Struggles in Marxist Theory_. This surely would be a good
place to start; does anyone know the work?
Alan
Michael Sean Rooney
>in Marx's 'historical materialism'?
Maybe. It depends on what exactly we are to consider
"the present", or even the present "today", not to mention the
grandiose-sounding edifice of "Marx's 'historical materialism'".
> Doesn't historical materialism dictate
>that change in ideology/culture/society is inevitable as it is challenged
>by newer economic developments that solidify class(es) that is (are) in a
>position to challenge and change the economic mode of production?
Perhaps. Again, we might ask what is this "historical
materialism" which is doing the "dictating" of which you speak.
It sounds familiar enough, reminiscent of some scribblings I
might have read somewhere, sometime, under the names of Marx
and Engels. But then again, from the generality of your paraphrase,
it seems I could have picked this out of some Muscovite grade school
propaganda. Or perhaps it was Alvin Toffler. But, again, maybe.
> That is,
>isn't it a possibility that we are approaching a different epoch in history
>today?
Sure. I know every time I fasten my belt, I feel the
distinct possibility of a different world-historical epoch
drawing nigh. I think I feel one coming on right now. Or maybe
that's just a cold sore. Or has it already passed? And if so,
what would be the difference, having passed this different
epoch? Could a bit of ultrasound therapy help it pass with
less historical anxiety? Or have we already passed that approach?
> What does postmodernism have to say about this, our present
>situation other than the fact that it is different and multi-layered?
I don't know. Maybe you should find this "postmodernism",
so provocative yet elusive, and ask him/her/it yourself. Get
a photo ID while you're at it, so people stop asking what it
is. And, for me, ask if our present situation, in addition to
being multi-layered, also has rainbow sprinkles.
>Marx's method of 'historical materialism,' it seems to me, would have both
>an answer to today's condition as well as a vision. Is it because Marxism
>has an answer (though many answers) and a vision of socialism that it is
>not considered postmodern?
Maybe. Dianetics also has an answer (though, also,
many answers) and a vision, and it is not considered postmodern,
at least, not by the Great Considerers who consider these
things (and they are also known as das Man). Nietzsche spoke
of a vision, but no answer, only a riddle. Or was that
Zarathustra speaking?
> This leads me full circle to my first and so far
>only non-rhetorical declarative statement,
Oh, so those were rhetorical declaratives, ergo, ideology,
ergo, superstructure, ergo, phantasms of the machinations of the
class struggle, Q.E.D. Why, then, did you bother with such
meaningless expenditures of the history-making force of labor?
Or are you perhaps a tool of bourgeois ideology? Might it not
be the case that your statement's preface above is also
rhetorical? You do not include it as non-rhetorical, in fact,
you specifically state that this statement (which we have not
yet gotten to) will be your "only" non-rhetorical statement --
thus the above "statement" is rather suspect. And thus, also,
your supposedly "non-rhetorical" one below. To wit:
> i.e., I believe it is necessary
>to understand Marxism and modernity before reading on postmodern theories.
>Perhaps some anti-Marxist post-modernist has shown the inconsistencies of
>that dynamic idea called historical materialism. If so, who is it and what
>does she say?
Well, now I don't know if you're being rhetorical or
not. Moreover, you're still using these confusing, almost
rhetorical words -- "Marxism", "modernity", "postmodern". And
it is difficult to discern whether or not you have followed
your own (possibly rhetorical) declaration, "to understand
Marxism and modernity". It does seem questionable, although,
to be sure, that would hardly be an "answer" (let alone the
answer, or many answers). I do know that Derrida has just
finished a book on Marx, to be published soon (but not, perhaps,
in time for that approaching historical epoch). Oh, but he's
not fashionably postmodern, to say nothing of that very non-
postmodern practice, the nerdish act of reading. Tut-tut.
Cordially,
Michael S. Rooney
"I tell you what I think in a very, very rough way. I do not find
in *any* discourse *whatsoever* in this century anything illuminating
enough for this period." -- J.D., 5/18/86
kevin sawad brooks
--
"This is a signature?"