Democracy, Dialectics, and Difference

Hegel, Marx, and 21st Century Social Movements

Brian C. Lovato

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• eBook ISBN: 9781317363255
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Democracy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

It has been nearly two centuries since Marx famously turned Hegel on his head in order to repurpose dialectics as a revolutionary way of thinking about the internal contradictions of our social relations. Despite critiques from post-structuralists, post-colonialists, and others, there has been a resurgence of dialectical thought among political theorists as of late. This resurgence has coincided with a rise in the mention of words like class warfare, socialism, and communism among the general public on the streets of Seattle in 1999, in Cairo's Tahrir Square, in the actions of the Greek anarchists and the Spanish indignados, and in the rallying cry of "we are the 99%" of the Occupy Movement, and in academia. This book explores how it is that dialectical thought might respond to the critiques brought forth by those on the left who are critical of Marxism's universalizing and authoritarian legacy.

Brian C. Lovato singles out Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe as the key interlocutors in this ongoing conversation between Marxism and post-structuralism. Laclau and Mouffe argue that Marxist theory is inherently authoritarian, cannot escape a class-reductionist theory of revolutionary subjectivity, and is bound by a closed Hegelian ontology. Lovato argues the opposite by turning to two heterodox Marxist thinkers, Raya Dunayevskaya and C. L. R. James, in order to construct a radically democratic, dynamic, and open conceptualization of dialectical thought. In doing so, he advances a vision of Marxist theory that might serve as a resource to scholars and activists committed not only to combatting capitalism, but also to fighting against colonialism, patriarchy, white supremacy, and heteronormativity. The writings of Dunayevskaya and James allow for Marxism to become relevant again in these tumultuous early years of the 21st century.

1
Introduction

The early 21st century has found the Marxist left in an odd position. The end of the previous century ushered in an era of increased economic liberalization and democratization. For many in the public sphere, this signaled the end of a nearly century long experiment with socialism and the beginning of a golden age of prosperity and freedom. Even so, many have remained skeptical of the promises of this new era. These skepticisms have manifested themselves in the Los Angeles riots of 1992, the Chiapas uprising of 1993, the anti-WTO protests in Seattle of 1999, the factory occupations in Argentina of 2001, the riots that have torn through Greece in recent years, and most recently in the Arab Spring and Occupy movements. Furthermore, in the face of a continuing deep economic crisis, there are those on the right whose reservations about unchecked global capitalism are growing stronger on a daily basis. It is in this context that thinkers on the left must ask what the proper response to this situation (in which the salvific promise of liberal democracy and global capitalism appears to be further and further from fulfillment with each passing moment) is. This question is even more pressing for those scholars, myself included, who find themselves at the crossroads of activism and academia.

While glad to be free of the totalitarian excesses of the Soviet Union, many academic intellectuals, especially those on the left, remain wary of the promises made by the newly crowned liberal order. While the influence of Marxism has diminished in the academy, this has not meant a celebration of liberal democratic capitalism. Post-structuralists have argued that liberal society itself is just as involved with oppressive webs of power as its more explicitly oppressive counterparts; civic republicans and radical democrats criticize the lack of deep democracy under liberal regimes. Meanwhile, Marxism and Marxist-influenced thought has not disappeared and since 1999 is even experiencing a resurgence of sorts—often tinged with elements of post-structuralism, psychoanalysis, or other fashionable theoretical approaches that are usually located at the margins of academic discussions.¹

Thinkers like Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe have attempted to move beyond the structuralist Marxist critiques of capitalism by examining the discursive practices that create and recreate domination. While this work is important, it often leaves the reader feeling powerless in the face of a radically contingent reality. Others have turned to the realm of democratic theory. Thinkers like William Connolly and those using the work of Hannah Arendt today might all fall under this broad umbrella. This type of work is essential to the understanding of what it means to be political, yet it often remains entrenched within a capitalist framework despite being critical of the effects.² Finally, some academics have made an explicit return to the Marxist critique of capitalism. Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, John Holloway, and Moishe Postone have recently engaged in such a project (while incorporating elements of other traditions). More recently, Slavoj Žižek, Alain Badiou, and Jodi Dean, among others, have—perhaps in an act of deliberate contrarianism—turned directly to the idea of communism with all of its historical baggage. All of these thinkers have gone about presenting a Marxist analysis for the 21st century by critically engaging both capitalism as it exists today as well as Marx’s thought itself. It is in the spirit of this third approach that this book takes shape.

There are a handful of reasons for engaging in such a project. First, capitalism remains a powerful and alienating force in the world today. This fact seems to become more and more obvious with each passing day. Second, Marxism, at one time the critique of capitalist economics and ideology, still serves as a point of reference even for those who claim to have moved beyond it. Third, recent attempts to provide a critical analysis of the existing world order have either avoided the problem of capitalism (as is the case in much of the democratic theory literature) or, when they do engage with it, failed to offer up a preferable alternative (as is the case in much of post-structuralism—especially those elements influenced by Foucault).³ Given these three claims, it seems reasonable to reengage and reinvigorate the Marxist tradition itself.

Such an attempt at reinvigoration necessarily must respond to the critiques of Marxism put forth by the alternative approaches of critical analysis. For the purpose at hand, the post-Marxist critique offered in Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe’s Hegemony and Socialist Strategy is taken to represent the most pressing and cogent criticism of Marxism in recent decades. Laclau and Mouffe criticize Marxism for resorting to class reductionism, vulgar materialism, and an inherently authoritarian conception of politics. This book responds to these critiques by arguing for a Marxism that offers up radically democratic, libertarian politics grounded in Hegelian thought and an anti-essentialist understanding of the revolutionary subject.⁴ Each of these qualities will be unpacked in its respective place within the text; it is now critical to turn to the debates that make such an argument necessary.

The Moment of Laclau and Mouffe

Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe started a conversation that has lasted nearly three decades when they first published Hegemony and Socialist Strategy in 1985. Drawing on thinkers like Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guatarri, and Michel Foucault, Laclau and Mouffe attempt to construct a genealogy of the Marxist tradition in order to uncover its internal contradictions and to argue for their own post-Marxist conception of radical democratic practice. In doing so, Laclau and Mouffe reject the traditional Marxist emphasis on class as the primary determinant of political activity, agency, and allegiance. Laclau and Mouffe envision themselves as responding to three key failures of Marxism: first, the issue of class essentialism; second, crude materialism as an explanation for all human activity; and third, an inner kernel of totalitarianism they see as present in Marxism from the very beginning.

Despite its age, Laclau and Mouffe’s book still stands as a representation of a general sentiment toward and movement away from Marxism during the 1980s. That is, it demonstrates the attitude toward Marxism held by many intellectuals in the years prior to and after the fall of the Soviet Union. One can trace the trajectory of the movement away from Marxism beginning with the aftermath of 1968 and moving toward the eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union and its satellite states. In this sense, Laclau and Mouffe stand as one moment among many (e.g., the Polish Solidarność movement, the tragic results of the Iranian revolution, etc.); however, they are representative of this movement and offer perhaps the strongest critique of Marxism from the left. While it may be true that there never was a strong Marxist sentiment in the American academy, the appearance of Hegemony and Socialist Strategy served to further close off this community from Marxian discourse. Also, it offered an alternative radical theory to American leftists already skeptical of Marxism.⁵ Furthermore, there has been little, if any, work done to offer up a distinctly Marxist alternative to Laclau and Mouffe’s conception of radical and contingent democracy.⁶ Given this situation, it seems that it may in fact be appropriate to take up the challenge presented by Laclau and Mouffe once again in order to both better understand what they have to say and to provide an adequate response to one of the strongest criticisms of the Marxist paradigm.

Laclau and Mouffe begin this work by tracing the concept of hegemony from its origins in the crisis of Marxism at the turn of the 20th century. Both Laclau and Mouffe trace their own intellectual origins to Althusser’s brand of structural Marxism, and this is evident in the view of the Marxist tradition that they present in these chapters.⁷ By downplaying, and nearly altogether avoiding, the Hegelian aspects of Marx’s own thought, as well as within post-Marx Marxism, Laclau and Mouffe construct a particular vision of a Marxist tradition constantly grappling with the problem of class fragmentation. This is not to say that the problem of fragmentation was and is not a real one for Marxist theorists, and anti-capitalists more generally; however, the way in which the authors set up the problem relies upon their intention to highlight a particular form of diversity within various Marxist traditions—perhaps at the cost of providing a coherent image of the Marxist tradition (Laclau and Mouffe 2001, 4).

In carrying out this exercise, Laclau and Mouffe offer up the three criticisms, mentioned at the beginning of this discussion, against the Marxist tradition as they see it. First, from Luxemburg to Gramsci, despite any partial advances these thinkers make, Marxism appears to depend upon class reductionism and class essentialism. That is, in all cases, even under the most progressive conceptions of hegemonic practice, ultimately there is a class basis to all political activity.⁸ Laclau and Mouffe can see no reason for this class basis beyond a logical necessity inherent in Marxism itself. The second charge involves a crude materialist conception of history. This is connected to the charge of class essentialism but differs in key ways. To characterize Marxism as a crude materialism is to argue that Marxism claims that material factors determine ideological factors in all instances. Furthermore, this means that an unwavering base–superstructure distinction holds at all times in all contexts. This type of materialism can take the form of class essentialism, but it also has ramifications for more nuanced discussions of ideology (as present in two of Laclau and Mouffe’s mentors, Gramsci and Althusser). Finally, the charge of an inner kernel of authoritarianism can be seen in Laclau and Mouffe’s discussion of pre-Gramscian Marxism. While this authoritarianism becomes most explicit in the Leninist conception of hegemony, dependent on an external relationship to the working class through a vanguard party, it is also present in the forward-looking orthodoxy of Kautsky and even the revisionism of Bernstein. As was mentioned above, these charges are serious and do in fact carry a great deal of weight; however, part of the reason for this can be found in the particular form of the Marxist tradition that Laclau and Mouffe choose as a target. It will be argued below that the work of Dunayevskaya, James, and Castoriadis avoid these problems and represent alternatives to both this faulty form of Marxism and the post-Marxist position of Laclau and Mouffe. However, even if their charges against the Marxist tradition as a whole may not hold up, there is no reason to dismiss Laclau and Mouffe’s project in its entirety. Thus, it is now essential to turn to Laclau and Mouffe’s own conception of the antagonistic nature of social relationships and radical democracy.

The final two chapters of Hegemony and Socialist Strategy lead to an insistence upon a radically contingent politics based on the notion of antagonisms. Antagonisms result from a confrontation with the Other in which the subject can no longer fully be itself—Laclau and Mouffe argue that this arises due to the impossibility of totalities (Laclau and Mouffe 2001, 125).⁹ Indeed, antagonisms represent the limits or frontiers of any given subject position. This idea of the frontier and of the impossibility of closed totalities leads back to the Gramscian conception of hegemony in which various subject positions are linked through articulating practices, but none of these linkages or positions are viewed as necessary, essential, or foundational. It is from this ground that Laclau and Mouffe construct their vision of radical democracy in a social universe based upon contingency and discursive construction of subject positions. They look to the new social movements outside of traditional labor movements as examples of democratic struggles not grounded upon essentialist notions. Laclau and Mouffe recognize in these movements the articulation and diffusion of conflict to an ever greater number of relations. They claim that this represents both a qualitative change in the social relations themselves and an expansion of the democratic imaginary into other fields of social reality (Laclau and Mouffe 2001, 159–161). Furthermore, the claim is made that this highlights the crisis of any concept of a unitary political subject, especially one bound up with a necessary class character.

This leads into what they call a radical and plural conceptualization of democracy. Within this radically plural field of political action, they argue that there are no necessary links between struggles (they use the examples of anti-capitalism and anti-sexism), and these struggles can be linked using a hegemonic strategy if and only if they are allowed to maintain their separateness. ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Radical Democracy in the Marxist Tradition
• 3 Hegel as Revolutionary: Reconsidering Marxism’s Philosophical Heritage
• 4 New Forces of Resistance: Anti-Essentialist Revolutionary Subjectivity in Marxist Theory
• 5 Beyond the Politics of Difference: Foundations of a Critical Marxism for the 21st Century
• Index