Feng Wangzhou: Analysis of Alan Wood’s “Political Marxism’s” Totalist Criticism of Capitalism——Textual Interpretation of “The Communist Manifesto”
“Foreign Theoretical Trends”. Issue 6 , 2020
“Political Marxism” is an important academic school of contemporary foreign Marxism, which has an important influence in the British and American academic circles. Its main representatives include Robert Brenner (Robert Brenner) , Ellen Meiksins Wood , hereinafter referred to as Wood ) , George Comninel , Hannes Lacher , Benno Teschke , etc. Wood and Brenner are collectively known as the standard-bearers of “political Marxism” and are world-recognized Marxist theorists and political scientists. Wood believes that the “Communist Manifesto” is a unique text, which has been regarded as the bible of communism and the symbol of the birth of scientific socialism. A manifesto for a unique analysis of the present and the future. Wood reveals the total criticism of capitalism in the Communist Manifesto from four aspects: the bourgeoisie, historical materialism, nation-state, and socialism. Important revelation.
1. What is “Political Marxism”
“Political Marxism” was formed in the 1970s . After more than 40 years of development, three generations of academic communities have been formed . The first generation included Robert Brenner, Ellen Meiksins Wood , Neal Wood, George Corminaire, Charles Post , Harvey Kaye and others. The second generation included Hannes Rachel, Benoit Taska, Michael A. Zmolek, Samuel Knafo , Geoff Kennedy ) . The third generation includes Xavier Lafrance , Eren Duzgun and others.
The international academic community has conducted in-depth discussions on the “political Marxism” represented by Wood and Brenner, and recognized Wood and Brenner as the main founders of this school, emphasizing the significance of this school in the history of the development of Marxism. The famous British left-wing scholar Alex Callinicos (Alex Callinicos) believes that Wood adopted Brenner’s views and methods to carry out an alternative interpretation of historical materialism, and Wood rejected Guy Boyce’s interpretation of Brenner’s accusations of voluntarism, but accepts the label of “political Marxism” it constructs. Paul Blackridge specializes in “political Marxism,” of which he sees Wood and Brenner as the leading standard-bearers of a “political Marxism” that understands capitalism as a powerful system of violence, more So far any other production competition model is more effective. Georges Corminell et al. note that “Brenner’s account sparked a heated debate in which Guy Boyce dubbed Brenner’s analysis ‘political Marxism’, a term that began as Brenner’s , Wood, and others accepted ( perhaps initially reluctantly ) “. Ken Hirschkepp emphasizes that Wood is a political Marxist, along with Robert Brenner, Paul Sweezy, and Harry Magdoff in the United States , and Edward Thompson and Ralph Miliband who had close academic ties, and the “political Marxism” pioneered by Wood and Brenner emphasized the historical specificity of capitalism and the possibility of transcending it .
“Political Marxism” is based on a critique of multiple Marxist teleologies and formalisms, focusing on the analysis of pre-capitalism, contemporary capitalism, and the history of Western political thought, stimulating research across history, political theory, Research in the fields of political economy, sociology, international relations, and international political economy, and quickly exerted an important influence in the Anglo-American Marxist academic circles. It mainly revolves around the concept of social property relations (ownership) on historical class society, especially non- ( former ) Research on the development mode and form of capitalist society.
“Political Marxism” has formed its distinctive research methods and research topics on the basis of inheriting the dialectics and analytical methods of Marx’s historical materialism, which are mainly manifested in four aspects. First, it emphasizes the reconstruction of the theoretical system of historical materialism through the clarification and precise demonstration of the basic concepts of historical materialism, mainly manifested in the basis and superstructure, productivity and production relations, social property relations, civil society, , the precise definition of concepts such as the country. Second, it emphasizes the unique role of the political community in social transformation, highlights the role of political relations in social development, especially the role of social property relations, and points out that any society has a definite and unified social property relation. They highlight social property relations from complex social relations, and use them as symbols to distinguish various social forms, and analyze different types of class relations. The purpose of highlighting social property relations is not to construct abstract and static theoretical models of modes of production or of various structural levels, such as base and superstructure, but to understand and explain processes, including the history from one social formation to another The process of change also includes the specific dynamics and practices of each social formation. Thirdly, it emphasizes the particularity of capitalism and its final demise. “Political Marxism” believes that capitalism was born in Britain by accident, with historical specificity and limitations; capitalism has a very different logic than other economic systems, that is, capitalism follows social property relations The specific form of capital logic: the compulsion of competition, unlimited accumulation, the maximization of profits and the requirement to increase labor productivity. The logic of capitalism cannot be equated with the logic of the market, because markets existed in pre-capitalist societies, but capitalist forms of production had not yet taken shape at that time. Under the conditions of capitalism, capitalists and workers can only compete effectively in the market and carry out means of production and self-reproduction activities. Capitalism will die out due to the logic of capital and will be replaced by socialism. Fourth, it emphasizes the complex relationship between “economy” and “politics” of capitalism, arguing that in capitalist society, “economy” is a unique field with its own operating rules, power and forms of domination. The “political” field is separated from the “economic” field, supporting the logical expansion of capital. On the basis of the separation of “politics” and “economy”, unique class relations and social relations have been formed, enabling capitalism to form an total social system and a new configuration of social power.
Please Download for Full Text