Three problems of neo-Marxism, or What you need to know before using a neo-Marxist approach

Authors

Keywords:

dialectics, ideology, capitalism, criticism, development of Marxism, neo-Marxism, problems of cognition, scientism

Abstract

The maturity of the neo-Marxist approach in cognition is determined not only by the heuristics of its theoretical and methodological foundations, but also by self-critical reflection. Three initial problems of the neo-Marxist approach are identified, which are useful to take into account when using it in scientific research: excessive criticism of neo-Marxist cognition, ideological bias of the neo-Marxist approach, conceptual uncertainty of capitalism as an object of neo-Marxism. It is proved that the ideological component is falsely identified with all neo-Marxism, and the critical component is treated trivially. The problem of the neo-Marxist approach lies not in the fact of a negative judgment about the reality under study, but in the level of theoretical and methodological support for the critical approach. It is necessary to distinguish criticism as a negative judgment and criticism as a dialectical logic of negation. The researcher can avoid the critical and ideological component of neo-Marxist research within the framework of the scientific tradition of neo-Marxism. This tradition does not deprive the researcher of the possibility of scientific search for new socio-economic reasons for the transformation of capitalism or new political ones by the subject of anti-capitalist resistance. The difference is that the ideological goal setting orients the researcher to the construction of the revolutionary situation of capitalism, and the scientific one – to the knowledge of the revolutionary factors of the existing «capitalist construct». More complex problem of the neo-Marxist approach is the conceptual uncertainty of capitalism. This problem requires a solution at the level of the community of neo-Marxist theorists. The unresolved nature of this problem affects the initial positions of new neo-Marxist studies. It does not allow us to define capitalism as an object of neo-Marxist research of any subject orientation. There are two options for a research strategy in this situation. First, it is possible, based on the conventional concept of truth, to join some neo-Marxist definition of modern capitalism and implement one’s subject research within the framework of the tradition of a particular neo-Marxist theorist. Secondly, it is possible to use the hypothetical-deductive method and proceed from the chosen understanding of capitalism as a hypothetical position, where the author’s subject of research is constituted as a consequence of this hypothesis and requires a verification check for truth. The solvability of general neo-Marxist epistemological problems means that there are no obstacles to the widespread application of neo-Marxism in social cognition.

Author Biography

  • Vadzim S. Mikhailouski, Belarusian State University, 4 Niezaliežnasci Avenue, Minsk 220030, Belarus

    PhD (political science), docent; associate professor at the department of political science, faculty of law

References

  1. Khorkkhaimer M, Adorno TV. Dialektika prosveshcheniya [Dialectic of Enlightenment]. Moscow: Medium; 1997. 310 p. Co-published by the «Yuventa». Russian.
  2. Furs VN. Kontury sovremennoi kriticheskoi teorii [Contours of the modern critical theory]. Minsk: European Humanities University; 2002. 164 p. Russian.
  3. Gottfried PE. The strange death of Marxism. Columbia: University of Missoury Press; 2005. 176 p. Russian edition: Gottfried P. Strannaya smert’ marksizma. Pinsker B, translator. Moscow: IRISEN; 2009. 249 p. Co published by the «Mysl’».
  4. Marcuse H. Reason and revolution. 2nd edition. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1955. 453 p. Russian edition: Marcuse H. Razum i revolyutsiya. Shuberev AP, translator. Saint Petersburg: Vladimir Dal’; 2000. 541 p.
  5. Shavel SA. Heuristic perspective of Marxist sociology: to the 200th anniversary of Karl Marx birthday. Journal of the Belarusian State University. Sociology. 2018;1:47–62. Russian.
  6. Adorno TV. Negativnaya dialektika [Negative dialektic]. Moscow: Akademicheskii proekt; 2011. 538 p. Russian.
  7. Marković M. The idea of critique in social theory. The Praxis International. 1983;2:108–120.
  8. Gobozov IA. [L. Althusser – an outstanding French Marxist philosopher of the 20th century]. Filosofiya i obshchestvo. 2014;1:146–163. Russian.
  9. Shikhardin NV. Frantsuzskii neomarksizm: protivostoyanie gumanizma i stsientizma [French neo-Marxism: the confrontation of humanism and scientism]. Kurgan: Izdatel’stvo Kurganskogo universiteta; 2009. 132 p. Russian.
  10. Cohen GA. Karl Marx’s theory of history: a defence. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2001. 442 p.
  11. Wrigh EO. [What is analytical Marxism?]. Voprosy ekonomiki. 2007;9:121–138. Russian.
  12. Lukach G. Istoriya i klassovoe soznanie. Issledovanie po marksistskoi dialektike [History and class consciousness: studies in Marxist dialectics]. Moscow: Logos-Al’tera; 2003. 416 p. Russian.
  13. Reich W. Dialectical materialism and psychoanalysis. Pod znamenem marksizma. 1929;7–9:180–206. Russian.
  14. Lepeshko BM. The French ideology. Journal of the Belarusian State University. Sociology. 2018;2:113–121. Russian.
  15. Zapesotski AS. 50th anniversary of the youth revolution: version, results, lessons. Journal of Belarusian State University. Sociology. 2018;2:105–112. Russian.
  16. Poster M. [Merleau-Ponty’s existential Marxism: the view of Mark Poster]. Khora. 2008;3:31–40. Russian.
  17. Zhizhek S, Ruda F, Khamza A. Chitat’ Marksa [Read Marx]. Moscow: Higher School of Economics; 2019. 176 p. Russian.
  18. Althusser L. Za Marksa [For Marx]. Moscow: Praksis; 2006. 392 p. Russian.
  19. Marcuse G. [The end of utopia]. Logos. 2004;6:18–23. Russian.
  20. Althusser L. [Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes for the study)]. Neprikosnovennyi zapas. 2011;3:14–58. Russian.
  21. Markuze G. Eros i tsivilizatsiya [Eros and civilisation]. Moscow: AST; 2003. 528 p. (Philosophy). Russian.
  22. Shchedrovitskii PG. [Marxism is not only Marx]. In: Guseinov AA, Tolstykh VI, editors. Osvobozhdenie dukha [Liberating the spirit]. Moscow: Politizdat; 1991. p. 332–335. Russian.

Downloads

Published

2021-10-08

Issue

No. 3 (2021): Journal of the Belarusian State University. Sociology

Section

To Know so that to Foresee...

License

The authors who are published in this journal agree to the following:

  1. The authors retain copyright on the work and provide the journal with the right of first publication of the work on condition of license Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial. 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).
  2. The authors retain the right to enter into certain contractual agreements relating to the non-exclusive distribution of the published version of the work (e.g. post it on the institutional repository, publication in the book), with the reference to its original publication in this journal.
  3. The authors have the right to post their work on the Internet (e.g. on the institutional store or personal website) prior to and during the review process, conducted by the journal, as this may lead to a productive discussion and a large number of references to this work. (See The Effect of Open Access.)

How to Cite

[1]
Mikhailouski, V.S. 2021. Three problems of neo-Marxism, or What you need to know before using a neo-Marxist approach. Journal of the Belarusian State University. Sociology. 3 (Oct. 2021), 38–46. DOI:https://doi.org/10.33581/2521-6821-2021-3-38-46.