Tag Archives: Marx

William Clare Roberts interviewed on “Dismantling Domination: What We Can Learn About Freedom From Karl Marx”

William Clare Roberts interviewed on his Marx’s Inferno: The Political Theory of Capital (2017):  “You can affirm Marx’s critical theory of the society ruled by capitalist production in every detail and then affirm that we do not yet know how to replace that society with something better.  Rather than a vision of an ideal communist society, we might take from Marx what he offers: a compelling principle of freedom, by which we can evaluate our social and political situation, and a powerful theory of how the capitalist world disregards, endangers and tramples on that freedom. What we can do about it — that we have to supply for ourselves.”

Gavin McCrea: “To celebrate May Day is to remember Marx, who showed us what capitalism is.”

“Every year, on May Day, a spectre comes to haunt us. The spectre of Karl Marx. He’s been coming since 1889, when the Second International first chose 1 May as the date for International Workers’ Day. … His presence makes us uncomfortable. He reminds us of difficult things.  Over the years, we’ve done our best to exorcise him. … It’s time we faced up to the ghost: May Day is Marx Day, whether we like it or not.”

Daniel Bensaïd: “Revolutions: Great and Still and Silent”

‘According to Merleau-Ponty, revolutions are “true as movements” and “false as regimes.” According to Mannheim, the institutional order is never anything but the “baleful residue” of Utopian hope. For Badiou, Thermidor indicates the end of the event, as sudden and miraculous as its inrush, a “betrayal of fidelity” rather than a social and historical reaction. … From Marx to Trotsky, the paradoxical formula of “revolution in permanence” indicates the problematic knot between event and history, between rupture and continuity, between the moment of action and the duration of the process. … In fact everything depends on the way the concept of revolution is articulated with historicity. In a genetic perspective, “permanent revolution” may very well be merely the false nose of a secular faith in guaranteed progress. … But “permanent revolution” may also assume a meaning contrary to the mechanical stageism (illustrated in sinister fashion in the Stalinist scriptures by the dreary chronology of modes of production): a performative and strategic meaning. It thus expresses the hypothetical and conditional link between a revolution circumscribed within a determinate space-time, and its spatial (“world revolution”) and temporal (it “necessarily develops over decades”) extension. The revolutionary transformation of the world then assumes the dimension of a “continual internal struggle” of the constituent power against its Thermidorian petrifaction.’