M-L-M Mayhem!

Since I discussed, in an earlier post , the problem with hasty marxist dismissals of what is generally termed "postmodernism" (which includes post-structuralism and post-colonialism), I feel that it is important to discuss what is needed for a proper historical materialist critique of this phenomenon.  For though I argued that most marxist critiques of this phenomenon haven't been very helpful, and that there is much that postmodernism can teach us as marxists, I also feel that in order to have a helpful critique of this phenomenon that can possibly utilize some of the postmodernist insights it needs to be placed within a proper historical materialist framework.  After all, postmodernists have accused marxists of being totalizing  and, since we marxists think this totalizing aspect of our theory is its strength, then we should begin by doing what only historical materialism can do––to all phenomena including itself––and that is to examine postmodernism's social and hi

It has now become something of a rite of passage for those of us who declare fidelity to marxist theory––especially those of us who are also academics––to spend some time and energy bashing that semi-unified field of theory which falls under the rubric post : post-modernism, post-structuralism, post-marxism, and post-colonialism.  Obviously, since this post tradition has often set itself up as a radical rejection of the "totalizing" theory of marxism, those marxists who encounter Foucault, Butler, Spivak, Said, etc. usually feel that they must mount a counter-defense for marxism.  Especially since this post  theoretical terrain, like marxism, often seeks to set itself up as a rejection of capitalism.  So almost every year there's at least one marxist text devoted to attacking the Foucaults and Butlers of the world, generally in the hope of proving that these theorists are all secret liberals who have nothing important to say. Clearly, when it comes to the revolutionar

The other day, the good folks of r/communism  attempted to start a "communist of the day" discussion around Karl Liebknecht .  Although the post produced very little discussion, it made me remember how I always intended to read Liebknecht.  So yesterday I dusted off the copy of Liebknecht's Militarism  (which I have since learned is only half of a larger work, Militarism and Anti-Militarism ) that I procured at a book sale nearly two years ago and have just finished reading all 178 pages. (On a side note, I'd like to say that the r/communism moderators––who I know from outside of the reddit world––have done an excellent job of producing a subreddit where, unlike r/socialism, radical thought is actually promoted and in a decidedly non-sectarian manner.  And though the quality of r/communism will not convince me to join the reddit community, it has caused me to lurk this tiny corner of the reddit universe on a semi-regular basis.  So without participating on reddit

Back from a brief vacation with a long post that will probably annoy some people, but is the result of a long-standing annoyance... By now I am getting extremely annoyed with a certain discourse around sex work that has become popular amongst some sectors of the North American (and occasionally European) left.  Originally a discourse that was limited to lifestyle [and predominantly male] anarchists, as well as a few hippy sex fetishists, the political assertion that sex work is liberating, and that the liberating potential of sex work should be treated as part of a radically progressive politics, is now being embraced by the broader left-wing population and gaining the support of so-called feminists, socialists and communists who should know better.  Indeed, the unqualified pro-prostitution position is being treated by some as a litmus test for numerous radical commitments as it is now attached to, and turned into a falsely essential component of, feminism, queer and trans libera

[continued from earlier post...] II - knowledge and power as contested I want to return to the point I made earlier about historical materialism as being able to explain why both incorrect and correct interpretations can be made of socio-historical facts. In a very general sense, bad theory leads to bad explanations––as with my rhetorical example of the medical doctor, or in my real example from the Visual Studies Reader. In a more specific sense, though, incorrect explanations are caused by ideology. In The German Ideology Marx and Engels define ideology as: The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e., the class which is the ruling material force in society is at the same time its ruling intellecutal force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production, so that the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are on the whole subject to it. The ruling ideas are n