Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe: Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. Second edition. London: Verso, 2014.
First published in 1985, reissued with a new preface a decade after the collapse of the Soviet empire derailed Marxist ‘praxis’ in Central and Eastern Europe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy has become a touchstone for the newer iterations of the New Left, the Left that departed from many if not all of the tenets of ‘scientific socialism’ as formulated by Marx and Engels, and especially as it had been propounded by V. I. Lenin. Precisely because Marxism attempts to unify theory and practice, the initial success of Leninist Marxism in Russia and its failure elsewhere (notably in Germany), funneled socialists into Marxism-Leninism. Prior to the Bolshevik revolution, the authors contend, Marxian thought had become “increasingly diversified,” but after it this “creative process” was derailed. Initially, the divergent voice of Antonio Gramsci, raised in the 1920s, received no fair hearing from mainstream socialists. This is no longer so, as “the problems of a globalized and information-ruled society are unthinkable” within the frameworks of either the idealist-Hegelian or the Marxist-materialist versions of historicism.
Marxist materialism, especially, centered on socioeconomic classes as the drivers of ‘history,’ i.e., the course of human events. Socioeconomic classes are sub-political groupings. Laclau and Mouffe vindicate a political understanding of socialism, and of modernity generally. Modern political life, even in commercial republics, isn’t simply dominated by economics and by the ‘capitalists’ who enjoy considerable sway within them. Politics has its own integrity as an independent variable, as it were, in the course of events, influenced by but also influencing social and economic life. Marxism additionally suffers from an epistemological deficiency, “the illusion of immediacy.” That is, its proponents assume that reality presents itself to our minds, through our senses, very much as it is, with little regard to the filters imposed by language and other ‘cultural’ phenomena. This is reminiscent of Socrates’ criticisms of the Greek natural philosophers and his turn to political philosophy, but Laclau and Mouffe are Socratic in no other way. They cite such philosophers as Wittgenstein, Heidegger, the structuralists, and the deconstructionists as the relevant critics of epistemological “immediacy.” Behind them all is Nietzsche with his doctrine of the will to power, oriented as it is not to seeking truth but to enhancing life, very much in opposition to Socratic inquiry. Nietzsche follows Machiavelli and subsequent ‘moderns,’ who reduce politics to power, a motif the New Left has continued. Laclau and Mouffe borrow the term ‘hegemony’ from Gramsci; for him, the heart of ‘politics’ is power, not only physical but ‘cultural’—the power intellectual frameworks exert upon our thoughts, and through thoughts our actions. To understand politics as hegemony “retriev[es] an act of political institution that finds its source and motivation nowhere but in itself.” Human beings can choose their political actions; those actions are “contingent,” not simply determined by sub-political forces that drive it on. “This privileging of the political moment in the structuration of society is an essential aspect of our approach.” If politics is to some important degree self-determining, one of the most important ‘scientific’ predictions of Marxism-Leninism cannot be true; there can be no “withering away of the state,” as Lenin claims in The State and Revolution.
Further, the fundamental cause of ‘history,’ the famous dialectic of class conflict Marx posits, cannot account for what Laclau and Mouffe call “social antagonism.” “Antagonisms are not objective relations,” susceptible to scientific explanation and prediction, “but relations that reveal the limits of all objectivity,” limits seen precisely in the importance of free choice, of ‘subjectivity,’ in class conflict and politics alike. “There is no ‘cunning of reason'”—whether guided by Hegel’s Absolute Spirit or Marx’s dialectical materialism—which “would realize itself through antagonistic relations.” Social antagonism is quite real, and political conflict registers that reality, but it doesn’t work the way Marx said it did, and it therefore should not issue in a regime of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’—in practice the dictatorship of a political party, often itself dictated to by a tyrant. The authors favor not tyranny or oligarchy but a regime of “democratic socialism.” It will remain to be seen if that is not itself a contradiction in terms.
However that may be, the authors wish “that the collapse of the Soviet model would have given a renewed impetus to democratic socialist parties,” instead of discrediting socialism itself and empowering “neo-liberalism,” as seen in the administrations of Margaret Thatcher in Great Britain and Ronald Reagan in the United States. As of the turn of this century, socialists themselves had retreated, “redefining themselves euphemistically as ‘center-left'” parties. Consistent with their political approach, Laclau and Mouffe demand regime change, revolution, “the establishment of a new hegemony,” a new power structure. “No doubt it is a good thing that the Left has finally come to terms with the importance of pluralism and of liberal-democratic institutions, but the problem is that this has been accompanied by the mistaken belief that it meant abandoning any attempt at transforming the present hegemonic order.” What is needed, then, is a regime of “liberty and equality” that extends “the democratic struggles for equality and liberty to a wider range of social relations,” as Left elaborates “a credible alternative to the neo-liberal order, instead of simply trying to manage it in a more humane way.” This will require, among other things redefining the adversaries of the Left. There is no such thing as “a non-exclusive public sphere of rational argument,” since regimes always define what is just and what is unjust, including and excluding as they go. “We will never be able to leave our particularities completely aside in order to act in accordance with our rational self.” But socialists should nonetheless strive to approximate “a harmony that we cannot attain” in practice. More egalitarian distribution of economic goods, yes; more egalitarian distribution of social ‘recognition’ (older writers would have said, ‘honors’), yes to that, as well. “Our motto is: ‘Back to the hegemonic struggle,”” the regime struggle that socialist preoccupation with sub-political causation and ’causes’ had obscured.
In constituting a new socialist strategy, socialist organizers have a much more complex task than that envisioned by Marxists. Feminism, ethnic and national ‘movements,’ demands for ‘gay rights,’ environmentalism, anti-nuclear protest, struggles “in countries on the capitalist periphery,” all “imply an extension of social conflictuality [sic] to a wide range of areas, which creates the potential, but no more than the potential, for an advance towards more freed, democratic and egalitarian societies.” The proletariat can no longer serve as the central organizing point for socialists, as it now stands exposed as “the illusory prospect of a perfectly unitary and homogeneous collective will that will render pointless the moment of politics.” Today’s social struggles are too “plural and multifarious” to make such a simplistic conception of society plausible in theory or useful in practice. ‘History’ as conceived by the Left, ‘Society’ as conceived by the Left, as intellectually comprehensible and practically ruled as if rational and transparent, susceptible to “a founding act of a political character,” a ‘social contract,’ can no longer be sustained. “Today, the Let is witnessing the final act of the dissolution of that Jacobin imaginary.” Marxism’s “monist aspiration to capture with its categories the essence or underlying meaning of History,” seen in its bestowal of an “ontologically privileged position of a ‘universal class,'” the proletariat, must be abandoned. But Marxism in its several permutations formulated between the death of Engels and the ascendancy of Lenin must be understood, as its theorists at that time already understood many of the problems inherent in the original theory. As early as the 1890s, a century before the failure of the Marxist-Leninist regimes and indeed some two decades before the founding of the Soviet Union, these theorists understood that Marxism was in crisis.
The key concept of hegemony arose as the response to that crisis—again, well before Gramsci, although he would articulate it better than his predecessors. The authors begin with Rosa Luxemburg and her book, The Mass Strike, the Political Party and the Trade Unions. Published in 1906, it addressed the violent labor conflicts that has wracked Europe for the past ten years or more. Luxemburg believed the mass strike a means of uniting the working class on the road to revolution in Europe. She therefore needed to connect economic struggle with political struggle. In Germany, unlike Russia, the working class was fragmented, thanks to parliamentarism, which reflects the ordinary “course of bourgeois society,” in which “the economic struggle is split into a multitude of individual struggles in every undertaking and dissolved in every branch of production.” This fragmentation could only be “overcome in a revolutionary atmosphere.” Social democrats, she wrote, must show the proletariat “the inevitable advent of this revolutionary period, the inner social factors making for it and the political consequences of it.” The workers will then see the part their actions take in the larger “struggle against the system,” “the revolutionary process as a whole.” The spontaneous, contingent character of these events (it contemporary equivalent being the ‘flash mob’) exceeds the control or planning of trade union or political ‘leaders,’ many of whom are already compromised by the commercial and parliamentary life within the Kaiser Reich.
Laclau and Mouffe applaud Luxemburg’s attempt to link economic and political struggle. But she failed to understand that economic and class struggles do not automatically cohere. Economic class partakes of necessity; spontaneous political action partakes of freedom. Each is “the purely negative reverse of the other.” Political subjects do not necessarily act in their economic-class interests, and the failure to see that this blinds socialists who are too committed to the determinist theory orthodox Marxism. The struggles against imperialism, the fights against fascism, the complexity of meeting the challenges posed by bourgeois reforms intended to perpetuate capitalism—all of these reveal not determinism but indeterminacy. All raise questions that require “a socialist answer in a politico-discursive universe that has witnessed a withdrawal of the category of ‘necessity’ to the horizon of the social.”
Luxemburg was reacting to the passive, more or less apolitical democratic socialism of Karl Kautsky. If ‘History’ marches on, whatever human beings say or do, Kautsky, writing in the 1890s, assumed that socialists need only wait, propagandizing and organizing, reinforcing working-class identities without much political action at all. As he put it, “Our task is not to organize the revolution but to organize ourselves for the revolution; not to make the revolution but to take advantage of it.” In this “war of attrition,” allies beyond the working class are useless, or even worse than useless, because they must, as per Marx, become increasingly ‘reactionary’ as the revolutionary crisis nears. Capitalism will change and eventually collapse, “but this change is nothing more than the unfolding of its endogenous tendencies and contradictions.”
But by the end of the decade, the Czech parliamentarian Thomas Masaryk called Kautsky’s complacency into question, announcing “the crisis of Marxism.” “This crisis,” the authors write, “which served as the background to all Marxist debates from the turn of the century until the war, seems to have been dominated by two basic moments: the new awareness of an opacity of the social, of the complexities and resistances of an increasingly organized capitalism; and the fragmentation of the different positions of social agents, which, according to the classical [Marxist] paradigm should have been united.” “Marxism finally lost its innocence at that time.” Kautsky himself attempted to ‘save’ Marxism, admitting that trade unionism alone could not “guarantee either the unity or the socialist determination of the working class.” These ends could only be achieved in a frankly political struggle, subordinate trade unions to the socialist party. Nonetheless, the part should maintain its own unity, and thereby working-class unity, by making itself “the depository of science, that is, of Marxist theory.” Determinism remains, under the formula that the “sole freedom consists in being the consciousness of necessity,” a consciousness “guaranteed by Marxist science.” Kautsky would redeem Marxism by giving it a slightly ‘Hegelian’ inflection. Still, Laclau and Mouffe deem this an advance toward acknowledgment of a dualism between a “logic of necessity” and a “logic of contingency.”
Another socialist who diverged somewhat from Marxism was Max Adler, a key figure among the Austro-Marxians. Given the Austro-Hungarian Empire’s dual monarchy and the many nations within it, Adler saw that working-class unity “depended upon constant political initiative.” “In this mosaic of social and national situations, it was impossible to think of national identities as ‘superstructural’ or of class unity as a necessary consequence of the infrastructure.” The Empire’s political economy was obviously too complex to be conceived in terms of Marxian dialectic, at least in the straightforward, not to say stark form that Marx and Engels gave it. Further, Adler grounded his philosophy not only on Marx or on Hegel but on Kant. The universality of Kantian ethics “broadened the audience for socialism and also broke with determinism. In sum, Marxian historicism did not seem plausible. All this notwithstanding, the Austro-Marxists never completely broke with the dichotomy of the logic of necessity and the logic of contingency, reluctant as they were to give up on at least some degree of confidence that the workers ‘must’ win, in the end.
The Marxian ‘Revisionists’ took things a step further, carving out some “particular spheres” of political initiative, spheres undetermined by economic forces, for socialists to undertake. Like Adler, the German social democrat Eduard Bernstein questioned Hegelian-Marxian historical determinism, but he also pointed to changes that had occurred within capitalist civil societies, beginning with the monopoly firms that had begun to dominate the economic landscape in the second half of the 19th century. The middle classes and the peasantry were not sinking into poverty; no serious economic crisis loomed. Even the modern working class was “not the dispossessed mass of which Marx and Engels wrote in the Manifesto.” This being so, “socialism had to change its terrain and strategy, and the key theoretical moment was the break with the rigid base/superstructure distinction that had prevented any conception of the autonomy of the political.” What, then, can be done to unite socialists? Only a political party founded on “the general interest of those who depend on income for their labor” could be sufficiently broad to wield any real political power. Organizing such a party, however, “escapes the chain of necessity.” “History was not a simple objective process: will also played a role in it.” As with Kant, “the autonomy of the ethical subject was the basis of Bernstein’s break with determinism.”
Bernstein’s analysis had weaknesses of its own, however. He clung to the Marxist claim that the working class would lead the socialist party. And although he abandoned historicist dialectic, he retained a faith that history’s general trend was evolutionary; he was a ‘progressive.’ And each step in the progress toward democratic socialism was irreversible. He optimistically assumed that the modern state itself would become “increasingly democratic as a necessary consequence of ‘historical evolution.'” Even as Bernstein sat in the parliament of the Weimar Republic, Mussolini ruled Italy and Hitlerism gathered strength in Germany. Laclau and Mouffe argue that socialist advances are “always reversible.” Moreover, if the ‘law of progress’ isn’t really a law at all, and if “the worker is no longer just proletarian but also citizen, consumer and participant in a plurality of positions within the country’s cultural and institutional apparatus,” then the eventual regime form that issues from a party led by workers may not be socialist at all. Under those circumstances, “democratic advance will necessitate a proliferation of political initiative in different social areas,” and “the meaning of each initiative comes to depend upon its relation with the others.”
Still another, and much more dramatic, response to the crisis of Marxism was formulated by Georges Sorel under the term, ‘revolutionary syndicalism.’ Sorel rejected historical determinism entirely, taking from Marx only the recognition that the proletariat could become the agent with the moral fervor needed to “supplant declining bourgeois society,” constituting itself “as a dominant force and impos[ing] its will on the rest of society.” That is, Sorel took as much or more from his contemporary Henri Bergson’s élan vital as from Marx. Sorel’s version of class warfare derives from Bergsonian élan and, behind it, Nietzsche’s will to power. Initially, Sorel democratized Nietzsche, urging the proletariat to grasp the “heroic future” he wanted it to realize. But as socialism in his native France, and neighboring Germany, became increasingly unheroic, content with parliamentary jockeying, he began to invoke not the practice but the “myth” of the general strike, writing that “strikes have engendered in the proletariat the noblest, deepest and most moving sentiments that they possess.” Their violence “is the only force that can keep alive the antagonism described by Marx,” even if this force is no longer primarily literal, as it was for Luxemburg, but, well, literary, poetic—a spur to spiritedness to be set against middle-class tepidness. This led some of his followers to the supplementary myth of nationalism, which they regarded as the best sentiment to bring about the triumph of “heroic values over the ignoble bourgeois materialism” of present-day Europe. Sorel himself welcomed the Bolshevik Revolution, not nationalist myth, as the sort of violent upheaval that could spread across Europe and wreck the bourgeoisie.
In Russia, Lenin and Trotsky stayed within the framework of Marxian determinism, but the Social Democrats had developed “the concept of ‘hegemony.'” It was Antonio Gramsci who combined this with Sorel’s concept of the socialist historical ‘bloc,’ not as a material-economic entity (which partakes too much of modern-bourgeois self-interest) but as a bearer of heroism in the all-too-mediocre modern world. Russian social democrats (for example, Alexander Plekhanov) introduced ‘hegemony’ “to describe the process whereby the impotence of the Russian bourgeoisie to carry through its ‘normal’ struggle for political liberty forced the working class to intervene decisively to achieve it.” That is, the working class in Russia wasn’t impelled by material conditions; it chose to enter the political struggle. Whereas in Europe the move from economic conditions to political action occurred within the proletariat and was directed against the bourgeoisie, in Russia the bourgeoisie hadn’t won its own liberty, and so the proletariat took up that fight on its own. If “the bourgeois class cannot fulfill its role…this has to be taken over” by the workers. The “democratic tasks remain bourgeois, even when their historical agent is the working class.” This is what the Russian social democrats meant by ‘hegemony.’
Lenin also saw that “hegemony involves political leadership within a class alliance,” but despised political liberty. He would mouth the principles of ‘bourgeois democracy’ in order to establish useful alliances with useful idiots before the revolution, but after his victory he would abolish the liberties prized by his erstwhile allies. Lenin “transferred” the “ontological privilege granted to the working class by Marxism” from the workers to “the political leadership of the mass movement”—that is, to himself, as the leader of the vanguard party of the vanguard class. The Communist Party “knows the underlying movement of history, and knows therefore the temporary character of the demands uniting the masses as a whole.” The Party becomes “the seat of epistemological privilege,” the “depository of science,” establishing “a rigid separation between leaders and led within the masses.” This “possibility” of what Laclau and Mouffe rather delicately call an “authoritarian turn” was “in some way, present from the beginnings of Marxist orthodoxy.” “Leninism evidently makes no attempt to construct, through struggle, a mass identity not predetermined by any necessary law of history,” a law “accessible only to the enlightened vanguard.” And “because the real working class is, of course, far from fully identifying with its ‘historical interests'” as defined by Marxist-Leninist rulers, “the dissociation” between leaders and led “becomes permanent,” and an ossified oligarchic regime develops, within a couple of generations. “The roots of authoritarian policies lie in this interweaving of science and politics,” the authors observe, weakly; throughout the book, the mass murders of ‘Left’ tyranny/totalitarianism remain scrupulously unmentioned. The closest they come is to allow that “a martial conception of class struggle…concludes in an eschatological epic.” A few pages later, we learn of “the great merit” of Mao Zedong’s “analysis of contradiction,” which transcended class struggle, narrowly conceived. Under Mao, this did indeed broaden the killing field.
The lesson Laclau and Mouffe would rather draw is much more benign. The variety of egalitarian “agents” needs “political construction and struggle” to realize revolutionary potential; unity is “not the expression of a common underlying essence” that crystallizes of its own accord, like the chemicals in a children’s chemistry demonstration. This is where Gramsci intervened, “broaden[ing] the terrain of political recomposition and hegemony, while offering a theorization of the hegemonic link which clearly went beyond the Leninist category of ‘class alliance.” In one way, Gramsci re-Hegelianizes Marxism by insisting that political organizing requires not only “a coincidence of interests” that make alliances possible—alliances that are likely here today, gone tomorrow—but shared moral and intellectual principles. (Not without reason: the long list of Communist betrayals eventually made prospective allies rather wary of any coalition. Principled collaboration likely provides a strong bond.) “Thus, everything depends on how ideology is conceived.” For Gramsci, “ideology” is neither a mere epiphenomenon, reflecting the material interests of a given class, nor a pattern of abstractions. It is “an organic and relational whole, embodied in institutions and apparatuses, which welds together a historical bloc around a number of basic articulatory principles.” Nor is ideology the result of “ideological inculcation by a hegemonic class of a whole range of subordinate sectors,” relieved of their ‘false consciousness’ by an enlightened vanguard. All the partners contribute. “For Gramsci, political subjects are not—strictly speaking—classes, but complex ‘collective wills’.” That is, many “dispersed wills with heterogeneous aims are welded together with a single aim, on the basis of an equal and common conception of the world,” and many of those wills have little or nothing to do with the economic class of the ones who will. Politically, this means that Gramsci, unlike Lenin, does not recommend seizing the power of an existing state but the formation of a state ‘from below,’ within a civil society; this new-formed state will displace the ruling state.
The authors demur on one point. Gramsci retains the assumption that the working class is the fundamental driver of egalitarian revolution. “This is the inner essentialist core of Gramsci’s thought, setting a limit to the deconstructive logic of hegemony.” That is, taking a social entity to have an essence, and indeed to take society itself to have one, puts a limit to the capacity to deconstruct it in a sufficiently radical manner, preparatory to making it thoroughly egalitarian. As a result, Gramsci also retains the Marx’s military metaphors, with the “war of position” only partially displacing “class warfare.” True, Gramsci’s “war of position” runs deeper and wider than that of Marx and Lenin, working toward “the progressive disaggregation of a civilization,” not a mere economic system, “and the construction of another around a new class core.” This means that “the identity of the opponents, far from being fixed from the beginning” (capitalists) “constantly changes in the process”—civilizational opponents in what would later be called a ‘culture war’ are numerous and diverse. Gramsci would unify a diverse Left, which would then divide, and eventually defeat, a diverse but increasingly disunified Right. Yet Gramsci’s insistence on valorizing a working-class core for the Left leaves his dilution of Marxist militarism incomplete. What is needed is a genuinely radical historicism (it must be said, likely drawn from Heidegger, not Hegel or Marx), in this case one that remains true to egalitarianism of a certain kind, namely, “democratic plurality.” The authors evidently expect this combination of democracy with pluralism, thoroughly institutionalized, to prevent both tyranny and eventual bureaucratic ossification— a vindication of democratic socialism against Bolshevism and its imitators. Institutionalized pluralism will block any tyrant from dominating the state while bringing contestation into the state apparatus itself, making bureaucracy political, not ‘scientific’-geometric, liable to rigidity.
Social-democratic parties after the First World War exhibited a “narrowly classist mentality,” incapable of “hegemoniz[ing] the broad range of democratic demands and antagonisms resulting from the post-war crisis.” They became “a mere parliamentary instrument of trade unionism.” Such classism made the tyrannical regimes and parties of the Left strong, bringing one of them to power in Russia and threatening the ‘bourgeois democracies’ elsewhere. Lacking the tyrannical devices of the ‘hard’ Left, democratic socialists remained weak. They lacked the political heft needed to achieve regime change, revolution. This left them with alternatives: “either to participate in bourgeois cabinets in order to obtain the maximum number of social measures favorable to working-class sectors; or else, to enter into opposition and thereby to double [their] impotence.” Further, their continued faith in the ‘iron laws of history’—specifically, economic determinism—inclined them to neglect the serious political organizing needed to forge the needed links to groups outside their own milieu.
Mugged by the reality of the Great Depression, democratic socialists changed strategy. The Depression put the working classes under pressure, making the ‘classism’ of socialists more cogent and politically effective. The ‘planned economy’ began to seem a sensible alternative to the increasingly sharp ups and downs of capitalism. “The ‘planism’ of the 1930s was the first expression of the new type of attitude,” an attitude known as Keynesianism in the Anglosphere, but which Mouffe in particular understandably associates with her fellow Belgian, Henri de Man. President of the Belgian Labor Party and eventually Minister of Finance from 1936 to 1938, de Man successfully implemented the nationalization of bank credit while retaining capitalist enterprises—much to the fury of his fellow social democrats, who accused him of fascism, a charge his collaboration with the Nazis after the 1940 invasion did nothing to deflect. The authors prefer to point to de Man’s “attempt to recast the objectives of the socialist movement in a radically new, anti-economist” direction.” “He was one of the first socialists seriously to study psychoanalysis”; he criticized “class reductionism” and understood “the necessity of a mass bloc broader than the working class,” the “need to put forward socialism as a national alternative” (again, raising the then-lively specter of fascism in the minds of his colleagues), and the need of a Sorelian “myth” as a means of “cement[ing] the diverse components of a collective socialist will.” “The ‘Plan’ was, therefore, not a simple economistic instrument; it was the very ais for the reconstitution of a historical bloc which would make it possible to combat the decline of bourgeois society and to counter the advance of fascism.” If so, Nazism, to say nothing of de Man’s own shortcomings (of which the authors do in fact say nothing), aborted the effort.
Democratic socialism remained self-handicapped in the decades following the Second World War. “Planism’ remained very much in vogue, aiming “to establish a mixed economy in which the capitalist sector would gradually disappear”—a “road of transition to socialism.” This aim was vitiated by “a more technocratic variant” aiming at “merely to create an area of State intervention which would correct—particularly through the control of credit—the imbalances inherent in the course of capitalism,” with no intention of eliminating capitalism itself. In both variants, “social democracy became a politico-economic alternative within a given State form, and not a radical alternative to that form.”
In all of this, economic life remained, “the last redoubt of essentialism” on the intellectual map of the Left, the last driver of a supposed march of ‘History’ toward socialism. Along with other economic determinists, Marxists posit laws of socioeconomic motion which “exclude all indeterminacy resulting from political or other external interventions.” Further, “the unity and homogeneity of social agents, constituted at the economic level, just result from the very laws of motion of this level.” And finally, “the positions of these agents in the relations of production must endow them with ‘historical ‘interests,’ so that the presence of such agents at other social levels…must ultimately be explained on the basis of economic interests.” The problem with this is simple enough: the Greek word economia means the management of the household but ‘the economy’ in the modern sense means political economy, the way goods and services are managed within a state. But political life is, as the authors like to say, contingent, subject to public choices. Indeed, Aristotle remarks that the three fundamental forms of ruling—husband-wife, parents-children, master-slave—are already easily discernible within the household, which forms the basic unit of the political community.
Marxism takes these assumptions and draws from them three “theses”: the noncontingent “neutrality” (politically speaking) of productive forces in the economy; the inevitability of increasing “homogenization and impoverishment of the working class”; and that class’s “fundamental interest in socialism.” All of these claims are false. Labor-power isn’t politically neutral because it isn’t a commodity. “The capitalist must do more than simply purchase it; he must also make it produce labor.” He must rule the workers in the workplace. This makes the labor process “the ground of a struggle,” in which the vigilance, technical control, and (in larger firms) bureaucratic control of the bosses confront workers who do not necessarily want to be watched and controlled. At the same time, the workers “of the world” do not necessarily unite, as Marx and Engels would have them do, being divided by social conditions having nothing directly to do with labor such as race and sex. Neither homogenization nor impoverishment of the workers has occurred, nor have they universally flocked to socialist parties—themselves divided between social democrats and Leninists. “In our view, in order to advance in the determination of social antagonisms, it is necessary to analyze the plurality of diverse and frequently contradictory positions, and to discard the idea of a perfectly unified and homogeneous agent, such as the ‘working class’ of classical [Marxist] discourse.”
“Since Kautsky, Marxism knew that the socialist determination of the working class does not arise spontaneously but depends upon the political mediation of intellectuals.” And with Gramsci, “politics is finally conceived as articulation and through his concept of historical bloc and profound and radical complexity is introduced into the theorization of the social.” It remains to take the final theoretical step, to recognize that “the logic of hegemony,” which, as a political logic requires articulation (speech, especially definition) and contingency or choice, and behind choice, strategy, should result in what socialists now call ‘identity politics’—struggle over the definition of the many social groups itself, and over demands for ‘recognition’ or power broadly conceived not only as physical force but as ideology, ‘myth,’ ‘values.’ As a consequence, “unfixity has become the condition of every social identity,” since identities are self-defined and “relational,” fluid as they interact with other self-identifying groups. Identity politics is genuinely political in the authors’ sense of the word, inasmuch as it consists not of scientifically discernible laws, as if the course of events were like the course of a river, governed and also rationally governable by the laws of physics, but of free wills. Democracy or egalitarianism comes in because such a politics insists that all identities are equal; there are no more “privileged” subjects with superior access to historical laws, inasmuch as no such laws exist. “There are no privileged points for the unleashing of a socialist political practice; this hinges upon a ‘collective will’ that is laboriously constructed from a number of dissimilar points.” This practice cannot be defined at the outset but will rather become defined, and redefined, as the social-group wills whose interaction constitutes the collective will confront opposition forming and reforming political bonds with one another, and with newcomers. Indeed, “the very notion of ‘hegemony’ should be put into question, although the authors will come to affirm it in the ‘theoretical’ chapters that follow.
In these opening chapters of Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, Laclau and Mouffe thus provide an instructive critical account of the “Crisis of Marxism” that began in the late nineteenth century but continues to this day. Their own theoretical justification for socialism occupies the book’s third chapter.
Recent Comments