Introduction
Although I am not a media professional or an ardent blogger, I follow the news like everybody else and sometimes make an excursus publishing a letter or an article with my reflection thereon. The following is my current contribution. I have kept it short, knowing that since everybody is encouraged to make himself or herself heard or read, one’s share in such a multitude of views is bound to be small.
My topic is revolution; which is on the lips of many, although in my opinion little understood, if at all. Revolution is ardently longed for by some and dreaded by others. In my view it has been an issue since the beginning of history about 2,500 years ago, although only of actual importance and relevance at particular moments during this time. It is thus inseparable from Man, but how is man to be understood ? The following probes the question – in what way, if any, is revolution to be considered essential in a non-essentialist reading of Marx?
The significant contradiction of Capital
Coming with a bang to the here and now, until only a few years ago it was understood that the significant contradiction of capital is between its liberal ideals (namely freedom/equality/property rights/self-interestedness) and the capital relation. By capital relation is understood that since the majority in a capitalist system would be made up of workers – the workers would be free from forms of servitude existing in previous modes of production like slavery or serfdom, but would also be “free” of means of meaningful and material survival, so much so that they would be compelled to sell themselves to capital, which would amount to wage slavery. In other words freedom/equality/property rights remain only ideals and formal rights to the great majority who being workers in a capitalist society have to sell their labour power to the capitalists.
Today it is contested that the significant contradiction of capital is as explained in the previous paragraph since it is considered that the ideals of liberalism are already intertwined in the capital relation.
Rather the relevant contradiction is considered to be between capital’s discourse and social relation on the one hand opposing postcapital possibilities latent and unrealised in the present on the other.
According to Marx, capital generates a dynamic totality that brings into existence the conditions of possibility for its own overcoming while also constraining this achievement. In other words capital both begets and hinders the dynamic totality which it brings into existence.
An example
I can illustrate this apparent dilemma by the mention of the trajectory of the main events following the Russian revolution 90 years ago.
Revolution was successful in Russia in 1917, whereas counter-revolution prevailed in Italy, Germany, Spain and Portugal, if we limit ourselves to the western European countries of the 1930’s. The process of war and reconstruction continued for many years and the situation was only stabilised by 1991, by when liberal-democratic regimes were installed in the whole European continent. Once more for the past 20 years we have been living in an age where the polarisation brought about first by fascism in the pre-WW2 period and then the Cold War between the two superpowers in the 1947-1991 period have been overcome. Consequently although the political left is everywhere in disarray, the idea of revolution does not provoke that insensate reaction of the previous epochs.
This is due to the fact that the post-capitalist future can only beckon when both the abject injustice of fascism and the apparent “ equality” of the soviet socialist or real socialist reality are overcome.
Current controversy
It is in this light that we may delve into the current controversies between the strictures of the Catholic and Islamic establishments on the one hand and the promptings of post-capitalism on the other.
Limiting myself to Catholicism – which I know better than Islamism – I would say that Catholicism takes as its ideal a humanist position that “we are all human, therefore all equal”. Sometimes a naturalist or mystic ideal is also projected – a compassionate ideal that God is good and all would be well if we are humble and pursue a spiritual rather than a materialist lifestyle. Since the latter, however I believe is minoritarian, I would consider the humanist position since I believe it better represents the Catholic outlook.
Humanism is contested by a non-essentialist reading of Marx, in the sense that what potentially distinguishes humans from other animals is our non-nature: That is that we are not fully or largely determined at birth by essence or instinct. Instead our character is shaped through our practices. Human lives are shaped by different practices, cultures and historical epochs. They are irreducible different, incomparable and unequal. (Rethinking Marxism, Volume 22 no 2 pp 272-283 )
Overcoming the illusion and idealism of utopia – present or future, in this world or in the next, one may enter the real world and sizes for oneself the predicaments of day to day living. It is by such an outlook that we can put ourselves on the track for becoming a participant of events in a revolutionary conjuncture.
Last word
I believe that we are today in one such conjuncture, where revolution is relevant with one proviso. That revolution is not to be understood in one particular meaning, as being a political or a military revolution but in this wide non-essentialist sense of overcoming present problems. In this sense revolution is more than welcome and I believe urgently called for.
Mario Mifsud