← New Books Network
New Books Network
Agustín Santella and Adrián Piva, "Marxism, Social Movements and Collective Action" (Palgrave Macmillan, 2023)
00:34:19
Loading summary
Transcript27 lines
- [00:01]
A
Welcome to the New Books Network.
- [00:06]
B
Welcome back to the New Books Network. I am your host, Stephen Dozeman. Marxists have an obvious interest in understanding social movements. Less obvious, even with the voluminous theoretical archives at hand, is how to pull their various forms together into a cohesive theory of collective action. While one can see images on the news of strikes, riots, protests, coups and uprisings and draw occasional connections between them, turning this vast array of phenomena into a cohesive theory that can be built upon remains a challenge, but it's one my guest today, Augustine Centella, as well as his collaborator Adrian Piva, have risen too, assembling a number of essays from scholars from all over the world. Their book, Marxism, Social Movements and Collective Action tries to understand the various forms collective struggle can take, all the while chasing the underlying logic that might unite them. While the book will not be the final word on the topic, its essays will prove rich resources for those looking for both empirical examples and philosophical speculations on the nature of collective struggle. Augustin Centella and Adrian Piva are both professors at the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina. Augustin Centella, welcome to the New Books Network.
- [01:24]
A
Thank you, thank you for having me.
- [01:27]
B
Yeah, very excited to talk to you about this book. I'm wondering if to kick things off, you could maybe introduce yourself real briefly to listeners and also maybe your co editor, Adrian Piva, who couldn't be here with us today, but could you tell us a bit about who you both are and what your work and research tends to focus on?
- [01:46]
A
Yes, absolutely. Adrian Piva and I are sociologists from the Universidad Buenos Aires and researchers, full time researchers at the National Council of Technology and Research in Argentina. We are both professors at the University of Buenos Aires. We are mostly interested in Marxist theory and social empirical research on social movements, as is the content of this book. Of course, we know each other since 20 or 25 years ago, since we were studying sociology at the same university and well, we are continuously being working on this since then.
- [02:48]
B
Yeah. So to kick things off, you begin this book by writing in the introduction, quote, strikes, the occupation of factories, marches, demonstrations, mutiny, uprising and revolutions and so on. Marxists have always shown interest in explaining these and other phenomena of protest and social conflict. However, the gap between the category of class struggle and. And this motley set of terms speaks of a lack of a conceptual framework, the development of a theory of class struggle. Such a task coincides with the building of mediations, intermediate categories that enable the understanding of the struggles in their specific diversity. End quote. Could you, to kick things off Maybe tease out this gap and the unique problem that it poses for Marxists.
- [03:41]
A
Yes, theory of class struggles to address two problems. First, the theory should explain the passage from class antagonism to class formation. Second, the theory should address the variety of forms of action and subjects. Much progress has been made on the first problem with a proposal by E.P. thompson, although it remains open. The second problem concerns the struggles of different collective subjects and forms of struggle. The latter problem is related to the formation of social and political coalition in the historical process. We have mentioned strike alongside revolutions. While the former adjusts to the economic forms of struggle derived from class antagonism, the latter involve a greater variety of action and subjects. We are talking then about the theory of strikes and another of revolutions, as well as a theory that encompasses both phenomena. A theory of class struggle must explain revolutions, but these social and historical phenomena does not refer to the theory of classes, but rather to the concrete complex process of struggles. The theory of revolution involves classes, state parties and other forms of collective grouping such as social movements. Although Marxism has covered all these phenomena, it hasn't been being formulated theory in the strict sense, theory has to formulate mechanisms to explain the phenomenon. Such theory concerning the forms of class struggle is a task still pending.
- [05:43]
B
Yeah. So to give some historical context to this problem, it's worth following some of the history you trace in the introduction to understand the difficulties contemporary Marxists inherit. So in the introduction you outline couple major historical stages. The first one being what you call the classical Marxist approach, involving figures such as Lenin, Luxembourg, Gramsci and Trotsky. While you note that there are substantial disagreements between them on various details, they also can be grouped together by a shared mission, that of taking Marx's critique of capitalism and developing a rigorous account of the strategies and tactics that that will be needed to overcome it. Could you speak on this generation's early attempts to develop a rigorous account of what Marxism might look like in practice?
- [06:32]
A
Yeah, I should say the following. The first generation elaborated theories of crisis, of capitalism, politician imperialism and even on combined development, dual power and state, all within the framework of the social struggle. Gramsci is closer to another generation linked to critical Marxism. Although he represents a bridge. He begins to critically elaborate the theory of transition and delves into the historical formation of culture and intellectuals. He also begins to think within the stability of capitalist democracies. These theories were formulated within the context of partisan political elaboration and debates on strategy. This implied that system systematic theorization didn't occur like the critique of political economy initiated by Marx. Concepts, mechanisms and explanation for the so called process, processes of class struggle were elaborated fragmentarily and often spontaneously. But this is different from theory.
- [07:54]
B
So another stage would occur starting in the 1960s in a multiplicity of New Left formations from the Frankfurt School's critical theory, Althusserianism and Post Structuralism in France, as well as Anglo American academics in sociology and political science. These movements were developed in large part as a critical response to the Soviet Union and as an attempt to free Marxism from its role as a state ideology. Could you speak a bit to these developments as you see them?
- [08:24]
A
Yes. According to Parry Anderson, this generation expressed a split between practice and theory, between politics and philosophy or epistemology. Nevertheless, there's a certain idealization of the first Marxist generation here we could instead highlight the limits of that generation. Narrowbowl's essay essay Javier Baiman criticized the premises of Anderson's analysis. Weiman contends that both generations were concerned with theory and politics actually and both were linked to mass social movements. Furthermore, according to Weiman, the so called Western masses generation didn't emerge from a working class defeat, but from one of empowerment. Instead, you can link these questions were raised about the two generations, the classics and New Left or Western masses. The first Marxist generation contributed to the theory of formation by tackling specific problems, mostly about the economy, general history and working class party strategy. Nonetheless, this generation didn't formulate a class struggle theory beyond concrete historical processes. In contrast, the Western masses generation were concerned with methodology and general theory. These two contributions are substantial as they serve as our starting point in the transient and the introduction. I'm sorry, of our book. We suggest an explanation for why the Marxist approaches no longer share the same object, the ambassador. Abandonment of theories, subordination to strategy and tactics result in the loss of unity of the language of theory itself.
- [10:36]
B
Summarizing recent decades of Marxist scholarship on the problem of collective action, you write, in all the analyzed cases the same pattern is observed. The fragmentation of the original proposal in many diverse directions, the dissolution of the categories and the abandonment of Marxism. Undoubtedly, this course of events cannot be separated from the general crisis of Marxism since the mid-1970s. End quote. Could you speak to this dissolution, the troubled inheritance contemporary Marxists have received and where this book fits in today's political and academic landscape as an attempt to address this issue.
- [11:16]
A
Yes, the subsequent separation of themes within academic Marxist deepens the disconnect from political practice, at least in an immediate sense. Indeed, both Volantas and perhaps even more so LEGRI were working within communist movements, whether the party or new independent organizations. Thompson was part of informal activism, effectively a precursor of two new social movements. But above is likely the quintessential expression of the academic Marxist, although one committed strictly to the Marsist program. In our assessments we highlight the abandonment of certain categories of such as social class by autonomism. This in particular is a central point for the theory of class struggle. The same could be said of the culturalists. Followers of I.P. thompson, who replaced class formation with linguistically constitute subjects within Antonymis who there's a theory of structural antagonism, but no one of organization and struggle. Or in terms used in the book, there is no theory of mobilization. The linguistic term materialism is abandoned in social analysis as a result of the debate of overlapping labor processes. Class finally disappears as the universe becomes restricted to the workplace. We also noted that Polans final concept of class is disappointing and incapable of accounting for the new working classes. Polens has concluded that manual industrial fac fractions represented the working class. This development is understood, of course, within the frame of the farewell to the proletariat that began the 60s. It's a farewell first to the idealized proletariat and subsequently to any proletariat at all. In this context, the book runs counter to post materialism and post classes classism, though it does not propose Marxism as a static defense, but rather as an original and creative development. We must mention that there are many contributions, though fragmentarily at the heart of contemporary Marxist research, whether strictly Marxist or otherwise. Theory must interconnect these particular contributions. We aim to contribute political to the social struggle. We both believe that critique and self critique are necessary and that scientific and intellectual research has much to contribute. The 2008 crisis, for example, made it clear that capitalism and its critique remained relevant. Since then, various specialists and social movements have returned to the agenda of attempting to account for the relationships between capitalism and social mobilization. This problem lies at the heart of a theory of class structure.
- [15:15]
B
Yeah, jumping right off of that. A major difficulty of working with Marxist frameworks today is the last. Several decades of neoliberal globalization have severely altered the landscape across the world. New ways of doing work, new forms of individual and class consciousness, new market structures and state formations. For some, these are all proof that Marxism has ceased to be relevant, although obviously this does. This book does not share such views, although finding out how exactly to use Marxism to make sense of some of these new formations is perhaps a project the book is unconsciously responding to and trying to pick up. Turning specifically to the question of social movements, collective action and class struggle. Do you see neoliberalism offering any specific inflections on these phenomena or demanding unique updates to our understanding of them?
- [16:09]
A
Yes, we do. Phenomenon characteristic of neoliberalism has been the so called individualization of social relations. Marxism here cannot respond simply by pointing out that this is an ideological deception or by claiming that new social movements are enemies of the working class. Marxist theory of these phenomena should capture the material dimension of organization within, be it individualization or new forms of collective action. These elements are fundamental problems for a theory of class struggle. Neoliberalism, I'm sorry, specifically targets the dynamics of individualization. As we have mentioned, the task within Marxism is to develop a theory that explains this real process. A new reading of the classics, beginning with Mars, as well as the critical conceptualization of new solar forms is perfectly feasible. Enormous recent moss research demonstrates this. To provide an example, the Coordina Rossi group in Italy during the 60s began a reading of the New Monks. That's the then unpublished Grandisi. The reading allowed it this reading allowed it for the formulation of theories to analyze new capitalism. Let's mention two aspects. First, the importance of the social reproduction of capital as a moment of production within the context of the material modification of labor today called immaterial. This addresses de industrialization and the new non factory working class. Second, the importance of struggle as the engine of capitalist development. Naturally, a theory of class struggle needs to account for the new form of classes as well as their relationships through starvel.
- [18:36]
B
The world moves fast your workday even faster pitching products, drafting reports, analyzing data. Microsoft 365 Copilot is your AI assistant for work built into Word, Excel, PowerPoint and other Microsoft 365 apps you use, helping you quickly write, analyze, create and summarize so you can cut through clutter and click clear path to your best work. Learn more@Microsoft.com M365 copilot we heard you. Nine years of bring back the snack wrap and you've won. But maybe you should have asked for more. Say hello to the Hot Honey Snack wrap.
- [19:15]
A
Now you've really won.
- [19:16]
B
Go to McDonald's and get it while you can. Well, the holidays have come and gone once again, but if you've forgotten to get that special someone in your life again gift, well, Mint Mobile is extending their holiday offer of half off unlimited wireless. So here's the idea. You get it now. You call it an early present for next year. What do you have to lose? Give it a try@mintmobile.com switch limited time 50% off regular price for new customers upfront payment required $45 for three months, $90 for six month or $180 for 12 month plan taxes and fees. Extra speeds may slow after 50 gigabytes per month when network is busy See Terms One question that comes up in a few essays throughout the book is the split between the economic and the political, both in terms of forms of oppression and exploitation and as a site of mobilization and resistance. Several of your authors draw attention to a rift between a class's economic versus its political composition. And while the two spheres are often interrelated, developing both an analysis and political movements that understand how they work together and must be resisted together is a really important challenge. I'm wondering if you could unpack this difficulty.
- [20:27]
A
Yeah, certainly the separation and unity of the economic and political permeates the problems of analyzing struggle and class formation as well as the analysis of social totality. While there are solid precedents that pose this problem and various directions of work, much remains to be done. We could distinguish between the moment of analysis and the moment of strategy, of course, because in analysis there's persistent difficulty and avoidance lapse back into economic determinism. Recall that this view held that all other forms are determined in last instance by economic structures or relations within or without with or without this last instance formula, it's difficult to maintain a concrete relational concept of the totality or of the relations within that totality that accounts for both separation and unity. Regarding the strategic discussion, it's clear that this refers to the development of forms of struggle, organization, and consciousness. These terms are still being debated, much as they were in the beginnings of the 20th century. In Russia or Germany. However, the world is of course different. A significant difference is the strategic weakness of the social labor movement, which is the very subject asking these questions. Latin America we have seen a variation of discussion surrounding progressive governments. These administrations believed that one could advance against the market from within the state without developing class four forces through class struggle. These intellectuals operated from a distinction between state and market in a manner quite different from how the separation between economy and politics is understood in this Marxist discussion.
- [23:00]
B
Another question that comes up frequently is one of method how one looks at class formations and class struggle. So while several essays deal with this topic in numerous ways, trying to ground class struggle philosophically or even anthropologically, there's a consistent frustration throughout the book with the tendency of some academics to simply observe and catalog phenomena. A couple of your authors summarize the issue and solution by writing quote, one needs both materialism and dialectics, because without dialectics, materialism becomes an abstract empiricism and mechanism. And without materialism, dialectics falls into a Hegelian idealism. End quote. I'm wondering if you could unpack this question of method and some of the solutions your authors propose.
- [23:49]
A
Well, this is a difficult discussion, but I would say this the following. I believe a piece is missing here, one that refers to practice as a moment or to the subject who acts and nouns. In fact, this is mentioned further in the same chapter by Egglehart and Moore from the book. Of course, without incorporating practice, materialism remains passive. Dialectics must account not only for the process of conceptualization, but also for the subject's actions. Academic research causes us to lose sight of the extent to which we are involved in the production and reproduction of the social world. While it's not a complete solution, the proper static point should be a theory of research that incorporates practice. Let's clarify that practice here is both indirect and direct. That is, it's not a matter of reducing it to how researchers become militants. Rather, practice is first and foremost the context of language and ideology and everything following from there.
- [25:23]
B
Another question that comes up is that of the nature of labor. So, as we said earlier, some work needs to sometimes be done to apply Marx's frameworks to forms of life that he didn't account for as much. A couple forms of labor your contributors discuss include care work, reproductive labor, or informal labor. Also discussed are alternative formations of the working class that don't fit neatly with the stereotypical proletariat working in an industrialized city. While this doesn't mean abandoning Marxism wholesale, it does pose some interesting analytic challenges. Could you speak to how your contributors try and respond and develop?
- [26:02]
A
I will synthesize the very short way. The chapters of the book here regarding to this right, Ingel Amour offer a methodological proposal that places reprojection theory at the center. This easy essay is, though provoking because it invites a reflection on a non economistic totality. The Other side Novak George Novak, in chapter eight, focuses on the issue of the social reproduction of the labor force and informal labor. He notes that the segmentation within the working class which both relations presuppose can only be resolved through a hegemonic political struggle. Monaci, while not referring to the different parts of the class's technical composition, does address the process of social movement constitution. In this way he agrees on the importance of the political process, focusing more on the autonomous subjectivity formed in soil. Caratasli, in chapter 10 provides an extensive studies study of the variations in the forms of A struggle used by the global working class from the mid 19th century to the present. This massive data that he used and have prepared show the emergence of forms of collective action that are not strikes, but which express sectors of the working class that he calls, following Marx, the relative surplus population. He argues that these forms of action correspond to historical period of political weakness for the formal working class. Caratasli maintains the class characters of these revolts contrary to the thesis of the disappearance of the working class. This confusion may stem from the fact that the working class has been traditionally associated with strikes. Along these lines, in the chapter written with Julia Saul, we provide elements to conceptualize the new forms of the global working class. We return to the debate proposed by both Masa van der Linden and and Beverly Silver, offering a critique of their proposals. Highlight here is the concept that they propose of the working class as a social group determined by relations of both production and social reproduction. This allows us to escape both industrial fetishism and the fetishism of the wage war.
- [29:28]
B
To bring this conversation to a close, many of my questions so far have focused on Marxism as a method of analysis, a way for academics to look at and understand the world. But an underlying belief throughout the book is that Marxism is also an approach to action, a way not just of understanding oppression, but building for emancipation. We're living in a moment where people across the globe are increasingly agitating for social and economic change against increasing exploitation, precarity and an economic system that is unable to substantially respond to environmental threats such as pandemics or climate change. But as of now, substantial change on the scale needed has still eluded us. Well, there are many factors contributing to this. I imagine the general dissolution of Marxism we discussed near the beginning of this conversation has contributed to this impasse. So, in closing, what would a reinjection of Marxism do not just for analyzing social movements and collective action, but for building them as well?
- [30:39]
A
That is a good question. Obviously this is a difficult question. Let's put in this way the development of powerful new anti capitalist and social movement will drive new ways of thinking and this implies a new Marxism. In turn, this new Marxism will allow these movements to struggle in a systematic way. Let's clarify, if necessary, that in our perspective a new movement refers to its classical sense. A new stage in social mobilization based on the new working class experience tell us that we need a new socialist project that is one different from so called actually existing socialism. It also teaches us that the social contradictions of transition are complex and not merely the result of a simplified determination of class interests within production. A new socialism should attend economic and political struggles without reducing one to another. That's to say socialism is the process of advancing the struggle against exploitation and against domination between class groups as well as gender, race and other oppressive structural institutional equalities. Marxism and the condition that it can provide a systematic consciousness of this class struggle can and must assist in this project.
- [32:27]
B
Yeah, that's a good note to end on. So that brings us through all my questions I had for you. So, Augustine Scentella, thank you so much for coming on.
- [32:37]
A
Thank you.