The possibility of Sociological Marxism in an era of Neoliberalism

Is a Sociological Marxism possible in an era of Neoliberalism?

Drawing from the conversations over the past four weeks in this course globalization has been a central point and a concept that is being moulded as we go along. And this happens both in the realms of both conceptual and theoretical work. Arguments put forth by the likes of Robertson, Wallerstein, Harvey and Appadurai somewhat inform the response in an attempt to provide an answer that seeks to outline the inherent possibilities and potentialities or even the opposite as far as a Sociological Marxism  being possible in a neo-liberal order or in an era of neoliberalism. But what is this Sociological Marxism and how does it come to form and what informs its foundations and its use? It is also imperative to also unpack neoliberalism, how does such an order emerge and when did it emerge? In providing answers to these miniature questions a synthesis of ideas will gradually provide the necessary evidence and tools that may then allow an informed choice as to whether a Sociological Marxism is possible in an era of neoliberalism or not?

Burawoy states that what the world needs now is a Sociological Marxism. What he means by this is that a Sociological Marxism is the complementary convergence of Antonio Gramsci and Karl Polanyi. The former is known for coining the term hegemony while the latter wrote what was then the infamous ‘The Great Transformation’. However, how must these two converge? Gramsci argued that the advancement of capitalism is marked by the expansion of civil society, which, with the state, acts as to stabilize class relations and provide terrain for challenging capitalism (2003:193). While his counterpart argues that advanced capitalism or the expansion of the market threatens society, which then reacts by (re) constituting itself as active society, thereby harbouring the embryo of a democratic socialism (2003:193). These two arguments are complementary to Burawoy in that they bring the concept of society to life. Society, therefore, is a Marxist concept in which Burawoy deploys to interpret the rise  and fall of communist orders, a significant shift from politics of class to politics of recognition, the transition from colonialism to postcolonialism, and the development of an emergent transnationalism (2003:193).

Why Marxism? It is solely because it continues to offer the most comprehensive critique of capitalism as well as its feasible alternatives. For Burawoy, ‘the longevity of capitalism guarantees the longevity of Marxism’ (2003:194). What marks the advancement of capital, whether it be the expansion of civil society or the expansion of the market that threatens society, underlying these markers is that capitalism continues to rebuild itself and the same is expectant for Marxism to do the very same ‘it is after all a theoretical tradition that claims ideas change with the material world they seek to grasp and transform’ (2003:194). Every Marxist tradition is therefore tasked with tackling the problems of the day. And every epoch fashions its own Marxist tradition. This implies that Polanyi and Gramsci by virtue of them being mid twentieth century Marxists legitimizes them as appropriate in an attempt to fashion a Sociological Marxism in the advent of neoliberalism. Although the mentioned convergence is derived from different Marxist tradition, the thesis of Sociological Marxism is that society is primarily located between the state and economy, thus, highlighting just how dynamic it is. This is fundamental to the durability and transcendence of advanced capitalism.
Both Gramsci and Polanyi become integral as they have positioned the idea of society to retain a leftist vision and a close connection to the working class. This is the project of a Sociological Marxism claims Burawoy. Historical evidence shows us that what Marx and classical Marxism failed to do was to undertake thorough analysis that might have led to a more coherent vision then of communism. An error no other generation/s wants to make arguably. The convergence has to be credited for the resultant conception of society that will grasp the longevity and steadfast nature of capitalism. In this way Sociological Marxism begins to grapple with the meaning of society, something sociology has singularly failed to do. (2003:198). This means Sociological Marxism focuses on the relations between market and society (Polanyi) and between state and society (Gramsci). This then implies that by understanding society an approach toward understanding capitalism we are nearing, as it thrives when there are robust social relations. Therefore, two functions can be ascribed to this Marxist tradition in question, first, to act as a stabilizer of capitalism and second, in providing the necessary terrain for transcending capitalism. Therefore, what is sought is a socialist vision that will subordinate both the economy and state in favour of a self-regulating society more especially in an era of neoliberalism.


The advanced English dictionary defines neoliberalism as a ‘political orientation originating in the 1960s; and blends liberal political views with an emphasis on economic growth’. Wallerstein (2000) puts forth an argument that globalization is not a new phenomenon, but it is not this argument I’m interested in rather, the periodization he then utilizes to substantiate this argument is where my interest lies. The 1970s are marked by the global oil and the economic crises, which were the resultants of the devaluing of the American dollar which meant it was de-linked from the gold standard. There are plenty other manifestations that took place during that time, but this one highlights two important factors, the interconnectedness of the financial markets at the time and the volatility of money as a fictitious commodity. From this crisis of the 1970s we see subsequently the emergence of neoliberalism. A shift from industrial production to the service industry or as Harvey would say from ‘fordism to flexible capital accumulation’ (2011:5). Neoliberalism did not emerge from nowhere, but it was an elite response to the afore-mentioned crisis. New ways of capital accumulation were sought. State spending was curtailed and financial institutions such as the IMF and World Bank figured prominently then after. Cox and Nilsen discuss in their book that the progress of neoliberalism has reversed key victories and concessions won by labour movements and ant-colonial struggles during the first half of the twentieth century. A manifestation of the dramatic expansion of the reach of market forces to such an extent that the privatization of public goods (water) was a means to shrink state involvement in infrastructure provision.

This is not to say that the neoliberal project’s progress has not been met with resistance. As a matter of fact, Cox and Nilsen (2014) highlight that, ‘the mid 1990s marked above all the gradual crystallization of a new form of resistance in which single issue campaigns converged around radical demands for systematic change and the identification of neoliberal capitalism as a common enemy.’ The insistence that ‘another world is possible’ and the anti-austerity protests that we are witnessing today Greece as a case in point build on this foundation. It is not just specific policies and their inherent consequences that are at stake here. Most fundamentally, the challenge is toward the way in which global elites have sought to make society for the past three decades or so by widening the domain of the market. And this happened overtime in the commodification of the fictitious commodities which Polanyi warned against namely men, money and nature. The commodification of these warrants a reaction from society as it is disrupted through this process. Such reactions are highlighted in the following statements ‘We live in a society not an economy’ and ‘we are not commodities in the hands of bankers and politicians’ both derived from Cox and Nilsen. These demands more than anything is the demand for a thoroughgoing deepening of democracy or radical democracy Leggett would argue.

What I have tried to articulate thus far with regards to the resistance against neoliberalism is that all are forms of practices that in different ways can and shape ways in which societies are organized. Moments such as the present, rife with large-scale public protests that seek to bring about systematic changes. Is this as Dr. Molapo would say ‘an explosion of difference’? This is as we bear witness to a crest of a wave of resistance propelled by momentum gained overtime as a result marginalized groups in their numbers are articulating their grievances, forging connections with other marginalized groups. Are these groups’ resultants of the tension between the universalisation of the particular and the particularisation of the universal that such group emerge? Intersectional ties between and among groups is but one of the methods available that less powerful groups can develop to cope with and ward-off claims and demands of those who dominate them. An outright rejection of the universal I would argue. Such an endeavour is responsible for the constructing of organizational infrastructures that enable claims to be made and alternatives to be envisioned and enacted. Other methods include small scale acts of sabotage in the workplace through the eruption of particular struggles in particular places over particular grievances, wildcat strikes and coordinated campaigns that bring together different groups around issues of common concern and to the oppositional projects that seek to fundamentally change the way in which social, political and economic power is configured and distributed in society.

But given all this, is a Sociological Marxism possible in the era of neoliberalism? Appadurai’s new cultural economy which is the tension between homogenization and heterogenization would aid in putting this point forth. What the neoliberal order has managed to do overtime is to make liberal values such as democracy universal or homogenous. However, such homogenization is subject to translation (heterogeneous). This leads to the discussion of neoliberal capital exuding a nature of uneven development across spaces/nation states. Harvey in his space-time compression time argument space is most important for the survival of capital. Capital always shifts to the most favourable spaces should it be contested and labour geographers call this a spatial fix.

My reluctance to give an outright ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the overarching question is owed to the fact although Sociological Marxism well according to Burawoy has a transnational tenet, but my argument is can this transnational organization aspiration be attained? This is cognizant of the fact that Leggett espouses a restoration of society through poststructuralist politics, but how pragmatic is this postulation from Leggett (2013)? The scepticism is informed by the fact that although contestation between neoliberalism and intersectional movements has been making claims in the auspices of the state. This happens through civil society for Gramasci and just society as a countermovement for Polanyi. Perhaps Sociological Marxism should device theoretical concepts of how movements (social) can better use space in an attempt to be able to predict capital movement from one space to the next. Because whether we like it or not some spaces when one looks at the world are still insulated and are susceptible to the exploits of neoliberal capital. The said insulation can either be through conflict or diplomatic hostilities. Such an example of the latter factor is the prospect of Iranian markets opening up for the world after intense diplomatic hostilities between Iran and the US. Therefore, only a critique and not spatial modes of devising strategies in contemplating where capital may go next is not adequate for it to be possible in an era of neoliberalism as it has proven time and again that in this order neoliberal capital is footloose.


By Tebogo Winston Mogoru





List of references
Appadurai, A. 2010. Disjunctureand differencein the global cultural economy. Globalistion: The greatest hits. Eds., Steger, M.B., Boulder/London: Paradigm Publishers
Burawoy, M. 2003. For a sociological Marxism: the contemporary convergence of Antonio Gramsci and Karl Polanyi. Politics and society, 31(2): 193 -261
Cox, L. And Nilsen, A. 2014. We make our own history. Marxism and social movements in the twilight of neoliberalism. London. Pluto
Harvey, D. 2011. Time – space compression and the postmodern condition. Literature and globalization: a reader, eds., Connell, L. & Marsh, N., London & New York: Routledge
Leggett, W. 2013. Restoring society to post-structuralist politics: Mouffe, Gramsci and radical democracy. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 39(3): 299 – 315
Wallerstein, E. 2000. Globalization or the Age of Transition?: A long-term view of the trajectory of the world-system. International Sciology, 15(249): 249 -265