The Revolution is not for SALE
ThePricetagonSocialMovementsMustFall.
What informs this body of work is in the wake of an unprecedented success of a movement that was able to galvanize students politically affiliated and those that are not to a common cause and such a project was specifically #TuksFeesMustFall a resultant concept or trend if you may, from the broader national movement #FeesMustFall. Such a movement’s name is #UPrising, a lot is in a name especially when you conceive of the student body at the University of Pretoria affectionately referred to as Tuks. From the ashes that happened to be the fragments that held students back in terms of a convergence of voices was the reality we had been confronted with and like a phoenix UP rose from this grey area. From race, political affiliation, class and gender is but a few of the spoken of fragments. Although what the movement managed to achieve is history in the making given the institutional space in which their exploits unfolded, criticisms are present in light of the manifestations of the week that has passed. These criticisms are not afforded to discourage, but they are put forth in order for meaningful engagement and the aversion of elementary errors that have the potential to derail the movement or the worst case scenario put its members in danger were manifest especially on/from the 22nd of the month of October. The theories of social movements and resource mobilization will inform the argumentative edifice and criticisms to follow.
Resource Mobilization is a major sociological theory in the study of social movements. This emerged in the 70s but has been in existence since the days of the father of mobilization that asked a very elaborative and infamous question ‘what is to be done?’ Vladimir Lenin. Resource mobilization stresses the ability of a movement’s members to (1) acquire resources and to (2) mobilize people towards accomplishing the movement’s goals. This is contrary to the traditional theory of collective behavior that views social movements are deviant and irrational. Conversely, resource mobilization sees them as rational social institutions that are key actors in the terrain of contentious politics. According to resource mobilization theory, at the core a social movement organization works towards bringing money, supporters, attention to the media, alliances with those in power and refining the organizational structure. The last two factors namely, alliances with those in power and refining the organizational structure are pivotal to any social movement. Had #UPrising elected to act outside alliances with the respective political organizations on the campus there would be no need to refine organizational structure. But the movement chose to go into an alliance, thus it was obligatory that power and influence to be shared, as to avoid a concentration of power to one group. The differences might have been caucused in private but their ramifications were evident to a tuned eye coupled with intellect. Put simply, working towards bringing money, supporters, attention to the media does not warrant ownership of the revolution. Social movements and student movements’ alike need all of the above resources to be effective, as deviance and grievances alone do not bring about social change.
This theory is one that assumes that individuals are rational, (not always, as a tendency of being affective is also a strong possibility) individuals weigh the costs and benefits of movement participation and act only if benefits outweigh costs and this does not however exempt the so-called funders that decide to find a cause. To what ends do the means of funding a revolution entail? What is to be done that student movements do not fall prey to capital tendencies? What conditions and terms did the movement give to the funders? Or does there lay a possibility that the funder dictates to the movement because of the resource in question? These questions are informed by the dynamics of capital’s capability to reconfigure itself and be embedded in social relations. Our funders are capitalists we should at least agree. In the contemporary configuration of capitalism the exchange is no longer one that subscribes to a cash exchange alone. This needs to be looked at by movements as to avoid co-option to capitalist interests in how they go about reaching their goals.
Student movements are goal-oriented, but organization is more important than resources. Organization means the interactions and relations between social movement organizations. In the Tuks context the power dynamic that saw the concentration of power fall to one party and subsequent allegations of sabotage by others are as a result of the reluctance to share power and ideas. Again, it is not only about power but an acknowledgement that parties to the alliance need to take into cognizance that as individual entities they possess both capabilities and limits. A case in point here is that time and again political organizations in the University of Pretoria have attempted to mobilize students but their efforts are often thwarted by the directive that in mobilizing students the end-goal is to align them to a political ideology, to form part of a constituency. What UPrising managed to achieve is to mobilize students inter-sectionally, this mobilization cut-across race, gender, political affiliation, different societal class positions, students-staff dynamic and levels of education (undergraduate and postgraduate). But what this movement lacked was the strategic acumen that is deployed in contentious politics, a terrain that political societies relish and are flamboyant in enganging. This highlights the gaps in limits and capabilities in all parties concerned, a call that warrants complementary convergence of the two. Efficiency of the organizational infrastructure is a key resource in itself.
Resource mobilization theory can be divided into two camps. McCarthy and Zald are the originators and major advocates of the classical entrepreneurial (economic) version of the theory while Tilly and McAdam are proponents of the political version of resource mobilization. The former argues that grievances are not sufficient to explain creation of social movements. Instead access to and control over resources is the crucial factor. The grand law of economics supply and demand seems to give a thorough explanation of the ebb flow of resources to and from the movements, and that individual actions (or lack thereof) is accounted for by rational choice theory. This should not however operate in isolation of the latter; the political model focuses on the political struggle instead of economic factors. This division also implies the organic complementary pairing of the two.
What unfolded on the 22nd of October 2015 was rather unfortunate, but we should appreciate it nonetheless as lessons were drawn from it. From #OccupyBurnett to a possible takeover by unknown agents a phenomenon that could have been averted had there been a synergy from all alliance partners. Suspicion among the alliance partners became pronounced and the ends of people’s fingers aimed at their counterparts. It is imperative that I flag the existence of a contemporary capitalist class that thrives when groups they are part of are fragmented. Student movements need to stay vigilant and be on the look-out of capitalistic agendas that may potentially derail the movement and dispirit the masses. We need to take ownership as students of our student movements and let whatever alumni participate only on an advisory capacity. In owning such a movement let us seek our own financial backing and refrain from accepting funds from funders that are willful in such a way that they want a seat at the table.
We have to concede that the power dynamics that unfolded because of a preoccupation with platforms and a concentration of power by one group against the others was a gamble with the safety and lives of students as collateral. However, this was an operational exercise an equivalent of building a car as we simultaneously drive it. We have gone the distance and we have learnt. By ‘we’ I mean the entire student body of the University of Pretoria. The fees have indeed fallen, but they are not flat on the ground as I’m of the belief that they are on their knees. Them falling will be the day we realize free quality education in our lifetime. This was just a small victory of a long gruesome war against the dominant mode of production which is the capitalistic logic. We still need to surmount battles such as transformation and academic exclusions in our institutions amongst others. Reflection upon this victory is necessary and this is by no means a rule book on what is to be done when a movement is in motion. Rather these are pointers on what we duly need to consider as a movement in concert with other movements. We were strategically outplayed however by university management; in that the suspension of academic activities that subsequently meant that support services had to be halted meant that we were thwarted an opportunity to mobilize cleaners in our broader struggle. What I mean by this I have written and articulated in another paper of which I will make available.
The words of a student leader by the name Junior Ackotia hit home when he said to a group of students ‘no-one has ownership of the revolution, because should this be the case, then we have a problem on our hands’.
We have come, we have seen and given the goal we set to achieve we have definitely conquered. But we could do much better if we reiterate this: #ThePricetagonSocialMovementsMustFall. The Revolution is not for SALE! To non-political affiliated groups realize your limits in the terrain of contentious politics and to student political organizations in the terrain of intersectional struggles and mobilization realize your limits and may both converge as we continue to make history in our lifetime.
Amandla!!!
By Tebogo Winston Mogoru
Plethora of narratives from the eyes of those who face and think about their experiences
Tuesday 27 October 2015
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)