Marxism

Primo Kraovec

In a postsocialist historical situation, Marxism has a very curious position within the intellectual
field. On the one hand, it has been successfully exorcized from the university and public discourse in
general (under the pretext that it constituted the ideology of the previous, totalitarian regime); on
the other hand, this exclusion of Marxism is preventing the postsocialist intellectual field from
correctly assessing and theorizing about the new, postsocialist, historical situation. Both processes
are even more closely connectedit is precisely the exclusion of Marxism from the intellectual field
which, under postsocialism, allows theories of totalitarianism to take place.
The typical revisionist excuse would state something like Of course Marxism had to be banished
since it is impossible to explain the cruelty and inhumanity of the previous regime using its own
ideology. But this is only true if we accept the a prioriclaim that socialist regimes were cruel and
inhumanethat is, if we accept something which, according to standard research procedures,
constitutes the final result or outcome of the research process, as that researchs point of departure.
By discarding Marxism as an illegitimate theoretical perspective, one assumes the criminality of the
sociopolitical system Marxism is usually associated with and further research based on anti-Marxist
theories just confirms this prior judgment.
It comes as no surprise that discoveries derived from such research procedures are of a moralistic
type (sometimes masked in legalistic terms), since it is, when dealing with theory itself, absolutely
illegitimate to discard this or that theoretical perspective on the grounds of common morality (for
example, claims that Marxism was indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions of people). The
only legitimate procedure to determine the correctness or falsity of a particular theoretical
perspective is thorough epistemological engagement and polemics and this has not been the case
with the exclusion of Marxism under postsocialism.
If such an engagement did take place, it would probably show that Marxism constitutes a theoretical
system much too complex and much too wide ranging to be reduced to a simple ideology used in the
day-to-day political activities of the ruling classes under current socialist regimes. Actually, it is
Marxisms very complexity that distinguishes it from many other modern theories that have been
bound up with different political projects. For example, Arendtianism or French new philosophy
have a very limited theoretical scope and a very precise political charge and can easily be identified
with a certain political projectan ideological assault on Soviet totalitarianism during the Cold
War in the case of Arendtianism and the destruction of the emancipatory charge arising out of the
May 1968 protests within French society and the restoration of a conservative social order in the case
of the new philosophy. In contrast, Marxism has fueled many different political projects, from
socialist revolutions and antifascist resistance in Europe during the Second World War, to guerrilla

anticolonial and anticolonialist struggles on other continents, andmost importantly for our
purposes hereinternal resistance to and uprisings against certain nominally socialist regimes.
The typical revisionist strategy consists of firstly reducing Marxism to just another political doctrine
and thus simplifying it beyond recognition and then, secondly, discarding it as a political doctrine of
totalitarian regimes, while overlooking its role in antifascist, anticolonialist, antibureaucratic and
other emancipatory struggles. The surplus of Marxism, if we compare it to other political doctrines,
is its utopian characterit is not a real-political goal-oriented product of a specialized think tank
(like other contemporary political doctrines, be they conservative or social democratic)consisting
in its promise of universal emancipation from social and political injustice. Such a utopian promise
cannot simply be translated into a step-by-step manual for political action. While contemporary
doctrines try to be as realistic and down to earth as possible and produce countless documents
containing Machiavellian advice to the prince, Marxism is a critical theory in the strict sense.
Rather than being a practical manual, it offers a set of tools for thought primarily used to analyze
capitalism and come up with forms of political action to overcome it; however, it can be used equally
well to analyze and struggle against any unjust sociopolitical system, such as colonialism, fascism, or
even real socialism. In contrast with contemporary political doctrines, created just for that purpose,
Marxism can never be fully subsumed under any existing sociopolitical orderit always has
a utopian residue that fuels further emancipatory demands. Rather than being a nation- or statebuilding doctrine, Marxism is a distinct theoretical perspective that can take any social fact as its
research object (thus we can have Marxist historiography, critique of political economy, political
theory, anthropology, linguistics, literary studies etc.).
Marxism is not one area or a distinct discipline within the field of the social sciences; it is (much like
structuralism) an alternative to the social sciences generally. What distinguishes it from the regular
social sciences is its political chargewhile the social sciences pretend to be neutral and cling to the
defunct notion of the autonomy of science, Marxism openly admits its political perspective and,
moreover, exposes the political perspective of the regular social sciences, which, despite their
ostensible neutrality, simply support the current socio-political order. Marxism is thus openly
political, while other systems of thought are unknowingly political.
This is the reason why Marxism developed a theory of ideology and also why it was, at the same time,
able to and forced to articulate the relationship between everyday thinking and theory, between the
production of knowledge and politics, since it was precisely its own unyielding political charge that
enabled this investigation and demanded it at the same time. The ability to explore the space
between supposedly autonomous spheres of modern society (politics, economics, everyday life,
culture) and to explore the connections and causal links between them is the greatest power Marxism
wields and, at the same time, the greatest threat it represents in its struggle against established
systems of thought (Marxism is always a combative way of thinking, and always combative on two
fronts: against sociopolitical systems of domination and exploitation and against their ideologies,
sciences, and philosophies). While established systems of thought respect the boundaries between

the various spheres of society and organize their research agenda accordingly, Marxism not only
criticizes their organization and composition, but also explores the areas they necessarily exclude,
since those areas represent a blind spot for the regular social sciences. Simply noting the existence of
a connection between economics and politics or politics and everyday thinking undermines the basic
ideological illusion regarding autonomous social spheres that capitalist societies rely onherein lies
the political charge of Marxism. Contrary to the claims of many neutral critics of Marxism, this is not
an artificial and redundant add-on, which supposedly sullies its scientific nature. The politics of
Marxism is not a retroactive supplement to its theory; it is always already present in its methods of
research and in its basic epistemological foundations.
In Marxism, critiquea word that accompanies the titles of most of Marxs worksis not
a voluntary add-on, but a necessity. Marxism cannot not be critical; its particular way of selecting
objects and its specific research methods always bring it into conflict with the regular social sciences.
Marxisms characteristic political stance is not fueled by morality (as is the case with anti-Marxist
revisionists, whose politics are actually an artificial add-on to doubtful theoretical endeavors); it is
already included in its theoretical structure. It is thus Marxisms combined utopianism and criticism
that are the real thorns in the side of postsocialist regimesmuch as in certain intellectual purges in
some nominally socialist regimes. Postsocialist revisionism is not a matter of breaking free from the
repressive ideologies of the past and entering at last the golden era of democratic, free thought
unstained by ideologyas the propaganda of these new revisionists proclaimsrather, it is an
attempt to discredit and push aside a theory able to reveal oppressive and exploitative elements even
in regimes that are nominally democratic and inspire political action that could undermine them.
Postsocialist revisionism does not try to banish totalitarian ideologies, but utopian and critical
modes of thought and any form of revolutionary politics (which are, from the revisionist perspective,
always equated with revolutionary terror, mass killings, concentration camps etc.). Marxism is thus
not a ghost from the past which must simply be forgotten, but a constant alarming threatdespite its
almost complete absence in todays postsocialist academic establishment and in transitional
regimes in generalsince to analyze them anew from a Marxist perspective would also entail
a political demand to change them.