Reply to Ronald Aronson - book reviewer replies to criticism of his book review

The title Ronald Aronson chose for his book is After Marxism. The statements 'It is over' and We are on our own" recur like incantations at key points in his argument. The message is clear: if we want to move forward in the name of social justice (or radical democracy or the defense of any or all oppressed groups), then Marxism must be laid to rest.

My response to this position was developed in the review-essay as a whole, and not just in the part that focused on Aronson. What Aronson's letter suggests to me, however, is that he may not have thought through all the implications of what he said in his book.

The historical setting for Aronson's attempted burial of Marxism is one in which the socialist project has already suffered an unprecedented onslaught. There is a worldwide stampede toward privatization, affecting not only the former Communist bloc but also most welfare-states. Progressive forces, including the various social movements that Aronson accuses Marxism of slighting, are seriously divided and in most places are on the defensive.

Marxism is not just one object of this assault; it is the core target, the implicit unifying principle of all movements that reject - whether consciously or not - a market-based or hierarchical definition of human priorities.

In the present situation, with the historic gains of the left indeed "under siege," a funeral sermon for Marxism, no matter how respectful and at times sympathetic it might be, has the practical effect of contributing to a self-fulfilling capitalist prophecy. After aR, who can more authoritatively sign the death-certificate than a former self-professed Marxist"?

In his letter, Aronson appears not to want to take responsibility for such applications. Thus, he now says that the left's discussion must begin "from within the Marxist tradition.' If he really meant this, however, he would need to begin by disavowing his book's title and central thesis.

On page ninety of his book, Aronson cites 'the spirit of postmodernism" as guiding his treatment of Marxism. The fact that he does not reject all manifestations of "modernity" is beside the point. What he does assert is his rejection of universalism. His text does not lack eloquent calls to solidarity, but in his practical discussion, his endorsement of the "separateness and plurality' of the various social movements is counterposed against what he calls 'the assumption that they are oppressed in the same ways or by the same structures" (p. 186). Implicit in this formulation is Aronson's own assumption that because the oppressions are diverse, the corresponding structures" can have no underlying coherence.

His present summary of what he 'actually' said only confirms this reading. He speaks of plural identities, overlooking the process involved in binding them together into an effective political force.

There is no dispute between us about the need to go beyond a narrowly class-oriented politics; Miliband is equally emphatic on this point. Where there is a problem is in an approach to non-class" (or, more accurately, cross-class) issues which fails to recognize that they can each be addressed - even by progressives - in a number of different ways, not all of which are equally effective.

To embrace Marxism is not to deny or diminish the importance of environmentalism, feminism, or anti-racism. Rather, it is to place the corresponding negative or oppressive behaviors in their larger historical context, and to see how these have become bound up - in whatever complex ways - not only with each other but also, more fundamentally, with the priorities of capital.

Why is such such a larger view needed? Historically, despite the unevenness of popular advances on different fronts, it has been generally true that the biggest gains in any particular sector have come when many sectors were pushing at once. The ruling class always seeks ways to divide such efforts. To take a current example, if the battle over affirmative action can be pigeonholed as either a race issue or a gender issue or, more generally, defined as a matter of individual advancement in a competitive setting, then the larger pattern of inequalities in every dimension will only be reinforced.'

Whatever might be Aronson's views about particular postmodernist thinkers, his concrete discussion of left practice - both in his book and in his "response" -fully exemplifies the postmodernist approach. It disaggregates all the various popular struggles. It thinks at most in terms of coalitions among them. It does not recognize, or seek to understand, or imagine resisting, any common structure of control. It has no room for any but the most narrow and economistic conception of the working class. It encourages an uncritical approach to the immediate expression of each and every particular "identity," refusing to acknowledge that every human being has the capacity to go beyond this.

In the name of being up-to-date, Aronson tries to return us to an attitude we have long sought to overcome: worship of the existing fact. Thus, if universalism is engaged in predominantly - as Aronson sees it - by white heterosexual male intellectuals, then this must be what defines it. Similarly, if most people say that the end of one phase of socialist history means the death of Marxism, then the very weight of opinion must make it so.

Of course Marxism is, as Aronson insists, more than just a theory. But its soundness as a project cannot be measured by the number of its advocates at any one moment. Far more important is its inherent potential for unifying diverse struggles around a common goal.

The setbacks Marxism has suffered do not render suddenly irrelevant its understanding of the full scope and complexity of capitalism. Nor do they mean that coalitions of progressive forces have now suddenly acquired the capacity to succeed where parties with a comprehensive agenda failed.

The defeats certainly call for critical analysis; but if such analysis is to be fruitful, it must be rooted in practical efforts to overcome the fragmentation of progressive constituencies. This requires a willingness to challenge, rather than accepting at face value, the articulation of constituency interests in the language of identity politics.

The affirmation of one's identity or uniqueness constitutes, in political terms, a stage of development. It must be respected as such, but it should not be allowed to supersede awareness of one's commonality - in terms of basic needs and interests - with the vast majority of the human race.

It is true that the idea of commonality is often invoked by those who would prefer to ignore racial and other forms of oppression. But this is a deceptive and misleading use of the term. A true sense of commonality actually heightens our awareness of such wrongs, for it enables each of us to imagine ourselves in the position of whoever might be the victim. In political terms, we are then better prepared to understand what we must resist in common. This is what the postmodern approach, expressed by Aronson in his exaggerated emphasis on difference," fails to see.

NOTES

(1.) See Kate Kinkade, Laura Pulido, and Rita Burgos, "The Urgency and Limits of Affirmative Action," AhoraNow (Labor/Community Strategy Center, Los Angeles), n. 2 (Spring, 1996), p. 8. (2.) See Eric Hobsbawm's excellent discussion of what he calls 'the denial of multiple identity," in his essay, Identity Politics and the Left," New Left? Review, n. 217 May/June, 1996).

COPYRIGHT 1996 Monthly Review Foundation, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group