Quotessence
Home / Quotes / Quote by Alex Callinicos Stathis Kouvelakis Lucia Pradella

Quote by Alex Callinicos Stathis Kouvelakis Lucia Pradella

“So Marxism, for all its plurality, has been marked by the interplay of theoretical and political preoccupations. It has also been punctuated by widely perceived moments of internal crisis – starting in the late 1890s with the publication of Eduard Bernstein’s Preconditions of Socialism, but again during the First World War, in the 1930s, and at the end of the 1970s. Indeed, one of us has written, “Marxism is constitutively, from Marx’s contribution onwards, . . . crisis theory” (Kouvelakis 2005, 25). Perhaps there are two main reasons for this succession of crises. First, Marxism is inherently tied to capitalism, at once the object of the critique of political economy and an enemy to be vanquished. But since, as Marx and Engels showed in the Communist Manifesto, it is also a dynamic system constantly transforming itself, Marxism constantly falls victim to the anxiety that it is not adequate to its Protean antagonist, that it must run to keep up with the metamorphoses of bourgeois society. This is then connected to a second source of anxiety, namely that capitalism continues to exist, and that therefore the communist project remains unrealized, two centuries now after Marx’s birth.”

Quote by Alex Callinicos Stathis Kouvelakis Lucia Pradella

Author

Alex Callinicos Stathis Kouvelakis Lucia Pradella

Browse famous quotes and profile details for Alex Callinicos Stathis Kouvelakis Lucia Pradella. more

You May Also Like

“As the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one's adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a 'free people's state'; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist.”

“Si tratta di pensare in maniera diversa l'esistenza concreta della specie. Non che il tempo passa e noi invecchiamo: noi siamo protagonisti del nostro tempo e costruiamo la nostra vita, giorno per giorno, settimana per settimana, mese per mese, anno per anno, idea per idea, sentimento per sentimento, apprendimento per apprendimento, riflessione per riflessione, espressione per espressione. Allora abbiamo una visione più chiara: quando parliamo di interrelazione universale (lo ha detto anche Engels cercando di realizzare Hegel) non ci riferiamo a una interrelazione universale fatidica e fatale, tutta negativa, che quindi potrà realizzarsi solo attraverso bagni di sangue. Di vittoria in vittoria nascerà una nuova sconfitta, o di sconfitta in sconfitta cerchiamo la vittoria? Questo è il punto, il punto di partenza. Ecco perché non partiamo dal conflitto, non partiamo dalla negazione e non partiamo dalla negazione della negazione. Può sembrare una sfida eccessiva all'obbrobrio, all'oppressione, alla devastazione del sistema, ma è obbligatorio domandarsi: tutti coloro che sono partiti dal conflitto e lo hanno assolutizzato dove sono arrivati, a che conclusioni sono giunti, che strade ci hanno fornito, che chance ci hanno dato? Ci hanno insegnato molto, ma che obiettivo ci propongono? È possibile vincere continuando a partire dal conflitto? E il conflitto non è forse il terreno a cui l'avversario vuole costringerci, non è forse quello che dobbiamo rifiutare, che dobbiamo cercare di superare da tutti i punti di vista? Per esempio: il conflitto di genere c'è, addirittura abbiamo parlato di uno scontro necessario con il marxismo. Tuttavia questo è il punto di partenza o una conseguenza? Il vero punto di partenza è cercare di ricostruire a un livello più alto, nella logica dell'autosuperamento - che contiene profondamente opposizione, contrarietà, contrapposizione, conflitto, ma tende già a superarli -, l'unità della specie, la sua possibilità di sviluppo a un livello superiore. Su questo si gioca tutto. Cominciamo da un sì o cominciamo sui no? E dove andiamo a finire? Da che punto di vista partiamo e dove arriviamo, dove vogliamo arrivare? Questo è un problema filosoficamente molto profondo. Purtroppo Hegel ha fornito le ragioni maggiori di questa dialettica della negatività che dobbiamo cercare di superare d'entrata. Non è soltanto un desiderio (e se già lo fosse sarebbe una cosa molto grande), ha a che fare con tutto il modo in cui pensiamo alla nostra impresa, alla nostra causa, alla nostra vita.”

“Those who have been forced to study 'dialectical materialism', the strange concoction that was supposed to form the philosophical foundation of Marxism in the Soviet Union and other countries of socialist camp, will never forget the definition Friedrich Engels gave : Life is the mode of existence of protein bodies. If one sets aside the disgust form the relentless drilling of this formula into our poor brains, along with other jewels of Marxist wisdom, it does not sound so bad now, even if trivial and largely beside the point.”

“From the moment when the bourgeois demand for the abolition of class privileges was put forward, alongside it appeared the proletarian demand for the abolition of the classes themselves. [...] The proletarians took the bourgeoisie at its word: equality must not be merely apparent, must not apply merely to the sphere of the state, but must also be real, must also be extended to the social, economic sphere. [...] Any demand for equality which goes beyond that, of necessity passes into absurdity.”

“Marx and Engels, in their giddy enthusiasm for the industrial revolutions of their day, [...] were wrong to predict that market competition would compel factory owners to-go on with mechanization anyway. If it didn't happen, it can only be because market competition is not, in fact, as essential to the nature of capitalism as they had assumed. If nothing else, the current form of capitalism, where much of the competition seems to take the form of internal marketing within the bureaucratic structures of large semi-monopolistic enterprises, would presumably have come as a complete surprise to them.”

“Every chemical compound, according to Engels, comes into existence only at a certain time in the development of the universe when the conditions are appropriate for it; and when it does come into existence it manifests this by entering into its characteristic relations. Neither carbon compounds or proteins are ideal forms, but are themselves witnesses of the conditions on a cooling planet. It is here that occurs his celebrated remark that life is the mode of existence of proteins.”

“In the same year as the original Disaster article, Meredeth Turshen attacked the paradigm of clinical medicine as excessively preoccupied with how the individual body reacts to disease, missing the bigger picture of class and other collectivities. She cited Engels’s descriptions of how polluted air, poorly ventilated houses, overcrowded slums and omnipresent sewage predisposed the workers of Manchester to become ill. She could have also quoted Rosa Luxemburg: ‘The doctors can trace the fatal infection in the intestines of the poisoned victims as long as they look through their microscopes; but the real germ which caused the death of the people in the asylum is called – capitalist society, in its purest culture.’ Since the 1970s, critical epidemiology has agreed with critical vulnerability theory on emphasising the social over the natural: disease and disaster as produced through processes internal to society.”