i on thomas paine reviews: origins of crisis in ussr - Common Sense

Page 38 Common Sense - Issue 15
...........................................................................................................
The Relevance of
Marxism Today
John Holloway
I am of the generation who came to Marxism after 1968. I mention this because
when I use Marxist categories now, I often have the impression that I am speaking
Latin. that I am speaking an ancient language that few people understand, a
language that may soon be dead. There is no longer the same education in this
language as there was ten or fdteen years ago: there are no longer so many people
reading Capital, for example, which is so basic to the understanding of the Marxist
language. And, whatever we think of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we
have to recognise that for many people it implies also the disintegration of Marxist
theory. There exists a real possibility that Marxism could die out as a form of
expression, just as happened to Latin.
Does it matter if it dies? Does Marxism still have any relevance?
To answer the question. it is worth hying to remember what it was that attracted us
to Marxism in the first place. The reply is fairly obvious: we were looking for a
radical critique of society, a negative theory of society. Motivated by what we saw
and lived - the Vietnam War, the Cuban revolution, the events of '68 in Mexico,
France and many other parts of the world, the waves of strikes and militant trade
unionism, etc. etc. - we were looking for a theory of the world that would fit with
our experience, with our opposition to existing society. We were looking not so
much for a theory of society as a theory against society. The attraction of Marxism
was that it offered us a theory against existing society, a negative theory of society,
a theory of our rejection of society, our scream against society. It offered us a theory
which was not a sociology, nor an economics, nor a political science, but an anti-
sociology, an antieconomics, an anti-political science.
My jirst thesis is that Marxism is not a theory of society, but a theory against
society, and to judge its relevance talay it has to be seen in this light
If we take that as our starting point, then the question of the relevance of Marxism
today resolves itself into two questions. Firstly: do we still need a theory against
society? And secondly: if we do, is Marxism the theory we are looking for?
The first question is rhetorical: it seems to me obvious that we need a theory that
gives foundation to a radical critique of society. To be convinced of that, it is