Comparing the Two “Cold Wars” Through Gramsci, Althusser and Mao

IF 1.7 Q2 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR Journal of Labor and Society Pub Date : 2023-04-26 DOI:10.1163/24714607-bja10115
Jude Kadri
{"title":"Comparing the Two “Cold Wars” Through Gramsci, Althusser and Mao","authors":"Jude Kadri","doi":"10.1163/24714607-bja10115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThere are three overlapping objectives in the article. The first objective is to present three different Marxist perspectives, while focusing on the interpretation of the base/superstructure dialectic which is the key to the understanding of Marxian political economy. The second objective is to make sense of the first and second “Cold Wars” based on the different interpretations of the base/superstructure dialectic. The last objective is to reassert the materialist essence of the base/superstructure dialectic by evoking Marx and his concepts of “Labor” and “Capital”. The three different perspectives are analyzed based on this reassertion. Through these three objectives, two deductions were made: the first deduction is that scientific Marxism requires the acknowledgement of the overdetermination of the economic base (its dominance in the last instance) in the analysis of abstractions, empirical and historical data. The “totality of the relations of production” within the economic base appears abstract in nature, but it represents the ontological category of “Labor” that defines human history since its beginning. It has a transhistorical essence. Human beings work together to produce their basic needs, according to historically specific (abstract) relations of production. The superstructure determines the specificity of the relations of production; it defines the “historical” side of the relations of production in the economic base. In the era of capitalism, “Capital” (the private appropriation of social wealth) is the dominant relation that comes to dictate the “totality of the relations of the production” within the economic base, through the superstructure. Total capital is then the real “subject” of history, and all abstractions gain purpose and practicality based on the class struggle between Labor and Capital. The second deduction relates to real history explained on the basis of the first deduction. Looking at the historical development of the class struggle against monopoly-finance capital (the centralized and concentrated capital) in the 20th century, the First Cold War never truly ended even though the global socialist ideology became weak and the ideological struggle against the imperialist superstructure watered down.","PeriodicalId":42634,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Labor and Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Labor and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/24714607-bja10115","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There are three overlapping objectives in the article. The first objective is to present three different Marxist perspectives, while focusing on the interpretation of the base/superstructure dialectic which is the key to the understanding of Marxian political economy. The second objective is to make sense of the first and second “Cold Wars” based on the different interpretations of the base/superstructure dialectic. The last objective is to reassert the materialist essence of the base/superstructure dialectic by evoking Marx and his concepts of “Labor” and “Capital”. The three different perspectives are analyzed based on this reassertion. Through these three objectives, two deductions were made: the first deduction is that scientific Marxism requires the acknowledgement of the overdetermination of the economic base (its dominance in the last instance) in the analysis of abstractions, empirical and historical data. The “totality of the relations of production” within the economic base appears abstract in nature, but it represents the ontological category of “Labor” that defines human history since its beginning. It has a transhistorical essence. Human beings work together to produce their basic needs, according to historically specific (abstract) relations of production. The superstructure determines the specificity of the relations of production; it defines the “historical” side of the relations of production in the economic base. In the era of capitalism, “Capital” (the private appropriation of social wealth) is the dominant relation that comes to dictate the “totality of the relations of the production” within the economic base, through the superstructure. Total capital is then the real “subject” of history, and all abstractions gain purpose and practicality based on the class struggle between Labor and Capital. The second deduction relates to real history explained on the basis of the first deduction. Looking at the historical development of the class struggle against monopoly-finance capital (the centralized and concentrated capital) in the 20th century, the First Cold War never truly ended even though the global socialist ideology became weak and the ideological struggle against the imperialist superstructure watered down.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从葛兰西、阿尔都塞和毛看两次“冷战”
这篇文章有三个重叠的目标。第一个目标是提出三种不同的马克思主义观点,同时重点解释基础/上层建筑辩证法,这是理解马克思政治经济学的关键。第二个目标是基于对基础/上层建筑辩证法的不同解释来理解第一次和第二次“冷战”。最后一个目标是通过唤起马克思及其“劳动”和“资本”的概念来重申基础/上层建筑辩证法的唯物主义本质。在此重申的基础上分析了这三种不同的观点。通过这三个目标,我们得出了两个推论:第一个推论是,科学的马克思主义需要承认在分析抽象、经验和历史数据时对经济基础的过度确定(在最后一种情况下是其主导地位)。经济基础内的“生产关系的整体性”在本质上是抽象的,但它代表了“劳动”的本体论范畴,从一开始就定义了人类历史。它具有跨历史的本质。根据历史上特定的(抽象的)生产关系,人类共同努力生产他们的基本需求。上层建筑决定了生产关系的特殊性;它定义了经济基础中生产关系的“历史”方面。在资本主义时代,“资本”(社会财富的私人占有)是通过上层建筑在经济基础内支配“生产关系的整体”的主导关系。总资本是历史的真正“主体”,所有抽象概念都是基于劳动和资本之间的阶级斗争而获得的目的性和实用性。第二个推论涉及在第一个推论的基础上解释的真实历史。纵观20世纪反对垄断金融资本(集中和集中的资本)的阶级斗争的历史发展,即使全球社会主义意识形态变得软弱,反对帝国主义上层建筑的意识形态斗争淡化,第一次冷战也从未真正结束。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Labor and Society
Journal of Labor and Society INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
41
期刊最新文献
You Won’t Break My Soul: Black Women’s Contemporary Anti-Work Philosophies and Post-Work Experiences Gramsci, Polanyi and the Labor Politics of Social Protection The Centrality of the Workplace and Class Consciousness in the US South: The New Orleans Community Studies Improving Labour Laws in Ghana: An Analysis of Collective Bargaining Agreements Panama: An Analysis Of Class Location And Income Distribution
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1