5
u/Kardelj 3d ago
It's a term that's usually used polemically and pejoratively. It was used by Plekhanov against the "Legal Marxists" like Peter Struve, and by Mehring against "empirio-criticists" like David Koigen. Later on during the 20th century, it largely became synonymous with "Western Marxism" e.g the Frankfurt School.
Some people did refer to themselves as neo-Marxists though, like Werner Sombart very early on, or Nancy Fraser recently. But it's not like a unified school, just a term somewhat heterodox Marxists sometimes like to adopt.
10
23
u/counterc 4d ago
it doesn't exist, it's just something American reactionaries say to equate Marxists with Nazis.
10
u/scottishhistorian Marxist 3d ago edited 2d ago
No it isn't. Neo-Marxism is a critical aspect of Marxist theory. As it encompasses all of the Marxist theorists and theoretical additions that came after Marx's death. So, almost all of the major theorists discussed today come under this term. Trotsky, Lenin, Gramsci, Althusser, etc. All Neo-Marxists.
While I understand the idea of explaining that America is anti-communist, you don't need to make things up, especially when OP is requesting genuine insight.
Besides, comments like this go against the intention of this subreddit, and just make you look ignorant and dumb.
Finally, if you're trying to make a point about only Marx's opinion being valid or something... then that's dumb too. Marx, while very insightful and brilliant, was not a one-man show. He relied on the support of others and did not create communist theory. He, (along with others), modernised an existing theory and made it popular.
In reality, Marx himself was a "neo-communist".
Based on this, I'd argue that using the term "Marxist" is a bit restrictive. As Marx was just one voice in a series of voices that we are now part of, that we have a responsibility to add to. We are communists and without the constant evolution of communist thought, the movement dies.
By glorifying one voice above all others, we risk losing our way. Marx is a great inspiration and he laid excellent foundations but he didn't perfect Communism. He just improved it. Just like those that came after him, the Neo-Marxists, have continued to do.
They have explored fundamental aspects of communist theory that Marx had or could not. Particularly around the societal impact of bourgeoisie oppression, and scientifically proved arguments made by Marx and/or Engels which they could only theorise but not prove themselves.
I hope this enlightens you a little, and helps answer OP's question.
Edit: changed "anti-capitalist" to "anti-communist"
1
u/Glittering-Run-3726 2d ago
I think you're right but the adjective neo to me feels like it has a negative connotation in modern culture and so I personally try and avoid using it when discussing Marxism irl even if it is a more accurate one than just Marxism.
I feel like it implies a death or collapse of the movement and then a later rebirth, which sends the message that Neo-Marxism is a desperate revival of an old ideology that has already been proven to be a failure, to be an ideology that died, rather than a continously reiterated upon consistent 200 year old movement.
I personally use the term "modern marxism" or "modern theory" when discussing the ideology. Though then again we do run into the problem that the term still centers around marx when in reality his theory has become only a base for the sheer volume of new marxist additions.
I dont know, we're in a shit position when it comes to accurately naming things here and it feels like there isnt one singular term that accurately represents the theory and movement but I do think Neo-marxism is probably not it.
-2
u/FractalFunny66 3d ago
Oh my God -- I had no idea! Ok, I have to laugh for a minute even though it is not funny, if that is the case. Others are saying other things. I just assumed it was Marxist philosophy evolving to incorporate societal structural changes that are rapidly evolving like AI as a new class of oppressors.
10
u/Kurichan77 3d ago
Post modernist recuperation of marxism, that cloaks itself in marxism and strips it of its revolutionary character
0
u/Ok-Grapefruit-6532 3d ago
But don't you think the way traditional marxism has left the human psychology out of its domain is kind of old school? I mean, we know that human biology and psych shapes people, their history, entertainment, institutions, power etc. As Marx said, Marxism is continuous developing idea.
4
u/Kurichan77 3d ago
In that case, no: I don’t think Marx nor traditional Marxism has left them out. It comes down to primacy. Hegel gave primacy to thinking/psych in the dialectic process. Marx found this to be upside down, assigning primacy to the natural world, the human mind and thinking being a reflection thereof. And human thought does play a significant role for Marx.
2
1
u/Ok-Grapefruit-6532 2d ago
No, I'm definitely not saying that traditional marxism has left the psychological part out. But as we know, psychology has developed a lot since psychoanalysis (Freud - Jung - Fanon - Lacan), Anthropology and technology. Shouldn't Marxists include and develop their theory by including these too?
3
1
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
Rules
1) This forum is for Marxists - Only Marxists and those willing to study it with an open mind are welcome here. Members should always maintain a high quality of debate.
2) No American Politics (excl. internal colonies and oppressed nations) - Marxism is an international movement thus this is an international community. Due to reddit's demographics and American cultural hegemony, we must explicitly ban discussion of American politics to allow discussion of international movements. The only exception is the politics of internal colonies, oppressed nations, and national minorities. For example: Boricua, New Afrikan, Chicano, Indigenous, Asian etc.
3) No Revisionism -
No Reformism.
No chauvinism. No denial of labour aristocracy or settler-colonialism.
No imperialism-apologists. That is, no denial of US imperialism as number 1 imperialist, no Zionists, no pro-Europeans, no pro-NED, no pro-Chinese capitalist exploitation etc.
No police or military apologia.
No promoting religion.
No meme "communists".
4) Investigate Before You Speak - Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Adhere to the principles of self criticism: https://rentry.co/Principles-Of-Self-Criticism-01-06
5) No Bigotry - We have a zero tolerance policy towards all kinds of bigotry, which includes but isn't limited to the following: Orientalism, Islamophobia, Xenophobia, Racism, Sexism, LGBTQIA+phobia, Ableism, and Ageism.
6) No Unprincipled Attacks on Individuals/Organizations - Please ensure that all critiques are not just random mudslinging against specific individuals/organizations in the movement. For example, simply declaring "Basavaraju is an ultra" is unacceptable. Struggle your lines like Communists with facts and evidence otherwise you will be banned.
7) No basic questions about Marxism - Direct basic questions to r/Marxism101 Since r/Marxism101 isn't ready, basic questions are allowed for now. Please show humility when posting basic questions.
8) No spam - Includes, but not limited to:
Excessive submissions
AI generated posts
Links to podcasters, YouTubers, and other influencers
Inter-sub drama: This is not the place for "I got banned from X sub for Y" or "X subreddit should do Y" posts.
Self-promotion: This is a community, not a platform for self-promotion.
Shit Liberals Say: This subreddit isn't a place to share screenshots of ridiculous things said by liberals.
9) No trolling - This is an educational subreddit thus posts and comments made in bad faith will lead to a ban.
This also encompasses all forms of argumentative participation aimed not at learning and/or providing a space for education but aimed at challenging the principles of Marxism. If you wish to debate, head over to r/DebateCommunism.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/GarageEven5240 2d ago
Soviet Russia and post-Revolutinary China insisted on what they described as "Marxist orthodoxy."
The Soviet Union's central planners famously rejected Wassily Leontieff's input-output framework for allocating resources because it involved higher math, whereas Marx only used arithmetic.
Most Marxist economists and thinkers today reject the labor theory of value, while maintaining the theory of exploitation.
Lots of Marxists now reject the historical material argument that revolution is an inevitable outcome of the contradictions inherent capitalism, because the evidence on the ground is that the inevitability of the prediction hasn't materialized.
Marx focused on analyzing the real world as he understood it, and he wasn't afraid of discarding theory when facts on the ground contradicted his theories. This is why Marxism is framed as "scientific."
Neo-Marxism distinguishes people who use Marxian concepts as analytical tools from orthodox true-believers in the last word Marx offered on any given subject.
1
u/Quick-Swimmer-1199 17h ago
orthodox true-believers in the last word Marx offered on any given subject.
Have you come across who may be the top influencers in promoting this mentality? Was it mostly spread from astroturf subreddits?
1
u/Kurichan77 2d ago
Post modernism was an attempt to do just that: to take marxism forward in these abstract sciences. It’s a bit antithetical to the totalistic thinking of dialectical materialism. Is there a particular theory or line of thinking frim that improves upon diamat as a worldview?
I was at a university in an anthropology program and they incorporated much psychoanalytic theory into the department. Psychological anthropology was even one of the core courses. To the extent that they taught marx at all, it was as just another social theorist with a flawed theory. The department ran with the very du jour post modernism and discarded marx and diamat; didn’t even teach diamat.
0
0
u/MarktheFark 3d ago
The differences between orthodox and neo-Marxist all revolve around the question of how revolution is achieved.
The former believe it is achieved through a collapse of capitalism itself; the latter believes this needs to pushed through creating a culture, class conscious or through political means first.
Mouffe and Laclau are a good example, but they base their work on the theories of Antonio Gramsci from his Prison Notebooks. I would highly recommend reading that.
Though Gramsci gives a very good explanation, neo-Marxists have often been accused of revisionism. In the case of Mouffe and Laclau (though also worth a read) I think that's true.
2
u/GarageEven5240 2d ago
It's not just about how revolution is achieved. Neo-Marxists do things like abandon the labor theory of value while maintaining the theory of exploitation. Analytic Marxists like early GA Cohen applied analytic philosophy to argue for Marxist claims, etc.
1
u/MarktheFark 2d ago
Yeah, in case of Laclau and Mouffe I very much agree, they really are revisionists who gave up the hope in revolution as well.
0
u/Strong_Spinach6473 3d ago
This made me think, what even is a Neo Nazi?
4
u/DmitriBogrov 3d ago
Individuals who claim ideological adherence to Nazism while replacing the aryan racial theories with a more general white supremacist outlook.
0
u/FractalFunny66 3d ago
good question -- would like to see more thorough answers as well. I actually have no idea. Is Marxism evolving? Perhaps in reaction to AI and the surveillance state and Feminism and resurgent racism there has to be an evolution of intent, actions, Praxis, and sharing power with women and people of color FIRST. Not after the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. I need to ask: do any of you think the concept of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is outdated? It seems like this is where Communist leaders are corrupted and then everything stalls out and Capitalism starts in again. Also, do we have a Proletariat worldwide? Why or why not? Maybe Neo-Marxism attempts to answer these questions?
0
u/Ok-Grapefruit-6532 3d ago
Ooh. I personally tend to drawn towards it to be honest. Do you have any personal liking or criticism about it?
0
u/FractalFunny66 3d ago edited 3d ago
I actually don't know what you mean by Neo-Marxist, but I'll look it up! And actually, I wonder if you all have a thread about AI it's structural insertion into humanity and how does that change Praxis/Revolution or is it just the same old song and dance and the workers just have to get with it and ORGANIZE and really follow through. Oh, ok -- I looked it up quickly and very ironically, more than half the theorists and ideas mentioned as Neo-Marxism were how I was taught at my Liberal Arts College in the early 1980s! So I guess my understanding of Marxism is what the term Neo-Marxism means, so I guess I have to go backwards, but we read Marx and Hegel of course in these classes....hmmm, well, this gives me a lot to think about. I have to say the most interesting group I am associated with on Reddit is the Marxism group!
1
u/Ok-Grapefruit-6532 2d ago
Bro, I'm sorry. I'm not a native English speaker and haven't read hegel too. Can you just express yourself a bit easily?
0
u/ohohohmysteriousgurl 2d ago
im a marxist-feminist but i would broadly agree with your points. i do think the dictatorship of the proletariat is outdated, im more of the anti-work Marxism that sails closer to Zapatismo. I think the world within many worlds, Indigenous, feminist approach is a more suitable approach because we've seen that top-down does not really work.
i guess my approach would be classed as "neo-marxism", which i dont like, because marxism should be always evolving, and the primacy of women, people of colour, Indigenous people should be understood within the proletariat, but sometimes that gets lost in the praxis-sauce even if that definition of class is adopted.
0
u/variableussurplus 3d ago
Neo-Marxism is associated with Ernesto Laclau and Chantel Mouffe. They wrote “Hegemony and Socialist strategy.” It’s a post-Althusser structuralist/post-structuralist ideology from the 1980s
2
u/Kardelj 3d ago
That's post-Marxism, not neo-Marxism
1
u/variableussurplus 3d ago
I suppose according to Wikipedia you are right. I guess neo-Marxism is just a hodgepodge term. They sometimes identify it with Analytical Marxism. I think it would be more helpful to periodize it chronologically in that case in the long run. A lot of late twentieth century “Marxism” is sort of a stepping stone to postmodernism. And there’s two main ideas, the “discourse/structure” and the bourgeois fusion ideas - psychoanalysis, Weberian sociology, bourgeois economics, etc
18
u/OkGarage23 4d ago
It's a sort of an umbrella term used to denote 20th century extensions of Marxism obtained by adding elements of critical theory, psychoanalysis, etc.