Lefebvre Marxism Exploded

7/28/2019 Lefebvre Marxism Exploded

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lefebvre-marxism-exploded 1/15

Research Foundation of SUNY

Marxism ExplodedAuthor(s): Henri Lefebvre

Reviewed work(s):Source: Review (Fernand Braudel Center), Vol. 4, No. 1 (Summer, 1980), pp. 19-32Published by: Research Foundation of SUNY for and on behalf of the Fernand Braudel Center

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40240856 .

Accessed: 10/03/2013 20:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Research Foundation of SUNY and Fernand Braudel Center are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access to Review (Fernand Braudel Center).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:54:25 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rfsuny

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fbc

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40240856?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/40240856?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fbc

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rfsuny



Review,V, 1,Summer1980

Marxism xploded*

Henri efebvre

I chose s my itle MarxismExploded." Forgivemefirstfall for tsextremeriteness,ecausethemajorityfthosehereknow that Marxism xplodeda longtime go. IfI havekeptthis itle,t s because t eems o me hat here sstill omethingmore o sayaboutthis xplosion, oth osayandtodiscover.Moreover, lthoughMarxismhasalready xploded,Marxisttriumphalismas nonetheless otdisappeared.Ofcourse, ntheEastern ountrieshey ssert hatMarxism s a theoryran ideologyreignsuncontestedn theworldtoday,but thistriumphalismxists in France as well. In this respect,remember n articleby Poulantzaswhichappeared in theObservateur ot long ago, in whichhe said that Marxismreigned, hatMarxism has triumphed. ertainMaoists sayalso that heres no ongerny deologyntheworld ther hanthe proletarianor socialist, that bourgeois ideology hasdisappeared,has broken down. These appraisalsare very

♦This alkwasoriginallyiven t a seminar n Navarenx rganized yHenriLefebvreand J. C. Sempé nSeptember,976,whose hemewas the risis f heoreticalhoughtin Marxism nd psycho-analysis.ranslatedwithpermissionrom 'Hommeet laSociété,Nos.

41-42, 1976,byCorinneJ.

Maga.

® 1980ResearchFoundationofSUNY

19







20HenriLefebvre

debatable,giventhat precisely t this moment verythingpoints o thescale beingweighted n theother ide, s iftheMarxistfortresswere besiegedfrom all sides. Tendenciestoward hepure ndsimple iquidation fMarxist houghtrenotnew. In fact,we havewitnessed everal ttempts f thiskindsince thebeginningf thecentury. pureand simpleliquidation s extremelyifficulto bring bout. One cannot

liquidate,declare null and void, erase the existence f,or

relegate o archeology,n ideology dopted bymorethan abillionpeople,either onsciously r institutionally. morecareful xamination fthequestion sinorder.Moreover,funderstandtcorrectly,hepolemichasonlybegun.A certainnumber f works re beingprepared or theopening ftheupcoming eason in whichMarx willbe attackedpersonally.Theywillnote hathewasa somewhat ntisemiticew, hathesleptwith his maid,and so forth. feelvery tronglyhatsomethingf a very ow level s in theoffing. n theotherhand, hedoctrinalttack ontinues. haveheard his ormulathat I findquite felicitous:Marxism, nfantile isorderofcapitalism.We should bear that nmind!

That explosion s now overand trivialized.Whendid ithappen?How? Why?The dogmatismwas ofsuch a rigiditythat an explosionwas inevitable.Therewas, moreover, oaccomodation ossible. recall,npassing, hatwehadtalkedmuch too much about dogmatism s thoughit were anideologicalquestion.Now dogmatism eallyhas no impor-tance unless it is enforcedby thepolice,somethingwhichalwayshappens.There snodogmatism ithout olice otendto tand to handle llthe deological ndtheoreticaluestions.Withouthat, ogmatisms notvery mportant.t'ssimplyhe

tendencyoward bsoluteaffirmationshich ropsup inthe

history fany thought. hus,theappearanceofdogmatismdoes not mark thedate of the explosion.Duringthemost

dogmatic period,that is, of Stalinism,we sufferedmuchembarrassment,uchanxiety,hoseofuswho worked romthis orientation. hus, I was told manytimesduringtheStalinist eriod: Dead Marxism, hat syou!"Stalinwas"the

livingMarxism, he reator." rememberaving omemarvel-







Marxismxploded 21ous conversationsn this ubjectwithJeanKanapa, t thepresentime leader f he rench .P.,whose oliticalareerwasmadepossible yStalinism.rom hat ime nthere asanexplosion,owever ell rpoorly idden.hatdistinctionbetween deadMarxism,hich as oncerned ith he exts,whichttemptedo reestablish arx's hought,nd a "livingMarxism"which adcreated,n contrasto the houghtf

Marx,statewith

xceptionaltrength,hattself as certain

kindofexplosion. utthehistoricalompromises mucholder, atingack obeforehe irstWorldWar, eforeocialDemocracy; myselfrace t back to Ferdinand assalle.Berlinguer'sistoricalompromiseasnot odifferentromthat fLassallewhen emadehisdealswith ismarck,hats,when e greedo ocate imself ithinhe xistingtate, iththeobjectiveherebyftransformingt.Theneo-Marxistsdon't ealize hat heyreLassallians.ndeed, heLassalliancurrentas

lwayseen

eryeepnd

veryowerfulgainstr

withinMarxism. hatrepresentedlreadynexplosion. sforMarxism-Leninism,eknownoughbout his ubjectounderstandhat n a certain umberfpoints,eninismsapatching-upfanalreadyplinteringarxismndthat, orexample,n thepeasant uestion,he ontributionfLenin-ismwaseventuallyo fill ome f hegaps nMarx's houghtthatMarx tthe ndof his ifehad himselfried ofill. 'verecalledmanyimes hat tthe nd fhis ife,Marx's houghtwas

thoughtith hree road erms:

and,abor,nd

apital,althoughven nCapital neseesonly wo erms,roletariatandbourgeoisie.tthe ndofMarx's ife,he hirderm adbeen ullyestorednhis hought.utLeninwent urther,ndsince herewas a voidconcerninghe grarianuestion, efilledt.

However,n1914 heworkinglass nEuropehadalreadybeendefeated,urelyndsimplyecausetdidnot ucceednpreventinghewar.TheSecond nternationalentnto old

storage hroughouthe war. Thiswar took

place,nd the

workinglass,which adundertaken,mplicitlyrexplicitly,throughll sorts f ribunesndtheorists,o vert hewar, idnot ucceedndoingo.Thatwas notherefeat,splintering,







22HenriLefebvre

and since1917 he eparation etweenheoryndpractice asbeenevident.n 1917 Lenin wroteTheState andRevolution,where nefinds hosefamous xpressionshat never ease toquote, because famous as they are, theyare constantlyforgotten:he state ntheproletarianevolution,he tate nthe ocialist evolution,sa state hat switheringway,whichcannotnotwither way,whichhas alreadybegunto witheraway. n fact, he trengtheningnd consolidation fthe tateoccurredmmediately,nderLeninhimself,henStalin.Theseparationbetweentheoryand practiceis overwhelming(éclatant)f may ayso; hence he xplosion éclatementjh&dalready begunin political practicewiththe war itself, ndwithinMarxism etweenheoryndpracticewith heOctoberRevolution thisSovietRevolutionwhichwas to reduce heSovietsto so small a role.

Let's consider he ermMarxismtself.Weshould, believe,erase it from our vocabulary.The termMarxismalreadycontainswithin t all thedogmatism. he tenor f thetermsdogmatic.nfact,theresno suchthings Marxism.Marxismdoes not exist.But t has so penetratedurvocabularyhat twould be extremelyifficulto alterthe connotations f thisterm.There is no Marxism!There are a certainnumber f

conceptsputforth y Marx which ontitute "theory", utMarxism s a system oes not exist.So much s this o thattheseconcepts,which re linked n terms f theeconomy-exchangevalue, use value, organic composition f capital,etc.- these onceptseaveentirelypenthepolitical roblem.If one takes hem ythemselves,nesystemizeshem ndtheylead toeconomism, ut n Marx'sthought,fone follows t nitsdynamics,hese oncepts emain penin terms fpoliticalproblems.They pose the problems,but leave them to beresolvedbyaction.There s no theory f thestate n Marx;there re hints fone,butno realtheory.

There s no Marxism; here reseveralMarxisms! 'd even

go so far s to saythat he Sino-Soviet chisms not schism

withinMarxism,butrather hatthere s a ChineseMarxismand a SovietMarxism.And n the ameway, here s an ItalianMarxism nd a FrenchMarxism ndotherMarxismsn other







MarxismExploded 23countries.These are tendencies,chools of thought,f onewants ocallthem uch.ButMarxisms tobeexpunged romour vocabulary.All the more so since one should includewhatever as been abeled Marxism"na muchvaster, lobalmovement.n fact, believethatthetransformationf themodernworldbegan toward the middle of thenineteenthcentury,hat s withndustrializationnd the onsolidation fa new

typeof

state,and that it was

subjectto

opposingtheoreticalxpressions nd formulations.herewas imme-diatelyestablished right nd a left of the revolutionarymovement,f the workers'movement,nd thetheorists hosituatedthemselves n the left this is not alwaysclearformed artof this movementI'm talking bout Bakunin).The theorists ho situated hemselvesrwere ituated n theright,ikeLassalle, lso formed art fthismovement.thinkthat t theendof thenineteenthenturynemust akeMarx,Lassalle,and Bakunin s three istinct,nd indeed

opposedandcontradictory,xpressionsfthe ameoverallmovement.As you can see, I've done everythingossible so that

Marxismwouldexplode. 've goneas far s tocontest tsveryname. n theglobalmovement ne seestheappearanceof allsortsofexpressions,fattemptst theoretical ormulations.WhenonespeaksofMarxism ndtherebyries oexclude uchand suchfromMarxism, his tepseemsto mebothchildishand old-fashioned.o saythatMarxismsLenin nd notRosaLuxemburg,osaythatRosa Luxemburgs not Marxist,sabad oke. To attack hisperson rthat, ndtosay hat his npis Marxist and the other one isn't, seems to me a badmethodology,badlineof hought.hecorrectineof houghtis to situate heworks ndthe heoretical rpolitical roposi-tionswithinheglobalmovementfthe ransformationfthemodernworld.

As far s my wn work sconcerned,'vebelieved or longtime that what I do, what I write s totallyoutside theframeworkfwhat s called Marxism".To tryoextricate heconcept of the everyday, f everyday ifedoes not enterpreciselynto heframeworkfwhat susually alledMarxism.And I've certainlyeentold that!For example, mphasis n







24HenriLefebvre

the conceptof differences certainly ot in Marx! On thecontrary,tcontradicts greatnumber fMarx's textswhichattemptedo bring bout a certain omogeneity- otthatofthe political state, but that of labor, industrial abor- aworldwide omogeneity.

Now I would ike odeterminen a moreprecise ashion heinternal auses and reasons orMarxism'sxplosion, swell stheexternal auses and reasons.We must nderstand hat he

internal nd external re onlyarbitrarilyeparate nd thatthesetwo contradictionsre convergentnd notseparable.We've known or longtime hat ialecticalmaterialism,oththedialectic nd thematerialism,istoricalmaterialism,oesnotform his monolithic nity hatusedto be celebratednStalin'stime.Alreadywith materialism nd withdialectic,therewere issures hichhaveexisted or very ong ime, utwhichdogmatism amouflaged.As fortherelationship e-tweenhistoricalmaterialismnd dialecticalmaterialism,t s

problematical.won'tbelabor hispoint.Theimportanthingisto rememberhat here rea certain umber f Marx's textsin whichhe saysthatthegrowth f theproductive orces s

incompatible ith apitalistelationsfproduction these reeven the textsmostfrequentlyited.Here we face ourfirst

problem.There s a growth fproductiveorceswith apital-ism.The texts re beliedbythefacts.Butthere reother extsof Marx which re muchmore mbiguouson thesubjectof

growthndthepossibilitiesfgrowth ithinhe rameworkf

capitalist elations fproduction. till,the clearest exts aythatcapitalistrelations f productionmpedetheaugmen-tation f theforces fproduction. ut this slinked o a more

general roblem, hatof the ccumulation fcapital. believethat Rosa Luxemburgwasprofoundlyighto show that he

conceptualreasoningnMarx notonlydoes notexplaintheaccumulation fcapital,butrenderstdifficultounderstand.When Rosa Luxemburg eclared hat n the anonicalformu-la, thefamousmarket alueformula,reated alue= constant

capital (C) + variablecapital (V) + surplusvalue (S)- thecanonicalformulawhichhasneverbeen refuted ndwhich smoreovermpossible o refute ecause it'salmosttautolog-







MarxismExploded 25ical thequantityV goes to theworking lass,and sincetheworking lass can notpurchasemorethanV, howthen, heasks,can S be realized? hat'stheproblemwith herealizationof surplusvalue. In orderto have accumulation f capital,accordingoMarxhimself,t snecessaryo havea realizationofsurplus alue, ndthemannernwhich eposestheproblemrenders he realizationof surplusvalue inconceivable.The

problemofthe

growthfproductive

orces n thecapitalistmeansofproductionsthus neaspectof heproblemwhich s

larger han thatof the accumulation fcapital,which s laidout unconditionally y Rosa Luxemburg, nd which hasbroughtbout,and mustbring bout,a certain econsidera-tionof the heorytself. heaccumulation fcapital sdoublyimpossiblef one restrictsimself o Marx and towhatMarxsaid aboutthe ogicalconnectionsftheconcepts, irst fall,on capitalist elations fproduction,henon thequestionoftherealization fsurplusvalue. This is myfirst oint.

There s a secondpoint. would like to recallthefateofalienation.To be sure, his onceptwhich s perhapsmorefiguref peech han concept) asnotheoretical,pistemolog-ical status. It representsncrediblepedantry o raise the

questionof itsepistemologicaltatusfora concept, meta-phor, r even figuref peech hathasplayed o importantrole in theconsciousness nd in theknowledge fconcreteconditions, hat is, in the passage from the lived to theconceived. think hat thecampaign gainsttheconceptofalienation omesfrom pistemological edantrynd a kind fscientificnd positivistic igidity, hichfurthermoretripsMarxist hought f someof tsdimensions.What s notewor-thyhereandhere ambeingprovocative)sthat his oncept,oralleged oncept, rpseudo-concept,rmetaphor,rfigureof peech,with ll itsvagueness,wastheveryeaven fMarxistthought. he leavenwasthrustntotheobscurityfrealitybut whosereality? otonly hatoftheworkinglass,but lsothat fwomen, fyouth, fcolonizedpeople, norder omakethem onscious nd aware of the ituations theyived t,butdid not yet conceive it. Alienation was the intermediary







26 HenriLefebvrebetween heblindreality,ven thatoftheworkinglass,andthemoreclearconception.

Thesame strue fthe oncept f deology. here snothingmoredifficulto define han deology.This is so true hat nThe German deologythe term deologyis treated n anextremelynfavorableashion,whereasn Lenin t streatednsuch a favorablemanner hatLenin alks boutrevolutionaryideology, f socialist deology, f proletarian deology.Thismeans thattheconcept n Leninhas nothingo do with heconceptn Marx.Only heworlds the ame.Monolithism,heunity f Marxistthought, ad already xploded.Moreover,through enin andhis extreme onfusion bout deology,he

concepthas spread,driftedikea trail fsmoke, o thepointwhere thasbeenadoptedmore r esseverywhere,espitets

ambiguity,nd this makes it comparable o theconceptofalienation.

I would aythe amethingbout dialectics.Wehave lotof

trouble with dialectics. Logic itself s definedforcefully,powerfully.Who doesn'ttalkabout logic?Whodoesn'thavehis ownlogic?Whereasdialecticss muchmoreobscure han

logic. It worksdifferently.t works n depth,with all its

ambiguities, ith ll thedifficultiesf theoreticalxpression.We are thereforeotconcernedwith doctrinal nity, ith

a unitywhichpositionstself n theplaneofthe onceived,ntheconceived, n theconcept.We are concernedwith ome-

thing omplex n quite a different ay,withquiteanother

aspect. f one ooksatMarx'sconceptual easoning,ne sees tis economistic. ndeed, Marxismhas almost always beeneconomistic, xcept in the case where one jumped fromeconomicsto politics,often n a rather izzying eap, as inLenin, and thengenerally he science s economicand the

politics re voluntarist. ne "politicizes".The politicizationdoes not comefromcience, utfrom hewill.One leapsfromscientismo politicism. insiston the factthat there s no

political heorynMarx,that here reonlyhints f one.The

clearest re thoseconcerninghedictatorshipf theproletar-iat,thisdictatorshiphatMarxtiesobstinatelyo an extended

democracyndto thewitheringwayofthe tate a factwhich







MarxismExploded 27one has gnorednall thediscussions,ven herecentnes:onecontrasts ictatorshipf the proletariat o democracy, neabandons dictatorship f the proletariat o become demo-cratic,whereasforMarx dictatorshipftheproletariatwasdemocracyndthewitheringwayofthe tate). nMarx thereis onlya critical heory f the state. For himthestatemustwither wayand the revolutions thewitheringwayofthestate.There sno revolutionf heres no

witheringwayof he

state, n Marx'sview.Class struggle butwhich lasses?To theextent hatone

has taken into account only the workingclass, one hasaccentuated he role of theworking lass, one has createdworkerism,ndtheresults avenot lways eenvery ood, ndthey till ren't.Which lasses? f one looksclosely, nenoticesthat hequestion fthemiddle lasses sglossed ver nMarx.And worse han heglossing ver,hespeaksofpolarization f

societywhichhas not taken

place(buttherewemoveon to

theexternal ontradictions).Externalcontradictions,hat is, those that come from

outside the doctrinalstructure. here,we find ourselvesconfrontingn immense ailure,he failure ovalorizework.Marx (Marx's thoughts not simple nd he also discoverednonwork) ollowingometheoristsfhistime, iscovered hatthemachinewas destined osuppressabor which sexpresslystated n sometexts f theGrundrisse).n hiswritingsMarxalso defendsabor, venmanual abor, nd hehas the dea thatone can extract rom abora senseof life, n ethic, nd anaesthetics. hus,the failure s immense, ut t s nota simplefailure. hefailureprings romwhatgreat ocieities, otablythe oviet ndChinese ocieties, ave reated nder hebannerof this dea,or this deology.From theoutside, hefailure senormous.Viewed romwithin or hosewho ive t, t s muchmore slowly,veryslowlyin fact,that theyhave becomeconscious fthefact hat hevalorization f abor sbeginningto disappear,for a numberof reasons,not only due totheoretical riticism r ideologicalcriticism, ut also andespeciallybecauseofthe riseof automationwhichdevalueslabor. Not to mention hequestionofleisure ime.Thatthe







28 HenriLefebvresociety f abor has becomeone ofdeceit, ffallaciousness,fleisure,we notice very ay.But observe,nthefailure n theideology flabor,thisfailurewhich s notyet cknowledged(farfromt),sincethe valorization as become nstitutional,even in our own country, observe hatthe valorization flabor is collapsingand with t a certain nterpretationf"Marxism".Another bservation:apitalism as held tsown,has transformedtselfmore hanwe were old twould, hat s,therehas been a growth fproductiveorces. 'veparticipatedin some reallyinvolvedargumentation,ome ideologicalacrobatics n orderto provethattherewasn't a growth f

productiveorces. have heardvery ntelligenteople,from

particular rotskyistendency, akethefollowingtatement:The productiveorcesncludenature,abor,theorganizationof work ndthedivision f abor, echnology,ndknowledge.Yes,there as been growthfknowledge,ut here as beendestructionfnature.Thusthegainfrom echnicalmprove-mentss matched y lossfrom hedestructionfnature. heynegate achother, o there s no growth fproductiveorces.Thisargument,must dmit,hasnotconvincedme. t seemsthatthere s a growth fproductiveorcesncapitalism. he

problems that his ffirmationsincompatible ith numberof Marx's affirmations.

Elsewhere,he statehas spreadthroughoutheworld,hasconsolidatedtselfnthemajorityfthose ountries,ncludingthosewhereMarxism,n tsLeninist ariant,san institution.

It has becomevery tronglyonsolidated, nd nothing utthat.The process s so differentrom hatset forth yMarxthatwe areobliged o takenoteof t.Thepeasant uestionwasnotalways ubordinateothe ndustrialndworker uestion,andthethree erms- and,capital, abor- this SacredTrini-

ty" s Marxsays omewhere,asreappearedwith ll itsforce.There have been peasantrevolutions. owever,Lenin,whoadded to Marx's thought n these sues,didnot solve all the

questionsrelative o theland,becausehe did notstudy orstudied eryittle) he uestions f he ubsoil,whereas owweare ina position o take ntoaccountrents rom he ubsoil,andhetookveryittle ccountofurbanrents ndthe uestion







MarxismExploded29

of urbansoil, whichmeans thattheteaching f Marx andLenin on the land, the soil, and the subsoilconsidered selements fproduction ave had to be reconsidered. hosewhohavelimited hemselves o the textsofMarx and Leninhave constructed dogmatic difice hat s extremelyterile.

The world evel.We face here a seriousproblembecauseFm talking bout somethingwithwhich 'm notfamiliar.don'tknowwhat t s,but know hat t scoming. know hatwe are on all sidesprey o the world" spect. tseems hat llourconceptions,ll our nstitutions,ven he tates the tatebeing globalized- are preyto the "world"aspect. For themoment,he world" specthas norealexistence; speak n arestrictivend, moreover, elativelyistinct ense of therealworld.What sreal n theworld spect s theworldmarket.Wearen't urehow tfunctions,utwe know hat texists, ndweknow hat here sonly neworldmarket,espite he ttemptsby the socialist countriesto create a second world-scale

market. he worldmarket aseven bsorbed his nd that o-calledsocialist ountry,ikeCuba,for xample.Chinadefendsitself elatively ell s it has a sort fopen ieve ntotheworldmarketcalled Hong Kong, whichpermits t, to a certaindegree,to containthe pressure f theworld marketwhileattracting o itself a certainnumber of advantages.The

pressure ftheworldmarket svery trong. simply ote hatthere hetheorys notverywellelaborated.

Let'smove nowto another spectof this xplosion.Marx

had a globalvision.Thistotalizingision irectlyxtendedhephilosophy, lthough t was no longer philosophyn theclassicalsenseof the word. havetried o suggest hewordmetaphilosophyo describe his ineofthought hich emains

globalbut whichs nolonger xactly philosophy. ccordingtoMarx,thedifferentciences pecialize, hey ven pecializeinordinately,nd notonlythe argebranches uchas sociol-ogy,demography,ndpolitical conomy, ut lsothemultipledomains,themultiple ectorswhichdetachand distinguishthemselvesnefromheother.Whence hebirth fa criterionofscientificness,hich s not free romdeological lements,even hough hepeoplewho use tbelieve hemselvesree rom







30 HenriLefebvreideology.Whenoneapplies he riterionf cientficnesso theworkofMarx,one contributesoits xplosion. t's the heoryofepistemologicalupture hichhas notplayed smallrole nthe xplosion fMarxism, ince venMarx'sownwork reaksin two,so that on the one sidewe have theyouthful orks,whichare said to be ideological, nd on theother ide thematureworks, onsideredtrictlycientific.t'sanother ormof

cleavage,fexplosion,

boutwhichwe havenotyet poken.Thepressurerom utside ausesthework fMarx toexplode.

OneendsupretainingromMarx'swork sort f rystal, erypurified,tseems, f deology, utwhich ontainsnfact lltheideology f cientificness,nda concept rtwo surplus aluefor xample although hewholechainofconcepts, rom sevalue toexchange aluetotheorganic omposition fcapital,mustbe considered movement fthoughtwhich annotbereduced o a kindofcenter rpivotalpointwhichs the heoryof surplusvalue. Moreover,howdoes one separateout the

theory fsurplusvalue?The theory hat Marx had so muchtrouble laboratingndwhich ne couldsaywas the ubject fall his work n thepreparationf Capitalbetween1848and1857.Thus, believe hat hewhole hainof onceptshouldberetained, ncluding he conceptof organiccompositionof

capital, o rarelynd often o wrongly sed.Therefore,pistemology, hile ubjectingMarx'swork o a

strictriterionf cientificness,educest o a kind fhard ndsterile ernel. eyond hat, nehasan mmensemetalanguage,an immense iscourse n theMarxist iscourse;t s thatwhichone calls Marxism. The explosion,the fragmentationf

Marxism, s thusextraordinary. ne more reasonto stopspeakingof Marxism.That said,we cannotgetout ofit so

easily!The greatdoctrines aveall exploded, omethinghathasnotpreventedhem rom eing xtremelyroductive. nesees thatwith elation o Hegelianism. oncerningMarxism,all thesefragments hichhavebeendispersed rom ll sideshave each beenextraordinarilyertile. he mostambiguousconcepts,the most equivocal figuresof speech, such asalienation, avebeenthemostfertile. othing asbeen terile

exceptthe epistemologicalrystallizationentered n itself:







Marxismxploded 31that s sterilityar excellence! onceptsuch s alienation,class, lass truggle,urplusalue, tc.,havebeen ertileereandthere, aveproliferatednthis rthat ountry,nthis rthatMarxism.heresnothing hich,t theworldevel, asbeen ost. xchangealue ndusevalue, or xample: ehavebecome ware that t was not necessaryo relegatehisantinomyo the ategoryf henonscientific.houldwesaythatthe

beginningf Capital s notworth hetrouble f

reading? n thecontrary, e assert hat heantinomyfexchangealue ndusevalue s a concretentinomy,sort fstubborntrugglen socialpractice,hats, nthe unctioningofsociety.Moreover, e know hatuse value s trulyerythreatened,ndthat xchangealuefunctionsnsuch waythat t seems o abolish se value.Threatenedromllsides,usevaluedefendstself s best tcan,ondifferentrounds:ecology,roticism,exuality.ftheres a bigoffensiverom

exchangealue, t s inpart heresult f theworldmarket.

Throughllthat,tseems o methat glimpseomethingelse, omethingfwhichne anmake eitherbalance heetnor provisionalnventory.none ide,f nemaintainshatMarxisms anentity,monolithicoctrine,nd, nthe therhand,fwe peak f he eath fMarx,he alance heet ttheworldevel f xperiencetthe lobalevelsratherifficultomake. believe hatt snecessaryo take nto onsiderationboth heCultural evolutionndtheYugoslavxperimentfself-management,venthoughhe Chinesehavetime ftertime omitedptheYugoslavsndviceversa.But believethat n assessmentfworld xperience ust ake llthat ntoaccount. he world xperiencencludes oththefailure fauthoritarianentrallanningn heU.S.S.R. and heCulturalRevolutionothe xtenthat t s,ormighte, nattemptokeepthepoliticalpparatus,heparty,nd the statefromplacinghemselvesbove ociety.f his s the ase, nd hopeit is, it is partofworld xperience.he suggestionsndinterpretationsf theCultural evolutionre tobeinsertedinto heworldxperience,ut lso,for xample,May1968nFrance. hefact s that herere uddenlyome owder egs,some movementshichwereprepared uring period f







32 HenriLefebvrestagnation,nd which uddenly ccurred,n conditions hatwe must ater ry ounderstand,ndthatwecan only nfactunderstand fterwards.

Canwe makefrom ll that criticalnalysis? es,given hatthe specificanalyses in the various domains have led toimpassesand that we must stillrestore heworld evel of

analysis,probably hrough olitical nalysis. wouldlike toleave this

uestionuntil ater. would iketo take tup again

afterhavingexaminedthe situationof anthropology, fhistory,fpolitical conomy perhapsexology andto see ffrom ll thisdebris, t will be possibleone daytobeholdtheresurgence f somethingwhichcan stand, an edifice,orsomethinglse. For themoment, attempto answerprovi-sionally: ormyself,ecause know his s not theopinionof

everyone,heoryeconstructstself ntheplaneof nalysis nd

political riticism.Why?Becausetotality,rglobality,s at the

dispositionf thestate, nd because n theminds fphiloso-

phers,work s done on itsrepresentations.

Documents

Lefebvre Marxism Exploded