Lukács, Mariátegui, and the Dialectical Roots of Edu-Activism

John Maerhofer

In the March 2015 edition of PMLA, a select number of scholarsventure into the question of the public intellectual in today’s age ofmass multi-media, and the fluctuating ground of academic freedomin the contemporary university. Responding to the case againstSteven Salaita, whose job offer by the University of Illinois at Ur-bana-Champaign was rescinded because of his criticism of Israel’srecent murderous military campaign in Gaza, writers in this collec-tion intended to address the overlap between scholarly activity andthe engaging with an external public sphere. The editors coin theterm semipublic intellectual “to encapsulate this principally twenty-first century situation and give a name to an identifiable, if constantlyshifting relation, between the scholars and the academy.”1 For SharonMarcus “semipublic” work for today’s intellectual is necessary in anage where scholars need to be “both attuned to the academy and tothose outside it who are interested in scholarly ideas and work.”“Semipublic writing,” argues Marcus, “constitutes an opportunity torip ourselves off with some of the brio, pithiness, and user-friendli-ness that we deploy, of necessity, in the classroom.”2 Hua Hsu alsoargues that in the wake of the “by-gone golden age of thought, ex-pression, and influence” that defined the interventionist role of thecommitted, “We continue to chase an ideal of public intellectualwork even as these operative terms shift beneath our feet.” Hsuleaves the reader with the uninviting inquiries: “Where is the public?Perhaps more pressing for those already in the profession: what qual-ifies as work?”3

For those of us in the academy dedicated to radical pedagogy andthe struggle against the corporatization of the university, the categoryof the semipublic intellectual symbolizes nothing more than a retreatfrom the necessity to challenge the social order of things and probesystemic forces taken as “natural.” While for many the Salaita casesignals an opportunity to recognize the systemic problems with theuniversity system, especially as it relates to issues of academic free-dom, the super-exploitation of contingent labor-power, and the in-equalities intrinsic to the regime of “neoliberal” higher education,the stance of the semipublic intellectual only justifies the hierarchy

WORKS AND DAYS 65/66,67/68,Vol.33&34, 2016-17

of knowledge-privilege upon which capitalist pedagogy is founded.The semipublic category seeks an interstitial space that can evadethe controversial positioning of the engaged intellectual whose roleit is to critique power. As Edward Said warned us, the wideningprocess of professionalization and the subsuming of critical con-sciousness of the intellectual is part of what he cites as the accom-modation of knowledge, particularly in the pervasive climate ofmarket reductionism and neoliberal individuation.4 Stephen Salaitaalso points out in a recent piece in The Chronicle of Higher Educa-tion that “Making trouble is precisely the function of the intellectual”whose positon both as educator and public figure is “to identity andunderstand the disguises of power.”5 In a time of ubiquitous anti-in-tellectualism perpetuated by the political right, whose rhetoricagainst the so-called “radical” ivory tower gets replayed ad nauseain the corporate media, the ambiguous stance of the semipublic in-tellectual does little to undo the propagation of an uninformed, crit-ical community upon which the dominant ethos of capitalistexploitation, imperialist war, and police militarization maintains itspower.

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that issues of critical pedagogyare wiped clean from the PMLA dialogue, as if to sanctify a discursivebreak between intellectual production and classroom space. Indeed,from the point of view of radical pedagogical praxis, the semipublicintellectual represents nothing more than an exercise in self-reflexivealienation which stands in stark contrast to the public intellectualwho often challenges the state of things as-is, and whose role is morethan ever becoming mediated by capitalist pedagogical praxis andideological orthodoxy. In order to undo what Paolo Freire calls the“education-as-domination paradigm,” radical teachers and activistsmust work to transcend the authority of capitalist ideology by build-ing a critical consciousness which can refashion the world beyondthe dictates of oppression. If education is reduced to a secondaryactivity, a mere reflection of the ostensible “real” world of intellectualaction, it ignores the possibility of pedagogical praxis as a form ofpolitical struggle waged in the name of widening what Marx terms“emancipatory knowledge” and in building edifices of social justicethat can challenge the oppressors. The semipublic intellectual, thus,represents the Gramscian bourgeois intellectual par excellence: inthe current era of inter-imperialist war, the division of the globe intoextremes of wealth and poverty, and varying strains of ascendantneo-fascism, the category of the semipublic intellectual offers a com-fortable space within the dysfunctionality of capitalist social rela-tions, as a means of totally evading the much needed antagonismthat critical pedagogy brings with it. Furthermore, the misrecognitionon the part of those who argue for the semipublic intellectual is asymptom of the extent to which the model of the corporatized uni-versity has become systematically normalized.

Commenting on the current climate of operative miseducation,Henry Giroux argues that “Under such circumstances, education be-comes… part of a formative culture in which thoughtlessness prevailsproviding the foundations for the curse of totalitarianism.” Girouxcontinues by scrutinizing the critical responsibility of the public in-

234 WORKS AND DAYS

tellectual/educator in the period of monotonous cultural deprivationand consensus-based instruction that is integral to capitalist global-ization: “In opposition to this model, with its claims to political neu-trality… teachers and academics should combine the mutuallyinterdependent roles of critical educator and active citizen. This re-quires finding ways to connect the practice of classroom teachingwith issues that bear down on their lives and the larger society andto provide the conditions for students to view themselves as criticalagents capable of making those who exercise authority and poweranswerable for their actions. The role of critical education is not totrain students solely for jobs, but to educate them to question criti-cally the institutions, policies, and values that shape their lives, re-lationships to others, and their myriad of connections to the largerworld.”6 Building upon Paolo Freire’s concept of “education as thepractice of freedom” in which intellectual discovery moves from sim-ple reflection to activism, Giroux calls for an “insurrectional peda-gogy that “registers…compassion, care for the other, the radicalimagination, a democratic vision, and a passion for justice.”7

Alimentation among the masses is result of the commodificationof knowledge reproduction, a process which as Sarah Knopp pointsout both reinforces and normalizes the everyday reality of capitalistinequality, while also stripping us of what makes us human in thefirst place: our access to and participation in the organization of theworld.8 Knopp calls on “transformative intellectuals” “to sketch outan alternative way of thinking about knowledge and learning, andto describe the way that the economic system we live in shapes theschools in which we work and learn.”9 Knopp’s exciting categoriza-tion reflects my own concern with the materialist understanding ofintellectual labor and the revolutionary role we have to play in thedialectical reconstruction of knowledge as a means to critique andliberate, beginning—though not ending—with our students, andwhat I term in this article edu-activism. That is, in order to undo the“education-as-domination” paradigm, radical teachers and activistsmust decode the authority of capitalist historiography while theybuild upon a critical consciousness which can refashion the worldbeyond the dictates of oppression. This process begins in our class-rooms with a confrontational stance towards the category of reifiedknowledge that are part and parcel of the capitalist drive to refinelevels of alienated labor on a global scale in order to undermine thealienation fostered by capitalist education and its rendering of allhuman capacity under the rubric of exchange-value rationality. Edu-activism, thus, becomes the basis for thinking through active partic-ipation in the process of social change by working with our studentsto locate the conditions for oppression in the everyday reality of cap-italist miseducation in order to root out them out, not as a pedagog-ical end in itself, but to build models of change that targetruling-class hegemony.10

As a way of addressing some of these questions, my intention inthis paper is to interrogate the “origins” of Freire’s methodology byfocusing on the works of José Carlos Mariátegui and Georg Lukács,both of whom wrote extensively on the question of Marxist dialecticsand the dynamism of revolutionary engagement. My intention here

Maerhofer 235

is twofold: (1) to examine Lukács and Mariátegui as a framework forgrasping in concrete terms the complexities of Freire’s radical peda-gogical methodology and (2) to probe further what Lukács argues isthe “necessary bond between consciousness and action” that under-lies the essence of what this essay terms “edu-activism,” or the con-sequential outcome of Freire’s conscientization paradigm. As such,while Freire’s methodology has become indispensable to those of usdedicated to radical teaching, I point towards some fundamentalquestions as it relates to pedagogic engagement: First, what are thehistorical and conceptual origins of Freire’s conscientization andwhat are the implications for understanding such dialectical roots ofradical educational praxis? Second, is there an intrinsic relationshipbetween the de-reification/de-mythicization process and the com-pulsion of liberation that the proletariat unaffectedly bears, accord-ing to the Marxian orientation of revolutionary praxis? Moreimportantly, how can radical educators mediate Freire’s dialecticalschema in order to concretize such revolutionary commonalties be-yond merely “intellectual” consciousness as activism outside theclassroom walls? My essay will culminate in a pedagogical readingof Takiji Kobayashi’s proletarian novel Kani Kosen (The Crab CanneryShip) as a way to reconcile the dialectical functionality of edu-ac-tivism and the methodological possibilities for the undoing of capi-talist education-as-domination in the current era of spiraling crises.

Symptoms of Mass Ignorance: Lukács and the Dialectic of Knowledge

One of the central themes that runs through the courses I teach atthe City University of New York (CUNY) is the dialectic betweenknowledge-reproduction and power. I ask students to consider sev-eral questions that we explore throughout the semester in readingsand discussions: for example, why has knowledge become so spe-cialized? Who has access to which forms of knowledge and whatimplications does that have on issues of inequality? How does thespecialization of knowledge-production in a system like capitalismreproduce systemic inequality in terms of race, class and gender?And finally, how can dialectical thinking be utilized for the purposesof liberation and to grasp the totality of capitalist reproduction fromthe inside, i.e., from the point of view of the working class?

Despite the optimism that such questions bear, what also has be-come clearer to me in the last fourteen years teaching at the univer-sity level is that the assault against critical thought based in thehumanities stems from the top-down restructuring of higher educa-tion, what Robert Abele rightly calls “the capitalist takeover of highereducation.” This “means-to-an-end capitalist-oriented enterprise,”according to Abele, is based on this simple principle: “one cannotbe a critical thinker, or engage in deepening one’s knowledge ofhuman ideas or cultural development, if one is to be an employeeof an American business.”11 The ideology of utilitarian education issomething that students have internalized before even entering theuniversity and which has been adopted by capitalist pedagogy. Thus,the challenge I always face can be characterized in the following

236 WORKS AND DAYS

terms: for the bulk of the working-class students who go to CUNY,their idea of education is based upon the idea of exchange betweenknowledge and capital, rather than based upon the idea that knowl-edge can sharpen the imagination and open spaces for creative andcritical inquiry. More and more it has become clear to me the extentto which the educational industry has erased students’ ability tograsp social reality beyond the manufactured formation of capitalistreproduction, the consequence of aggressive standardization. Thesystemic erasure of what I would label the “slow violence” of edu-cational institutionalization truly substantiates Althusser’s focus onthe ideological state apparatus as the quintessential educational ide-ological apparatus, one that has only intensified under the regimeof flexible accumulation and neoliberal privatization in the last threedecades.12

In short, neoliberal austerity has devastated our ability to cultivatestrategies for critical thought particularly in the realm of public ed-ucation. And yet, as Henry Giroux notes, public education seems tobe the last bastion of resistance against the onslaught of the neolib-eral assault: “Public schools and higher education are ‘dangerous’because they hold the potential to serve as laboratories for democ-racy where students learn to think critically. Teachers are threateningbecause they refuse to conflate education with training or treatschools as if they were car dealerships.”13 Henry Giroux’s assertionthat pedagogical praxis in the era of neoliberal capital has fostered“A new kind of infantilism and culture of ignorance... in which theonly obligation is to live for one’s own self-interest and to reduce theresponsibilities of citizenship to the demands of consumer culture”seems to capture the state of higher educational institutions in theera of neoliberal maintenance.14 The strengthening of these attackson both institutions and individuals within them who speak truth topower is not only a symptom of corporate consolidation of theknowledge/power nexus in higher education, but also can be un-derstood within the context of emergent neo-fascism with its neces-sity to quell and eradicate forms of dissent that yield a systemiccritique of state power, as the Salaita case and other cases of repres-sion against students and professors around the world have aptlydemonstrated.15 And yet the very notion that the university (andschools in general) at one time existed outside the realm of capitalis a fantasy. As Michael Parenti argues:

To say that schools fail to produce an informed, criticallyminded, democratic citizenry is to overlook the fact thatschools were never intended for that purpose. Their mis-sion is to turn out loyal subjects who do not challengethe existing corporate-dominated social order. That theschool has pretty much fulfilled its system-sustaining roleis no accident. The educational system is both a purveyorof the dominant political culture and a product of it.16

As much as institutional education acts as a formative mechanismin perpetuating and maintaining the social order of things and con-ditions workers for their inevitable place within the system of ex-ploitation and class dominance, activism in the classroom will

Maerhofer 237

inevitably create the necessary fractures to reshape the possibility ofresistance. Against this, the task of edu-activism is to grasp the di-alectical totality of the historical conditions that correspond to thedictates of capitalist education and the politics of disengagementthat it breeds.17 At the core of edu-activist dialectical thought is thenecessity for fortifying the radical imagination in the process of activeknowledge that both demystifies capitalist ideology while also forg-ing an emancipatory ethics based upon the worldview of collectivestruggle. Edu-activism, thus, becomes the basis for thinking throughactive participation in the process of social change by locating theconditions for oppression in the everyday reality of capitalist mise-ducation. It is the outcome of the process of dialectical inquiry thatenables a thoroughgoing understanding of the world, but also theconcrete positioning we have in relation to systemic regimes of op-pression that in turn determine and structure our struggle againstthem.

In order to develop the theory of edu-activism further, I turn toGeorge Lukács’ History and Class Consciousness, a seminal workthat also reveals itself in Freire’s theoretical development.18 Lukács’accomplishment lies in his ability to concretize a theory of dialecti-cal thinking that is derived from the inevitability of class struggle thatin effect shatters the logic of false consciousness upon which capi-talism is founded. The “mendacious consciousness” that solidifiesthe economic base of capitalist reproduction, in other words, “be-comes fatal” when subjected to what Lukács calls “the question oftotality,” by which he means the unseen historical forces that createthe contradictions inbuilt within capitalism, and which by nature thebourgeoisie fail to grasp, yet are unveiled in the process of increasingclass antagonism as experienced by the proletariat. The inevitableshattering of reified consciousness upon which capitalist social re-lations are reproduced is what enables the proletarian subject tograsp new forms of knowledge-production as a constituent elementin the struggle against its appropriation by capital itself.

That the development of class consciousness on the part of theproletariat can fragment the reified consciousness of the capitalistclass is revealed especially during moments of crisis. As Lukácswrites:

In the class struggle we witness the emergence of the hid-den forces that usually lie concealed behind the façadeof economic life, at which the capitalists and their apol-ogists gaze as though transfixed…. In this struggle forconsciousness historical materialism plays a crucial role.Ideologically no less than economically, the bourgeoisieand the proletariat are mutually interdependent. Thesame process that the bourgeoisie experiences as a per-manent crisis and gradual dissolution appears to the pro-letariat, likewise in crisis form, as the gathering ofstrength and the springboard to victory. Ideologically thismeans that the same growth of insight into the nature ofsociety, which reflects the protracted death struggle of thebourgeoisie, entails a steady growth in the strength of theproletariat. For the proletariat the truth is a weapon that

238 WORKS AND DAYS

brings victory; and the more ruthless, the greater the vic-tory.19

There are a number of elements in Lukács formulation that corre-spond to radical pedagogy: firstly, the notion that class struggle pro-duces new forms of collective awareness that allow the proletariatto comprehend from an internal position the very blind spots inher-ent in capitalist social reproduction, what Lukács calls the “dialec-tical contradictions in its class consciousness.”20 The passivity ofcognizance under the rubric of capitalist social relations, caught be-tween “the two extremes of crude empiricism and abstract utopi-anism,” is what proletarian class consciousness seeks to transform:for Lukács, as the working class grows to understand its position asthe historic bearer of revolutionary transformation, it is able to pen-etrate the “superficial view of the world” upon which the proletariatis dependent in a system based upon the self-interest of the ownerclass. While at first this insight is systematically obscured, it is thevery contradiction that comes into focus as a consequence of sharp-ening class struggle, breathing into life the revolutionary “self-knowl-edge” of the proletariat and its historic role in the process ofrevolutionary transformation, as Lukács exclaims: “In the class strug-gle we witness the emergence of all the hidden forces that usuallylie concealed behind the façade of economic life, at which the cap-italists and their apologists gaze as though transfixed. These forcesappear in such a way that they cannot be ignored.”21

Class consciousness for Lukács is based upon the notion that theproletariat comes to grasp the essential contradictions upon whichcapitalist social relations are determined through the concrete strug-gle against capitalist totality, which breaks through what Lukács callsthe “conscious attempt at forgery” of bourgeois cultural and intel-lectual hegemony. It is interesting to note the extent to which Lukácsin this part of his seminal work puts specific emphasis on the organicquality of proletarian ascendancy, which for him emerges within thespace of capitalist hegemony not as an outcome of external influence(i.e. the intervention of the vanguard party), but the consequence ofthe proletariat’s recognition of capitalist totality, which it penetratesin the wake of class struggle. While not at odds with the Leninist no-tion of vanguardism, Lukács’ scrupulous reading of the Marxian di-alectic evokes Mao’s “from-the-masses-to-masses” dictum,accentuating the role of intellectual capacity within and across thespace of proletarian embryonic formation. As Lukács writes, “Thedialectical cleavage in the consciousness of the proletariat is a prod-uct of the same structure that makes the historical mission of the pro-letariat possible by pointing forward and beyond the existing socialorder.”22 Working-class ascendancy, in other terms, is born out thenecessity to struggle from within the parameters of capitalist hege-mony, thus for Lukács enabling an inimitable outlook and under-standing on the part of the proletariat of what constitutesrevolutionary transformation in the process of becoming.

Most important in Lukács sentiments here is the emphasis on di-alectical thought as the key mechanism in the process of emergentclass struggle. Exposing what Freire calls “the vulnerability of the op-

Maerhofer 239

pressor” in the process of active liberation entails the cultivation ofdialectical thinking to the extent that it can be utilized as means ofshattering what Lukács cites as “the two extremes of crude empiri-cism and abstract utopianism” that underlies the ideological forma-tion of capital, resulting in either complete obedience to systemicconditions or false consciousness of the mastery over such condi-tioning itself. 23 Lukács sentiments reveal the very process by whichdialectical thinking—that is, thinking that locates itself in relation tothe concrete conditions—restores the critical sensibility necessaryto overcome the predominance of reified knowledge reproduced bycapitalist pedagogy. The authority of Lukács’ “liberation” of dialec-tical thinking, according to Fredric Jameson, is not simply about theadvance of working-class agency, but also encodes a form of self-re-flexiveness that is able “to understand the dilemma itself as the markof the profound contradictions latent in the very mode of posing theproblem.” Jameson continues to argue that:

Dialectical thinking thus proves to be a moment in whichthought rectifies itself, in which the mind, suddenly draw-ing back and including itself in its new and widened ap-prehension, doubly restores and regrounds its earliernotions in a new glimpse of reality: first, through a com-ing to consciousness of the way in which our conceptualinstruments themselves determine the shape and limitsof the results arrived at…; and thereafter, in that secondand more concrete moment of reflection…, a conscious-ness of ourselves as at once the product and the producerof history, and of the profoundly historical character ofour socio-economic situation as it informs both solutionsand the problems which gave rise to them equally.24

My use of Jameson’s rather long quote is meant to rethink the pa-rameters of critical pedagogy and the ways we can inject the essen-tial qualities of dialectical thought into strategies of effectiveresistance in the classroom. For me, dialectical thinking lends itselfto the development of our own “conceptual instruments” of criticalthought that can be utilized in the fightback against the institutionallimits of reified knowledge reproduction, as a means to cultivate crit-ical literacies to undo the grim reality of education-as-domination.As such, the foundation of edu-activism materializes firstly as a the-oretical approach to the problem of knowledge as it operates in cap-italist pedagogy itself: as Lukács repeats throughout his seminal work(echoing Marx’s grave-digger maxim), the blind spot of bourgeoisideology is that in reproducing its hegemonic position it is also cul-tivating and sharpening the tools of working-class resistance fromwithin its own sacred domain. The criticality of dialectical thoughtemerges from within capitalist institutions, which is why—as Lukácsemphasizes—working class agency does not need a table rasa, butis the outcome of the inevitable class struggle as a self-reflexiveprocess of overcoming the boundaries fortified by capitalist ideology.As a way of analyzing the specifics of such an inquiry, I now turn tothe work of the Peruvian Marxist José Carlos Mariátegui and the fight-back against the myth-making machinery that fortifies capital’s hege-monic structuration.25

240 WORKS AND DAYS

Smashing the Bosses’ Lies: Mariátegui the Undoing of Capitalist Mythicization

One of the most enlightening sections of Freire’s seminal work,Pedagogy of the Oppressed, comes in the 4th chapter where he dis-cusses the “well-organized” propaganda machine of the ruling-class,a notion that in the current moment of the U.S. election cycle smacksus in the face on a daily basis. Subjugation by the oppressor, accord-ing to Freire, stems from the requirement to erase the inquisitive na-ture of the oppressed, what we have been discussing as the necessarycriticality in the emergent class struggle that has been systematicallyeradicated by capitalist pedagogy. Freire writes that

Since the oppressors cannot totally achieve this destruc-tion they must mythicize the world. In order to presentfor the consideration of the oppressed and subjugated aworld of deceit designed to increase their alienation andpassivity, the oppressors develop a series of methods pre-cluding any presentation of the world as a problem andshowing it rather as a fixed entity, as something given—something to which people, as mere spectators, mustadapt.26

Freire’s insights bring up central questions for militant teachers inthe struggle against capitalist mythicization: most importantly, howdo we fight against its hegemony? But is that the most we can do toenable students to see the falsehoods of ruling-class ideology? Or,can we also construct a counter-mythology based upon radicalpremises in order to overcome the alienation and passivity repro-duced by capitalist ideological formations?

In order to investigate such questions further, I turn to the work ofJosé Carlos Mariátegui, a central figure in Marxist historiography.And yet it might come as a surprise that I would choose to focus onthe work of Mariátegui here and now, as many would see his Marxistwriting to be oriented simply towards a rigorous analysis of the con-ditions in his native Perú.27 Seeing his work only through the lens ofthe emergence of Latin American Marxism, however, obscures thebreadth of his analysis and his insightful contribution to the devel-opment of Marxist theoretical inquiry in the 20th century and intoour own time. While his primary focus was his native Perú, Mar-iátegui’s acute sensibility enabled him to provide to the world withone of the first comprehensive analyses of several crucial topics: therise of fascism in the 1920’s, the emergent struggles across the ThirdWorld, and issues related to the struggle for women, not to mentionmost importantly his insight into the question of indigeneity andracism. He also wrote several portraits and critiques of his contem-poraries, which encompassed Lenin, Trotsky, Freud, George Sorel,and Maxim Gorky, marking the internationalist character of his work.Mariátegui’s anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist theory and praxishave become the basis for movements across Latin America, partic-ularly in his native Perú.28

For my own purposes, I am interested in two interconnected as-pects of Mariátegui’s work: first, his insistence on what I call termthe materialization of insurgent knowledge, a formation plays a cen-

Maerhofer 241

tral role in what I have been calling edu-activism. I define insurgentknowledge as the dynamic of collective antagonism that arouses re-sistance against the everyday reality of capitalist exploitation and in-humanity. It corresponds not only to the process of self-realizationof one’s alienation within the realm of capital (to utilize Marx’s ter-minology), but also to the praxis of action by which revolutionaryconsciousness enacts and determines the possibility of radical or-ganization. As Terry Eagleton explains, “knowledge” for Marx “be-comes itself a kind of social or political force, part of the materialsituation it examines rather than a mere ‘reflection’ of or upon it. Itis knowledge as an historical event rather than as abstract specula-tion.”29 In a related way, Mariátegui is primarily concerned with ad-vancing a revolutionary sensibility—what I am calling here insurgentknowledge—that simultaneously disengages the bourgeois ideologyof national sovereignty while also advocating the necessities of classconsciousness in the formation of the revolutionary vanguard. As heargues in his classic Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality,“To believe that the abstract idea of freedom…is to be trapped by anillusion that depends perhaps on a mere, though not disinterested,philosophical astigmatism of the bourgeoisie and its democracy.”30

The second characteristic of Mariátegui that is relevant here comesfrom his writings on myth and optimism, a curious aspect of his ex-ploration of Marxism based upon his reading of the French syndi-calist George Sorel, among others. While some of his insights borderon hybrid mysticism, his intention was to interrogate the crisis ofbourgeois cultural hegemony while also rethinking the possibility ofrevolutionary mythology in the emergent struggle for socialism. Asthe editors of his anthology assert, “The essays represent faith in anew, revolutionary belief system that would inspire men and womento create socialist revolution,” a sort of materialist optimism muchneeded, I would argue, in our own time of perpetual war and fas-cism.31 In his essay “Man and Myth,” for example, Mariátegui inter-rogates the façade of liberal mythicization as means to posit analternative belief formula based upon the a reconceptualization ofmyth grounded in materialist reality, as he writes:

The bourgeoisie no longer has any myths. It has becomeincredulous, skeptical, nihilistic. The reborn liberal mythhas aged too much. The proletariat has a myth: the socialrevolution. It moves towards that myth with a passionateand active faith…. The strength of revolutionaries is notin their science; it is in their faith, in their passion, in theirwill…. They are not divine; they are human, social.32

It is such “revolutionary excitement” that opens up new avenuesfor the spaces of optimism and the radical imagination, which underthe regime of capitalist accumulation is thwarted and reduced tobase mode of survival.

Bracketing for the time-being the mysticism intrinsic in Mar-iátegui’s writing above, what is crucial to take form his inquiries isthe extent to which dehumanization underlies capitalist mythiciza-tion, which in turn produces the impossibility or thinking beyondthe confines of its dictated reality, what Freire also refers to as the

242 WORKS AND DAYS

instruments of domination. It is not difficult to imagine the ways inwhich the educational apparatus of capitalism annihilates students’ability to cultivate optimism (revolutionary or otherwise), throughstandardized testing and disciplinary mechanisms of repression thatresult in the expansion of the school-to-prison pipeline in the currentera of mass incarceration. For Henry Giroux, “drill-and-test modesof pedagogy…kill the imagination of students” and thus mirror sys-tematic forms of tyranny enveloping out social lives.33 This form ofrevolutionary positivity to combat the squashing of the imaginationand political agency is something to which Freire himself subscribesin what his theory of the “action-reflection” model founded upon aprocess of re-naming of the world-as-is: “To exist, humanly, is toname the world, to change it…. People are fulfilled only to the extentthat they crate the world…and create it with their transforminglabor.”34

In this sense, both the concept of insurgent knowledge and capi-talist de-mythicization lend themselves to the praxis of edu-activismwith the focus on cultivating spaces of resistance both within andexternal to the classroom walls. As recent history has revealed to us,the global insurgency is growing: while the class struggle in the cap-italist centers of the North wanes in comparison to burgeoningmovements in the global South, where workers have experiencedthe brunt of neoliberal structural adjustment and state-based vio-lence, movements such as Occupy and Black Lives Matter in theNorth mirror the concerns about a world dictated by psychopathswho are sharpening the tools of racism, militarism, and fascism inorder to “solve” the crisis in capitalist globalization. What is “new”about the current manifestation of insurgency is that it is occurringwithin the era of what many see as permanent capitalist crisis, thuslending itself to a retrieved semantics of revolutionary international-ism. Similarly, Mariátegui’s resolve to cultivate dialectical materialistinquiry as a foundational component of heterogeneous working-class consciousness is what fortifies the repudiation of the fascistcounter-revolution. His inquiry also pushes the ideology of revoltbeyond the contemporary fixation on corporeal multiplicity, whichhas serious limits in terms of its revolutionary potentiality. As the tra-jectory from reform to revolution in Mariátegui’s thought makesclear, class consciousness needs to become the organizing principlefor building solidarity among the ranks of the globally dispossessed.It is the ultimate praxis by which the platitudes of resistance becomemore than symbolic and in fact push back against recurrent formsof systemic injustice. In other terms, such revolutionary enthusiasmneeds to become an ontology of collective revolt based on the prin-ciples of radical egalitarianism, anti-capitalism, anti-racism, anti-sex-ism, in the forming of a revolutionary model of social justice beyondthe ballot box or the limitations associated with one-dimensionalacts of corporeal multiplicity. Mariátegui’s emphasis on solidarityamong the varying facets of the working class offers a criticalmethodology and praxis in the struggle against the illusions of free-dom offered by the capitalist bosses, a principle which needs to beconstantly injected into the collective struggles against ruling-classforces, both within and outside of the capitalist centers, especially

Maerhofer 243

in light of sharpening inter-imperialist rivalry and the recent turn tothe fascism from the US to the Philippines and beyond. The question,as I will explore in the final section of this essay, is how to incorpo-rate such strategies into our everyday teaching so as to break theformative myths concocted by the rulers to dupe workers into repro-ducing their own oppression.

Counter-memory as Praxis: Kani Kosen and Contemporary Class Struggle

So what are the ways we can fight against capitalist hegemony inthe era of emergent fascism, crisis, and endless war? How do weundo the alienation and passivity instilled in students who have beenseduced into accepting the world-as-is doctrine in a time when cap-italist mythicization has intensified and sharpened its tools? Is revo-lutionary optimism even possible in such dark times when the haveshave fortified their positions while the bulk of humanity wades inthe filth that capital has fostered upon it? With these questions inmind, my final comments will offer a “reading” of the Japanese pro-letarian novel Kani Kosen (The Crab Cannery Ship), written by thecommunist writer and activist Takiji Kobayashi, to materialize thekinds of praxis-oriented steps fundamental to edu-activism and thepossibilities of collective dialogue needed in order to de-mythicizethe world-as-is paradigm which compels us to accept the inevitabil-ity of perpetual war, racism, and fascist conditioning. My analysis ofKani Kosen will not at all be comprehensive; rather, I hope to fleshout some principle concerns Takiji35 raises in his groundbreakingwork about the possibilities of working-class resistance in light ofour current situation. In particular, I emphasize the ways criticalreading of texts can break through the phony lessons that are nur-tured by capitalist pedagogy in the hopes of planting the seeds forthe inevitable fightback against systemic oppression both within andoutside of the barriers of our respective institutions.

Let me begin first by characterizing the novel’s curious influencein the contemporary period, which in itself is astonishing. For it isimportant to note that the novel was on Japan’s bestseller list in 2008,and after forty years continues to attract readers across the globe butparticularly young Japanese workers who have suffered under Japan’seconomic crisis that has loomed since 1991. The Kani Kosen“boom,” as it is called, is thus no coincidence, given that Japaneseyouth are searching to ways to understand and rethink their post-warpresent through history, a history that is very much obscured in pub-lic discourse, especially in relation to education.36 As HeatherBowen-Struyk argues the “boom” represents a moment of revolu-tionary optimism in the present era: “Faced with uncertain economicgrowth since the bursting of the economic bubble in 1991, an entiregeneration has now grown up without the sureties experienced bytheir parents…. For those intimate with Takiji’s writings, this “boom”represents the possibility of change.”37 One particular concrete effectof the “boom” has been the increase in membership of the JapaneseCommunist Party, an outcome that (in my own view) seems to havehad little effect on contemporary Japanese politics, with the turn to

244 WORKS AND DAYS

the authoritarian right led by Shinzo Abe, who has led Japan downthe road of re-militarization.38

So why is it important to note the impact of a novel published in1929 on today’s culture and society? In the context of the present ar-gument, I would argue this is a crucial starring point for a criticalreading of the novel, as it points the way forward for a dialectical in-tervention into both the history of inter-imperialist rivalry and theimpact upon working-class formation in the centers of empire, notto mention its illuminating examination of the effects of imperialistextraction in the global “margins.” As means of exploring this ques-tion, let me give a synopsis of the novel and the author’s intent. Inshort, Kani Kosen tells the story of a group of unorganized workerswho are super-exploited for their labor aboard the SS Hakko Maro,a fishing vessel and crab canning boat. In the course of their voyageinto the disputed waters off the coast of Russia to the north ofHokkaido (Japan’s northernmost island), the crew start to realize thattheir sacrifice for the survival of Japan’s empire is futile, based uponthe rhetoric of ultranationalism and racism utilized by the bosses tokeep the workers unorganized. The horrific conditions the workersexperience on the ship cause the workers to organize and revoltagainst the ship bosses, ending in a strike that fails but also radical-izes the workers to build the class struggle among the ranks of theproletariat. As a consequence, they come to recognize the conditionsof their own alienated labor against which they begin to act collec-tively, bearing in mind the interrelationship between their own strug-gle and those led by millions of workers around the world, butespecially those in Japan’s colonized spaces. Written at the heightof Japan’s imperial expansion across Asia, Takiji’s intention is tobroaden the political context of the late 1920’s which witnessed awatershed in the class struggle waged by workers, students, and in-tellectuals against the imminent rise of Japanese militarism and fas-cism, which would reach its peak after Japan’s full-blown invasionof China in 1933, the same year that Takiji was tortured and brutallymurdered at the hands of the police in Tokyo.39 As Takiji unapolo-getically writes at the end of the novel, “This narrative is a page fromthe history of capitalist expansion into colonial territories.”40

Without being overly programmatic about it, what is clear is thatTakiji is using the novel form in order to “teach” us several lessons:inter-imperialist rivalry and the building of empire; the symbiotic re-lationship between racism and ultranationalism; the reproduction ofalienated labor and the ideology of individualism versus collectiveaction; and finally, the emphasis on the need for collectivity in theface of overwhelming violence on the part of the state, particularlyunder the form of emergent militarism and fascism. Just as Japan’sempire necessitated the building of a massive military apparatus inorder to bolster its position on the world stage, a move that resultedin the genocide of tens of thousands of people across Asia, U.S. im-perialism, as John Bellamy Foster writes, “has led the United Statesto turn to extra-economic means of maintaining its position: puttingits huge war machine in motion in order to prop up its faltering hege-mony over the world economy.”41 Such pedagogical moments in histext can be utilized as a means to historicize and expand the context

Maerhofer 245

of racism, imperialism, and capitalist hegemony, which in our owntime has become globalized. That is, despite its taking place in an-other time and place, the novel facilitates a conversation about thehistorical realities of imperialist conquest and the extraction of re-sources, uneven development between the global South and North,as well as the contradictions of capitalist progress, which in the cur-rent era has instead wreaked havoc across the globe.

Ultimately, Takiji exposes the lies that are enshrined in capitalistinstitutions of learning: that the coveting of global resources by arch-capitalists demands an ideological machinery that hooks the workingclass through militaristic nationalism, and the belief that we need tofight for the bosses instead of organizing our ranks in the struggleagainst the super-exploitative mechanisms that dis-unify us both lo-cally and globally. To characterize Takiji’s lessons a bit more con-cretely in the context of own historic period, we can see the extentto which privatization and the educational reforms that stem frombudget cuts, tuition hikes, labor exploitation and the like are in factways to prepare us for more and more war in the emergent inter-im-perialist rivalry unfolding across the globe. Re-organization of edu-cation through privatization, budget cuts, and tuition hikes meansthat more students and workers will be unemployed or out of schooland are likely to become the target of military recruiters who aremore and more appearing on our campuses and whose objective isto coerce our students to join military to fight “against terror,” whenin reality the military needs bodies to ensure the expansion of impe-rialist profit. Again, we see how education is used during capitalistcrisis for the purposes of ruling-class priorities: it is only for the bet-terment of the ones who own, and not the ones who pay, often withtheir lives. In short, capitalist education is privileged education, forthose who will remain silent and who will eventually run the ruling-class machine.

That we must interconnect the localized struggle on our campus(budget cuts, tuition hikes, and adjunctification) with U.S. imperial-ism and the global crisis, which will only deepen as the militariza-tion and destabilization of Afghanistan and the region unfolds, is anessential part of rethinking of strategy in light of global struggles fortransformative change. The universality of the current era of insur-rections springs from the collective rage against the inequalities ofglobalized capital, despite the inconsistencies that vary from placeto place in terms of social and strategic configurations. To this extent,resistance itself has taken on a “new” form, one which not onlymoves beyond counter-hegemonic and cultural strategizing, but alsoas such reveals the potentiality of a universal paradigm directed atexposing, combating, and overcoming the effects of globalized cap-ital and for building revolutionary solidarity beyond the fictionalityof borders and nationalist cultural paradigms. As Marx reminds usthroughout Capital, the super-exploitation of labor is an essential andinevitable in the reproduction of accumulation, the abstract processof which comes to be embodied in the commodity form or the sym-bolic requisite of capitalist social relations itself. The mechanism ofabstraction that underlies the obligatory exploitation of labor poweris the catalyst that also configures the insurgent response to the ever-

246 WORKS AND DAYS

widening conditions of impoverishment, particularly in our currentera of capitalist crisis in which the gap between the poorest and rich-est is at a record high. At a time in which the ruling class is sharpen-ing the tools of fascist oppression, what we need is to foster newforms of revolutionary mythology and excitement, particularlyamong our students whom the ruling class is bent upon using as can-non fodder for their imperial project.

In conclusion, I would like to keep Mao’s dialectical maxim inmind: “All views that overestimate the strength of the enemy and un-derestimate the strength of the people are wrong.”42 In other words,what is clear is that the current crisis offers an opportunity for ex-posing the fallacies of the capitalist class. We must unite internation-ally to fight the menace of fascist encroachment in our schools andwithin our social lives, while also paying close attention to the par-ticularities of our “own” environments. From Haiti to India, students,teachers, and workers have resisted the attacks on education and theencroachment of neo-fascist elements. International solidarity cannotbe shut down by state violence, and while the struggle to overcomewhat seems to be the overwhelming power of the ruling class seemsdaunting, the contemporary crisis is a sign of their weakness and de-cline. Learning from each other’s’ local struggles will enable us torecognize and implement strategies on an international scale for or-ganizing our forces to overcome the catastrophe of the global system.To close with Takiji’s revolutionary optimism concerning the strikingworkers: “Gradually they realized that their own power, whose pres-ence they had not suspected, was manifesting itself…, Once theyunderstood it, a wonderful spirit of rebellion filled their hearts.”43

Notes1 Lili Loofbourow and Philip Maciak, “Introduction: The Time of the Se-

mipublic Intellectual.” PMLA 130.2 (2015): 439-445.2 Sharon Marcus, “How to Talk about Books You Have Read” in Ibid.,

474-479.3 Hua Hus, “In the Context of Infinite Contexts,” in Ibid., 461-466.4 See Edward Said’s Representations of the Intellectual. London: Vintage,

1996.5 See Steven Salaita, “Why I Was Fired,” at http://chronicle.com/a-

rticle/Why-I-Was-Fired/2336406 Henry Giroux, “The Curse of Totalitarianism and the Challenge of an In-

surrectional Pedagogy.”http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/29/the-curse-of-totalitarianism-

and-the-challenge-of-an-insurrectional-pedagogy/7 Ibid. Paolo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed.” New York: Continuum,

1993. See Chapter 2 in particular.8 Sarah Knopp, “Schools, Marxism, and Liberation,” in Education and Ca-

pitalism: Struggles for Learning and Liberation. Ed. Jeff Bale and SarahKnopp. Chicago: Haymarket Press, 2012, 14.

9 Ibid, 10.10 See Giroux’s comments on this concept in his “Lessons from Paolo

Freire” at http://chronicle.com/article/Lessons-From-Paulo-Freire/124910/.

Maerhofer 247

11 Robert Abele, “The Capitalist Takeover of Higher Education.” http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03/25/the-capitalist-takeover-of-hig-

her-education/12 I am referring to Rob Nixon’s masterful work, Slow Violence and the

Environmentalism of the Poor. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2012. The well-known Althusser reference is in “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatu-ses.” Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. New York: Monthly ReviewPress, 1971, 152.

13 Henry Giroux, “Why Teachers Matter in Dark Times.” http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/35970-why-teachers-matter-in-

dark-times14 Henry Giroux, “The Curse of Totalitarianism and the Challenge of an

Insurrectional Pedagogy.”15 I am thinking here of the state repression against students at JNU in

India in particular.16 Michael Parenti, History as Mystery. San Francisco: City Lights Books,

1999, 22. 17 I borrow the term “edu-activism” from Ian Christopher Fletcher’s brief

but cogent “Critical Pedagogy: Radical History in Two Spaces.” Radical His-tory Review. Fall (2008): 23-26. Fletcher uses the term to describe criticalworkshops he develops in the classroom “to emphasize local-global inter-connections and historicize the transnational scope of social movementsand the left today” (Ibid. 25).

18 My use of Lukács’ dialectical methodology will be limited to the “classconsciousness” chapter in which he outlines the rigorous character of pro-letarian thought which according to Fredric Jameson “has the capacity forresolving antinomies which middle-class thinking by its very nature wasunable to deal with.” See Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form. Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1971, 186.

19 Georg Lukács, History and Class Consciousness. Trans. Rodney Livings-tone. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1971, 65 & 68.

20 Ibid., 64.21 Ibid., 65. Italics added.22 Lukács, 73.23 Freire, Ibid., 46; Lukács, 77.24 Jameson, Marxism and Form, 186 & 382-383.25 Sarah Knopp, Ibid, 31.26 Freire, 120.27 For a detailed analysis of Mariátegui’s legacy, see Lance Selfa, “Mariá-

tegui and Latin American Marxism,” at http://isreview.org/issue/96/mariate-gui-and-latin-american-marxism. For a lengthy analysis of Mariátegui’s lifeand works, see the “Introduction” to the anthology of his works, Harry E.Vanden and Marc Becker, ed. José Carlos Mariátegui: An Anthology. NewYork: Monthly Review Press, 2011, pp. 11-61. Citations will be drawn fromthis source here.

28 I refer here to movements such as Sendero Luminoso and the Movi-miento Revolucionario Túpac Amaru, among others. For an overview of Ma-riátegui’s legacy in Perú, see Sheldon Liss, Marxist Thought in Latin America.Berkeley: University of California Press,1984, pp. 129-148.

248 WORKS AND DAYS

29 Terry Eagleton, Marx and Freedom. London: Phoenix Paperbacks, 1997,4.

30 José Carlos Mariátegui: An Anthology, 94.31 José Carlos Mariátegui: An Anthology, 383.32 Ibid., 387.33 Henry Giroux, “Why Teachers Matter in Dark Times.”34 Freire, 69 & 126.35 Scholars often refer to him by his given name, as a sign of solidarity

and affection. For an explanation, see Heather Bowen-Struyk, “Why a Boomin Proletarian Literature in Japan? The Kobayashi Takiji Memorial and TheFactory Ship.” http://apjjf.org/-Heather-Bowen-Struyk/3180/article.html

36 The debate over Japan’s cleansing of its imperial history and war crimesis still unfolding. Some of the debate can be read here: http://www2.-lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/researchHighlights/politics/Japanesetext-books.aspx

37 Heather Bowen-Struyk, “Why a Boom in Proletarian Literature in Japan?The Kobayashi Takiji Memorial and The Factory Ship.”

38 This is an aspect I am exploring in a recent piece, set to be publishedin the next year. For an analysis of Shinzo Abe and Japan’s re-militarism, seeh t tp : / /www.democ racy -now.o rg /2014 /1 /15 / shock_doc t r i n -e_in_japan_shinzo_abes andhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/shinzo-abe-japan-pm

39 For example, see Andrew Gordon, Labor and Imperial Democracy inPrewar Japan (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992) for an analysisof the labor movement, from 1900 to the 1930’s, and Yoshihisa Tak Matsu-saka, The Making of Japanese Manchuria, 1904-1932 (Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press, 2003) and Louis Young, Japan’s Total Empire: Manchuriaand the Culture of Wartime Imperialism (Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 1998) for an analysis of The Manchuria Incident and its implications;for an analysis of the rise of Japanese fascism, the drive towards imperialistwar, and the repression of leftists in Japan, see Germaine Hoston, Marxismand the Crisis of Development in Prewar Japan (Princeton: Princeton Uni-versity Press 1986), pp. 251-293.

40 Kobayashi Takiji, The Crab Cannery Ship and Other Novels of Struggle.Trans. Zeljko Cipris. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2013, 96.

41 John Bellamy Foster, Naked Imperialism: The U.S. Pursuit of Global Do-minance. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2006, 136.

42 Mao Tse-Tung, “The Present Situation and Our Tasks.” https://www.mar-xists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-4/mswv4_24.htm

43 Kobayashi Takiji, The Crab Cannery Ship and Other Novels of Struggle,79.

Maerhofer 249

250 WORKS AND DAYS