I think the point about possible futures that Riley makes is even more question begging than you suggest. Why is it that socialism isn't a possible future of feudalism? Could it have something to do with the interests of different actors in feudal society?
When French talks about "new Marxism," he means people like Wright, Przeworski, Chibber, Sunkara, and the Catalyst–Jacobin group. This is not really Marxism. It is a kind of socialism that draws on Ricardian ideas and adds Marxist terminology. The main ideas are focusing on individuals, making choices based on reason, seeing exploitation as how things are shared, and the idea that people have clear goals and many options. There is no value form. There is no focus on desire. There is no idea of work as a social activity with its own history. You should compare these two different ways of thinking. In this view, workers are considered self-interested people who come together to get what they want. In the 1980s, Cohen, Roemer, and Elster used neoclassical ideas to look at Marxism. This development has continued work.
Riley's judgment is fair, but it is not strong enough. The idea of being "interested" comes from middle-class social theory. It assumes there is already a person in the world who faces choices and costs. This person is shaped by social connections, which the theory then tries to explain. Marx was not the only one to criticize political economy. The focus on "interest" treats personal experience as a given. Making "material interests" central to socialist politics repeats old ideas that Marx wanted to move beyond. Postone pointed out that traditional Marxism cannot do this. It looks at work from the perspective of work itself, not as something to criticize just because it is capitalist. Wright's work, including Envisioning Real Utopias, always takes this view. That is why writings about market socialism by Roemer and Schweickart, and now Sunkara, Burges, and Beggs, seem like plans to keep the value form but with new property rules, rather than real change. Chibber's explanation of why workers handle stress in their own ways is a rational-choice account of why group action does not always work. There is no fetishism, no reification, and no study of how pay affects what it means to be "interesting." Lukács is not part of this pattern, which is why the French see class-in-itself/class-for-itself as a statement rather than a mistake. As French says when asked, interests are formed through conflict. In this case, "material interests" do not help us understand anything. In this group, known political results are kept. Occasionally, Riley's "idealism that misrecognizes itself" looks like strict materialism, but it is really an idealist process where "interest" is whatever the researcher decides it is.
The plan clarifies the political situation. The new Marxism allows a certain kind of politics. Mamdani shows how the DSA is considered the left wing of the Democrats. Election campaigns are treated as special, and policy demands are used instead of talking about working-class political freedom. This approach does not explain why political form matters, so it cannot answer the question of freedom. If working-class politics focuses only on fairness, then the Democratic ballot line poses a real problem that we must solve. Sunkara has often supported working within the Democratic primary. People who use categories shape the plan. In Marxism, the working class is real only when it fights politically against its role as a source of labor power. If Marxism understood this, the question of an independent party would be about form, not just strategy. The first four Comintern meetings understood this, but critical Marxists have kept it hidden.
Heideman's comment, "If it is not because of class interests, why is not socialism the likely next step after feudalism?" makes the same point as French but is aimed directly at Riley. "Interest" is an idea that can be used to explain different possible histories. The real question is how these possible worlds are built so that talking about interest makes sense. Riley's example of serfs in the 1300s does not fail because the serfs lacked interests. It works because they could not turn their unhappiness into a plan for group social change at that time. That form comes from history. the fight for power over others. His theory's superiority over the postmodern left of the 2000s is not a real test, since that bar is low. The real test is whether it can go beyond the level of social democracy it has reached so far. Based on what we have learned over the last five years, it does not appear to be able to. The DSA's congressional votes on Israel and Palestine, their lack of a clear plan for 2028, their inability to hold elected officials accountable, and the fact that the Democratic Party is the only working-class party are not problems that only happen in one place. They are instead signs of a theory that cannot ask the right questions. French is correct in saying that the critical Marxists made things possible. He is not right when he says this is something to back up.
Good stuff, Nick.
I think the point about possible futures that Riley makes is even more question begging than you suggest. Why is it that socialism isn't a possible future of feudalism? Could it have something to do with the interests of different actors in feudal society?
Good point!
Very much looking forward to Blueprint!
People have emotional as well as material needs. That is why Trump wins: he gives expression to people’s resentment.
I agree. I don’t think anything I say here contradicts that.
When French talks about "new Marxism," he means people like Wright, Przeworski, Chibber, Sunkara, and the Catalyst–Jacobin group. This is not really Marxism. It is a kind of socialism that draws on Ricardian ideas and adds Marxist terminology. The main ideas are focusing on individuals, making choices based on reason, seeing exploitation as how things are shared, and the idea that people have clear goals and many options. There is no value form. There is no focus on desire. There is no idea of work as a social activity with its own history. You should compare these two different ways of thinking. In this view, workers are considered self-interested people who come together to get what they want. In the 1980s, Cohen, Roemer, and Elster used neoclassical ideas to look at Marxism. This development has continued work.
Riley's judgment is fair, but it is not strong enough. The idea of being "interested" comes from middle-class social theory. It assumes there is already a person in the world who faces choices and costs. This person is shaped by social connections, which the theory then tries to explain. Marx was not the only one to criticize political economy. The focus on "interest" treats personal experience as a given. Making "material interests" central to socialist politics repeats old ideas that Marx wanted to move beyond. Postone pointed out that traditional Marxism cannot do this. It looks at work from the perspective of work itself, not as something to criticize just because it is capitalist. Wright's work, including Envisioning Real Utopias, always takes this view. That is why writings about market socialism by Roemer and Schweickart, and now Sunkara, Burges, and Beggs, seem like plans to keep the value form but with new property rules, rather than real change. Chibber's explanation of why workers handle stress in their own ways is a rational-choice account of why group action does not always work. There is no fetishism, no reification, and no study of how pay affects what it means to be "interesting." Lukács is not part of this pattern, which is why the French see class-in-itself/class-for-itself as a statement rather than a mistake. As French says when asked, interests are formed through conflict. In this case, "material interests" do not help us understand anything. In this group, known political results are kept. Occasionally, Riley's "idealism that misrecognizes itself" looks like strict materialism, but it is really an idealist process where "interest" is whatever the researcher decides it is.
The plan clarifies the political situation. The new Marxism allows a certain kind of politics. Mamdani shows how the DSA is considered the left wing of the Democrats. Election campaigns are treated as special, and policy demands are used instead of talking about working-class political freedom. This approach does not explain why political form matters, so it cannot answer the question of freedom. If working-class politics focuses only on fairness, then the Democratic ballot line poses a real problem that we must solve. Sunkara has often supported working within the Democratic primary. People who use categories shape the plan. In Marxism, the working class is real only when it fights politically against its role as a source of labor power. If Marxism understood this, the question of an independent party would be about form, not just strategy. The first four Comintern meetings understood this, but critical Marxists have kept it hidden.
Heideman's comment, "If it is not because of class interests, why is not socialism the likely next step after feudalism?" makes the same point as French but is aimed directly at Riley. "Interest" is an idea that can be used to explain different possible histories. The real question is how these possible worlds are built so that talking about interest makes sense. Riley's example of serfs in the 1300s does not fail because the serfs lacked interests. It works because they could not turn their unhappiness into a plan for group social change at that time. That form comes from history. the fight for power over others. His theory's superiority over the postmodern left of the 2000s is not a real test, since that bar is low. The real test is whether it can go beyond the level of social democracy it has reached so far. Based on what we have learned over the last five years, it does not appear to be able to. The DSA's congressional votes on Israel and Palestine, their lack of a clear plan for 2028, their inability to hold elected officials accountable, and the fact that the Democratic Party is the only working-class party are not problems that only happen in one place. They are instead signs of a theory that cannot ask the right questions. French is correct in saying that the critical Marxists made things possible. He is not right when he says this is something to back up.