A SENIOR TEACHING COLLEAGUE of mine at the University of Chicago revised the college core syllabus, which he said needed to be “brought into the 21st century.” What he really meant by this was brought into the 20th century — specifically, the late 20th century. But the 20th century was determined by the 19th century. There was very little that was new, and most of it was bad.

[. . .]

Mit der erfolgreichen Revolte des Dritten Standes schien es, als würde die Menschheit endlich ihren „natürlichen“ Zustand der Aufklärung erreichen, sowohl hinsichtlich der natürlichen Umwelt wie auch der Beziehungen der Menschen untereinander. Scheinbar unbegrenzte Möglichkeiten eröffneten sich, und das dunkle Zeitalter war endlich für beendet erklärt. Im Zuge der Industriellen Revolution des späten 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhunderts entwickelte sich jedoch ein neuer „Widerspruch“ in der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft: der des Werts des Kapitals gegenüber dem Wert der Arbeitskraft. Mit diesem Widerspruch trat auch ein neuer sozialer und politischer Konflikt zutage: der „Klassenkampf“ der Arbeiter für den Wert ihrer Löhne gegen das unbedingte Gebot der Kapitalisten, den Wert des Kapitals zu bewahren und zu vergrößern.

[. . .]

MARXISM CONSIDERED PHILOSOPHY as “bourgeois ideology.” This meant, first and foremost, radical bourgeois philosophy, the modern philosophy of bourgeois emancipation, the thought of the revolt of the Third Estate. But pre-bourgeois philosophy, traditional philosophy, was also addressed as bourgeois ideology, as ideology. But ideology is a modern phenomenon. There’s little point in calling either Aristotle or Augustine “ideology.” It is when philosophy is invoked in bourgeois society that it becomes ideological. (Religion, too!)

[. . .]

Presented at the Left Forum 2018 on the panel “Has ‘the Left’ Accommodated Trump (and Putin)? A Debate,” with Ravi Bali, Brendan Cooney, Anne Jaclard, Daphne Lawless and Bill Weinberg, organized by the Marxist-Humanist Initiative at John Jay College in NYC on June 2, 2018.

[. . .]

Recently, I came across a 1938 article by the “Left communist” Paul Mattick, Sr., titled “Karl Kautsky: From Marx to Hitler.” In it, Mattick asserted that the reformist social democracy that Kautsky ended up embracing was the harbinger of fascism — of Nazism. There is a certain affinity to Friedrich Hayek’s book on The Road to Serfdom (1944), in which a similar argument is made about the affinity of socialism and fascism. If Marxism (e.g. Kautsky) led to Hitler, as Hayek and Mattick aver, then this is because the counterrevolution was in the revolutionary tradition.

[. . .]