Terrell Carver's "The Postmodern Marx" (Book Note)

 

 

Terrell Carver's book, "The Postmodern Marx," argues that this apparent chaos has its reasons. He suggests that there have always been multiple interpretations of Marx, each shaped by the reader's chosen texts, philosophical beliefs about language and meaning, and political motivations, whether acknowledged or not.

 

Carver aims to provide an alternative perspective for those interested in Marx's ideas, and he has achieved this goal effectively. Through his collection of essays, written between 1975 and 1998, Carver delves into the complexities of Marx's work and the diverse readings it has inspired. By doing so, he offers valuable insights for newcomers to Marx's thought, helping them navigate through the often convoluted world of Marxist discourse, which frequently invokes Marx without engaging deeply with his actual texts. Overall, Carver's work significantly contributes to the field of Marxist scholarship.

Carver's argument starts with the idea that we can't simply go back to a time before debates and purges within Marxist thought. The notion of a pure, singular "return to Marx" is impossible because we've created multiple interpretations of Marx ourselves. Additionally, Marx's writing is rich and multifaceted, employing various linguistic techniques like irony, satire, parody, reason, and persuasion. Carver aims to understand this complex author by closely examining Marx's language and the language surrounding him.

 

Through this approach, Carver uncovers a Marx that is more intricate and compelling than many might expect based solely on the book's title. He criticizes previous chronologies and editions, opting instead to closely analyze the texts themselves within their social context. This attention to detail makes his interpretation convincing. Several essays in his collection would benefit anyone interested in Marx, particularly sociologists. Often, our exposure to Marx's writings ends after completing our theoretical studies in graduate school, and even if we continue to engage with Marx, it's usually based on our early readings. Marx transcends simple categorizations—he's not merely a founding figure of sociology, a political economist, or a proponent of conflict theory. He was an active revolutionary whose ideas defy orthodox interpretations and resist being pigeonholed into postmodern frameworks.

 

Carver's critique of Derrida's "Spectres of Marx" exemplifies this point well. Carver sees Derrida's interpretation as imaginative but divergent from the actual texts and language of Marx. While Derrida claims to focus on the word, Carver argues that he often loses sight of Marx's actual words. For instance, Derrida's interpretation of the opening of the Manifesto differs significantly from Carver's. Derrida suggests that Marx portrays communism as a specter that will haunt Europe in the future, whereas Carver sees it as a critique of right-wing hysteria, asserting that communism is a fabrication of reactionary forces.

Carver also scrutinizes the conventional views within Marxist circles, focusing on two key relationships: Marx's connection with Hegel and with Engels. His analyses of these relationships challenge commonly held assumptions and force readers to reconsider their fundamental understandings of Marx's intellectual influences.

 

Regarding Marx's relationship with Hegel, Carver doesn't attempt to downplay Hegel's influence on Marx or suggest that Marx merely developed Hegel's ideas. Instead, he argues that Marx engaged with Hegel to address fundamental philosophical questions that existed prior to Hegel. Hegel provided a framework for Marx to explore and critique philosophical concepts from various thinkers. Carver questions why Hegel is emphasized over other philosophers like Aristotle, Democritus, Epicurus, or Shakespeare. He suggests that the notion of a significant Hegel-Marx connection was largely propagated by Engels to make Marx more accessible to his audience, especially as Hegelian political influence waned after 1848. Engels portrayed Marx as the successor to Hegel, which Carver views as a strategic move to elevate Marx's status. However, Carver questions whether Marx truly needed to be associated with any specific philosopher and highlights differences between Marx and Engels regarding Hegel's ideas.

 

Carver's analysis includes examining changes made by Marx and Engels to texts like the German Ideology and their writings about each other. He concludes that contemporary readings of Marx often prioritize Hegel and Engels over Marx himself. This tendency, Carver argues, has led to a distorted view of Marx's original contributions, reducing him to a subordinate figure within a perceived "Holy Family" of Hegel-Engels-Marx, where Marx is overshadowed and misunderstood.

The book delves into various aspects of Marx's writing, including his stylistic precision, use of critique, concepts of political economy, narrative techniques, and political interventions. The concluding chapter explores gender and women in Marx's texts, contributing to the ongoing dialogue between feminism and Marxism.

In a peculiar manner, much of the academic study associated with Marxism resembles a type of fundamentalist biblical scholarship. This involves persistently scrutinizing texts to find elements that support a particular contemporary political viewpoint. Certain texts are emphasized for their significance, while others are disregarded or treated with a sense of discomfort. These less emphasized texts might only be mentioned in bibliographic references, as if to suggest they represent an earlier, less refined version of the thinker in question.

 

Determining what exactly constitutes the core works of Marx has been a longstanding issue. The history of Marxism isn't solely about revolutionary movements; it also involves contentious debates over interpreting Marx's writings, sometimes with grave consequences. Many individuals claim to adhere to Marxism, yet their interpretations of Marx's ideas can vary wildly, leading to the perception that there are as many interpretations of Marx as there are individuals who consider themselves Marxists.