“Nothing Human is Alien to Me”: Rethinking Historical Materialism and Socialism

IF 0.7 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Socialist Studies Pub Date : 2014-08-08 DOI:10.18740/S4WC7C
E. Coburn
{"title":"“Nothing Human is Alien to Me”: Rethinking Historical Materialism and Socialism","authors":"E. Coburn","doi":"10.18740/S4WC7C","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Historical materialism emphasizes antagonistic class relationships as the main characteristic of the social, hence historically contingent, capitalist mode of production. Socialism is a normative vision of a just society rooted in meeting needs and enabling unalienated human expression, within the ecological limits of the natural world. Both are useful, even critical ways of understanding the world and seeking to bring about a better one. However, both are radically inadequate. Indeed, some scholars charge that both are worse than useless. The most serious critique is that historical materialism and socialism collaborate in silencing other anti-oppressive theories and struggles, by insisting on exclusive “class-only” approaches. After describing three characteristic ways that many historical materialists do, in fact, collaborate to exclude many important anti-oppressive theories and struggles, I argue – following many others – that such exclusions are not tenable on analytical, empirical, moral and practical grounds. In fact, historical materialism and socialism have much to gain with a more inclusive approach, although that inclusiveness might take different forms. For instance, Indigenous, Black power and gay and lesbian movements are instances of anti-oppressive theories and struggles that offer critical insights into actually-existing capitalism; and the potential for transformative change within and even beyond capitalism. Class inequalities are inextricably bound up with other sources of oppression, rooted in race, gender, disability, sexuality and ongoing colonialism – which are not 'essential' inequalities but social, historically emerging and hence contingent oppressions. Put another way, understanding capitalism includes theorizing the ways that capitalist social relations create ecological 'niches', as Ian Hacking might say, for a range of interrelated unjust inequalities. Further, all oppressions must be fought in themselves, as part of socialist commitments, because they inhibit the free unalienated expression of each and all. The revised historical materialism and socialism that result from this are more modest because they do not aspire to attribute all “major” capitalist dynamics exclusively to class. But they are also more ambitious, because they are in a necessary, constant dialogue with other anti-oppressive theories and struggles.","PeriodicalId":29667,"journal":{"name":"Socialist Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2014-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Socialist Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18740/S4WC7C","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Historical materialism emphasizes antagonistic class relationships as the main characteristic of the social, hence historically contingent, capitalist mode of production. Socialism is a normative vision of a just society rooted in meeting needs and enabling unalienated human expression, within the ecological limits of the natural world. Both are useful, even critical ways of understanding the world and seeking to bring about a better one. However, both are radically inadequate. Indeed, some scholars charge that both are worse than useless. The most serious critique is that historical materialism and socialism collaborate in silencing other anti-oppressive theories and struggles, by insisting on exclusive “class-only” approaches. After describing three characteristic ways that many historical materialists do, in fact, collaborate to exclude many important anti-oppressive theories and struggles, I argue – following many others – that such exclusions are not tenable on analytical, empirical, moral and practical grounds. In fact, historical materialism and socialism have much to gain with a more inclusive approach, although that inclusiveness might take different forms. For instance, Indigenous, Black power and gay and lesbian movements are instances of anti-oppressive theories and struggles that offer critical insights into actually-existing capitalism; and the potential for transformative change within and even beyond capitalism. Class inequalities are inextricably bound up with other sources of oppression, rooted in race, gender, disability, sexuality and ongoing colonialism – which are not 'essential' inequalities but social, historically emerging and hence contingent oppressions. Put another way, understanding capitalism includes theorizing the ways that capitalist social relations create ecological 'niches', as Ian Hacking might say, for a range of interrelated unjust inequalities. Further, all oppressions must be fought in themselves, as part of socialist commitments, because they inhibit the free unalienated expression of each and all. The revised historical materialism and socialism that result from this are more modest because they do not aspire to attribute all “major” capitalist dynamics exclusively to class. But they are also more ambitious, because they are in a necessary, constant dialogue with other anti-oppressive theories and struggles.
“对我来说,没有人是陌生的”:对历史唯物主义和社会主义的再思考
历史唯物主义强调对立的阶级关系是社会的、因而在历史上是偶然的资本主义生产方式的主要特征。社会主义是一个公正社会的规范愿景,其根源在于满足需求并使人类能够在自然世界的生态范围内表达自己。这两种方式都是了解世界和寻求创造更美好世界的有用的、甚至是关键的方式。然而,两者都远远不够。事实上,一些学者指责两者都比无用更糟糕。最严重的批评是,历史唯物主义和社会主义通过坚持排他性的“只有阶级”的方法,共同压制了其他反压迫理论和斗争。在描述了许多历史唯物主义者所做的三种典型方式之后,事实上,他们合作排除了许多重要的反压迫理论和斗争,我认为-遵循许多其他人-这种排除在分析,经验,道德和实践基础上是站不住脚的。事实上,历史唯物主义和社会主义可以从更具包容性的方法中获益良多,尽管这种包容性可能采取不同的形式。例如,土著、黑人权力和同性恋运动是反压迫理论和斗争的实例,为实际存在的资本主义提供了批判性的见解;以及资本主义内部甚至外部变革的潜力。阶级不平等与其他压迫来源密不可分,根植于种族、性别、残疾、性取向和持续的殖民主义——这些不是“本质的”不平等,而是社会的、历史的、偶然的压迫。换句话说,理解资本主义包括将资本主义社会关系创造生态“生态位”的方式理论化,正如伊恩·哈金(Ian Hacking)可能会说的那样,这是为了一系列相互关联的不公正不平等。此外,作为社会主义承诺的一部分,所有压迫都必须在其本身进行斗争,因为它们限制了每个人的自由、不被异化的表达。由此产生的修正的历史唯物主义和社会主义更为温和,因为它们并不渴望将所有“主要的”资本主义动力完全归因于阶级。但他们也更有野心,因为他们与其他反压迫理论和斗争处于必要的、持续的对话中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信