142

Norman GerasDiscourses of ExtremityVerso, ISBN 0 86091 980 3, £8 .95 .

Reviewed by Andrew Duncan

Subtitled 'Radical Ethics and Post-MarxistExtravagances', this book is divided intotwo parts. The first argues that Socialismmust engage in ethical discussion, and thesecond demonstrates the vacuity and extra-vagance of a particular version of post-Marxism. Geras claims that the book mightenable socialists to critically reappraise 'theareas of weakness or neglect' [p. xi] withintheir theory, and also to discriminatebetween this and 'less salutory pressures. . . of intellectual fashion' (p . xi} . As awhole, the book 'is concerned with thecurrent status of Marxism, in the light ofalternatives to it' [p . xi) . Geras says that,irrespective of the particular arguments heputs forward, 'there might emerge a usefulcontrast between two different styles ofcritical approach to the inherited corpus ofsocialist ideas: one of them committed toanalytic care and precision, some real effortof discrimination of respective strengths andweaknesses within competing - complex -bodies of thought ; the other ungoverned byany rule of rigour and reckless with theintellectual resources we have' [p . xiii} .Geras asks the reader to consider which ofthe two kinds of critical reflection bestaddresses practical questions about revolu-tionary ethics, and it is on this basis that thebook itself must be evaluated . Does Gerassuccessfully persuade Socialists that ethics isa worthy area of discussion? And does hepersuade us that the latest intellectualfashion is less worthy than the practicalconsideration of radical ethics?

Part One of the book is two essays underthe title 'The Ethics of Revolution' . Thefirst, 'Marxism and Moral Advocacy',focuses on 'just one tradition within socialist

thought, namely, Marxism, in an area inwhich it has been, arguably, at its weakest :namely ethics' [p . 3) . There is, he says, 'agenuine contradiction of belief [p . 5) inMarxism's view of morality : on the one handit treats morality as ideological, relative andshaped by social and class determinations,and itself claims to be based on somerejection of moral ideas (usually in the nameof science) ; and on the other, Marx's andMarxist writing is liberally infused withmoral judgements and with a 'vision of abetter world' [p . 4] that it is difficult notto see as moral . This contradiction is forGeras 'a major weakness within the Marxisttradition' [p . 5) . By embodying an ethicaldimension at the same time as denying it,Marxism obfusticates its own nature andleaves important problems inadequatelydiscussed, if at all . However, Geras believesthat the scientific aspirations of Marxism are,perfectly compatible with commitment toethical principles : in general these should be'stated openly, tested against normativeanalysis and argument, measured againstcriticisms in the light of other viewpoints,and so forth' [p . 5] . In this essay, Gerasfocuses on two issues that concern Marxism'svision of a better world - the ideas of humanneeds and equality . In this better world, theparticular level of need satisfaction and the'desirable equalities, allowable inequalitiesand their limits' [p . 6) should be determi-ned by processes of social definition - thatis by public deliberation and decision .

The context for Geras' discussion is notthe abstraction of classical ethics but thematerial reality before us all - 'wretched,desperate human need, coexisting withmassive inequalities' [p . 7) . The project ofSocialism is to do something about thissince

we surely know enough about human beingsto be able to say what common, basichuman needs must be catered for to make

Book reviews

possible a decent human existence for all :

143adequate nourishment and protectionagainst the elements, therefore housing,clothing, fuel ; proper medical care andeducational provision ; some meaningful andagreeable work and the possibility - whichanyone can refuse - of significant (to large)amounts of time free from work for social,cultural and recreational activities, withsome resources given to these ends . [p . 8]

In the face of material reality, these are,of course, tall orders, and Geras accepts this,but they neatly establish the context inwhich any radical discussion of ethics musttake place .

Geras' approach here is in the tradition ofcritical theory . The two ethical discoursesthat he tackles are : Robert Nozick's theorythat justice obtains if everyone's propertyhas been gained through some sort oforiginal acquisition - i .e . through appro-priation of previously unowned naturalobjects - or by purely voluntary transfers ;and Peter Singer's idea that if it is possibleto prevent something bad from happeningwithout any sacrifice of anything of compa-rable moral importance, then it should bedone. Geras also engages with Bryan Barry'sextension of the latter into the issue of howwealthy countries should provide poor oneswith humanitarian relief. Throughout thisfirst essay, Geras is always mindful of hisown standards, and, although he does notalways demonstrate that Marxism as a wholehas been unwilling to talk about moraladvocacy, his critique ably demonstratesthat if Marxists are to undertake ethicalanalysis, they should do so 'with somethought for the social and materialconditions of attaining any given ideals, themeans of and agencies for attaining them,the social interests and movements that canconceivably be coupled with or becomeattached to the ideals and imperatives inquestion' [pp . 16-17) . For Geras, Socialism

Capital & Class

144 will result from the efforts of those with aninterest in creating it (otherwise it is adream) and this revolutionary force is theworking class - all those whose labour isexploited for capitalist profit .

This preparatory work done, Geras turnsin his second essay to 'Our Morals' . Thisconsiders 'by what normative principlessocialists might be guided, whether injudgement or in action, when it comes torevolutionary change' [p . 21) . Geras' overallintention is here to 'argue that socialistdiscussion of revolutionary ethics( . . .),andthe discussion in particular of ends andmeans, tends to be framed in abstractgeneralities of a sort which yields neitherspecific rules or norms of conduct nor muchpractical guidance for concrete cases ; and tosuggest that there is a lot to be learned here,by way of trying to repair the deficiency,from another tradition of discourse entirely'[p . 22) . The particular discourse in questionis just War Theory .

His starting point is the principle thatpeople may legitimately revolt against whatused commonly to be known as tyranny andis now often termed political oppression'

[p. 23], and his discussion is premised onthe rejection of two positions : one, that theuse of violence is never justified ; and theother, that with regard to revolutionaryviolence, no question of justification arises .For Geras, '[i)f war is sometimes justified,then so too is revolution, the reasons givenon their behalf being of a kind : self-defence,autonomy, rights and freedoms, the throw-ing off of an oppressor, and so forth' [p . 37) .But more remarkably, just War Theoryprovides minute consideration of 'themethods of legitimate warfare, whether ornot in a just cause ; rules applicable to bothparties ; the obligation to fight even againstaggression within certain moral limits'

[p. 37) . In comparison to the Socialistliterature, this body of doctrine is, forGeras, extremely rich .

This essay is wide ranging and largelyagreeable, and it is clearly written - as itstitle would suggest - with the distinction

between their morality and ours uppermost .The discourse of just War Theory ishowever concerned with the rules of combatbetween states which have no interest inapplying these rules to forces of revolutionagainst them . Nevertheless, there is noreason why the forces of revolution shouldnot adapt these concerns to their ownpurposes . Geras cites numerous cases ofhideous violence (by which he means 'theexercise of physical force so as to kill orinjure, inflict direct harm or pain on,human beings' [p . 22)) perpetrated both byforces of oppression and revolution, and alsothose acts of violence meted out duringdirect confrontation between revolutionarycrowds and the various agents of reaction -police, soldiers, agents provocateurs, infor-mers, collaborators, and so forth. He testsall cases against his critique of just War andargues that we need to discuss violence inabsolute terms - or at least in terms so nearto absolute that it makes no difference . I In

general we are perfectly justified in actingviolently under certain circumstances, butwe should not engage in the wholesaleslaughter, torture and terror that is oftendone in the name of counter-revolution . Inother words, we should make our own

violence rather than repeat theirs .

Inevitably, it is in reference to whatmight be conveniently labelled 'streetfighting' that the discussion of ethics is putto its hardest test . How, for instance, are weto regard the common practice of placingburning tyres round the necks of thoseaccused of collaboration with the SouthAfrican government when sometimes thoseaccused are innocent? And how, in our owncountry, do we justify anti poll tax demon-strators defending themselves againstsporadic and arbitrary attacks from riotpolice? In the first case, a particularly

extreme one, justification seems difficult ;and in the second, we can easily think ofreasons why direct assaults in return areperfectly justified . Although he does notmention the poll tax, Geras carefullydemarcates between justifiable and unjusti-fiable cases of revolutionary violence, but hesteadfastly refuses to condemn the latter . Asa good Marxist, he implicitly accepts someversion of the 'they started it' argument, andalways looks for reasons why particular actsof violence make sense or are understandablein a given context . In general, it is up torevolutionary movements to establish thediscipline of a 'defensible code of ethicalprinciples and constraints' [p . 45}. ForGeras, the normative basis for the extensionof just War Theory into revolutionarystruggles is the 'principle that individualshave rights - against being killed or violated- rights that may not, in general, be setaside ; unless they forfeit them by makingwar themselves in defense of tyranny orgrave injustice' [p . 46] . A reasonable basissurely for revolution, and as good a contextas any for asking how we should conductourselves .

The first part of Geras' book is a compre-hensive map of the ethical territory and it isclearly preferable to the rush to condemnthat usually accompanies the violence ofrevolutionary movements . Moreover, in thesecond essay, Geras ably indicates thepractical vagueness of rather a lot of theethics of the Socialist/Marxist tradition . Thesecond (and largest) part of the book is lesspersuasive . It is entitled 'The Ways of"Discourse" ' and is again composed of twoessays . These are however not pieces in theirown right as are the two in the first part ofthe book . Rather they are Geras' side of anargument he has had with Laclau andMouffe .

The first essay - 'Post-Marxism?' - is anintense critique of Laclau and Mouffe'sHegemony and Socialist Strategy in which

Book reviews

Geras argues that the authors are ex-Marxist 145revisionists and not, as they claim, post-Marxist revolutionaries; the second -'Ex-Marxism Without Substance' - is adetailed response to Laclau and Mouffe'sresponse to Geras' original critique in whichGeras argues that the response is not aresponse at all but a simple reiteration of theposition that he has subjected to critiqueand that fails to address the substantivepoints that Geras has already made . It isextremely difficult to review these twoessays . This is largely because Laclau andMouffe's contributions to the argument areabsent from Geras' book, and, withoutrefering to their book and to the issue ofNew Left Review in which their response toGeras' critique of it was first published, thereader is in no position to judge whether ornot Geras' polemics against them are in anysense justified . Moreover, Geras himselfspends quite a lot of time towards the endof the second essay reflecting on theargument and taking stock . To this extent,the book reviews itself. In the face of thisintensive layering of commentary critiqueand self-analysis, and with the feeling thatthe subtext here is vast, this reviewer canonly tell a fable .

Once upon a time all the Marxists livedhappily together overseeing the forces ofrevolution . Then, during the 1960s, theywere attacked for no reason that was obviousto them by a motley collection of thinkers- largely French - who said that they hadgood reason to believe that the Marxistswere of no use at all in their revolutionarystruggles. For a while, the Marxists thoughtnothing of it but they soon began to reflectmore deeply upon their place in the worldand eventually listened more carefully to thefashionable ideas of the new philosophers .After a few decades, it became clear that themotley collection was now of Marxists andthat the new philosophers of the sixties -along with their successful progeny - were

Capita! & Class

146 to be found collecting under a singlebanner . The clothes of this post-modernintellectual emperor were textual, but theywere still transparent to the roving band ofMarxists who believed - in one form oranother - in the primacy of working classstruggle . To the Marxists, this loss of poweris frustrating since, apart from its tendencyto call itself post-something, their enemy isvery difficult to identify . They are reason-ably sure that they are right to be Marxists,and they are on the whole convinced thatthe enemy is just another version of idealismcovering up the continuing violence ofcapitalist production. For its part, theenemy is quite happy to look at the Marxistswith a benign (albeit worrying) smile, andto treat Marxism as it treats everything else- as a discourse in need of deconstruction .

Returning to reality, there is an ex-tremely complex discourse of debatesbetween Marxism and post-modernism .And within each of these there are manyequally complex critical arguments whichare directed both outwards and inwards .Inevitably, this intellectual orgy producesall manner of ideas and arguments some ofwhich are valuable and some of which arenot . Moreover, some elements of the post-modern movement are useful to Marxistsand some are not . 2 Whatever else is thecase, the two intellectual traditions are asdiverse within themselves as they aredifferent from each other, and, as with allintellectual traditions, there are points ofcontact between them as much as there areradical differences .

And returning to Geras, the final twoessays in his book go on a very long journeythrough some of these. They do not,however, do so in any generalisable way :although Geras makes many general points,these are embedded in a point by pointpolemic with an absent enemy. To be fairto Geras, he does extensively quote Laclauand Mouffe (as well as Laclau and Mouffe

quoting Geras and vice versa), and if all thisquotation is accurate, then his argument isa very readable and entertaining polemicagainst two rather naive and stupid follow-ers of Derrida or maybe Foucault, but it ishard to tell . On the other hand, if Geras'target is not just Laclau and Mouffe, butsomething approaching post-modernismmore generally - as might be expected fromhis stated intention for the book as a whole- then the arguments fail . To this extent,Geras is setting up a staw man with whichto demonstrate the superiority of his ownargument. Moreover, there is plenty in thebook as a whole for fastidious deconstruc-tionists (and much more sophisticated onesthan Laclau and Mouffe) to get their teethinto . For instance, one of Geras' complaintsagainst Laclau and Mouffe is that theirargument that 'Marxism' cuts the groundfrom beneath its own feet, itself cuts theground from beneath its own feet . Thetrouble for Geras is that his own argumentcould well cut the ground from beneath itsown feet . Unfortunately, the protractedbattle between the two parties becomestrapped by the peculiar reflexivity of post-modern thought .

The possibilities for further discussionhere are quite literally infinite . But it issufficient to note that not all of post-moderntheory is valueless (although some of it isundoubtedly deplorable rubbish), and alsothat Geras himself emerges relativelyunscathed and manages to stop the endlessplay of textuality within the covers of hisbook. But then again, it is his book!Returning to the question of whether Geras'book succeeds in persuading Socialists tothink about ethics more rigorously, and indemonstrating the extravagance of 'post-Marxism' : In general, the answer to both ofthese questions is 'yes' . But in general thesepositive answers amount to little more thana reminder that most Marxists have beenwell aware that, when theory turns to the

'what is to be done?' question, it moves intothe issues posed by classical ethics, and alsothat any Marxist worth her salt has long agolearned the difference between the dubiousseductions of intellectual fashion andgenuine theoretical insight . To this extent,Geras is preaching to the converted .

However, Geras undoubtedly argues theethical case with great care and precision,and with due respect for the enormousdiversity of the Marxist tradition . And thereis no doubt that he also demonstrates theextravagance of an old and false criticalstrategy against Marxism - 'to represent itas essentially crude, oversimplified, reduc-tionist and so forth, by just writing out ofMarxism everything within the traditionthat is otherwise ; so that what is there iseither impoverished or is not reallyMarxism' [p .xiil . But in spite of this, Geras'overall strategy does not do his generalproject much service : on the one hand, hispolemical target is so specific and the detailsof the argument so arcane that he does notdemonstrate that the intellectual traditionof post-modernism fails to offer practicaladvice to revolutionaries ; and on the other,he is finally not talking about Marxism andthe alternatives to it, but about his carefullyargued kind of Marxism and his objectionsto the post-Marxist extravagance of Laclauand Mouffe .

Notes1 . Geras' argument here is in keeping

with his previous book, Marx and HumanNature (Verso, 1983).

2 . There is at least one excellent reviewof the major issues: Michael Ryan's Marxismand Deconstruction (John Hopkins UniversityPress, 1984) .

Book reviews

Erik Olin Wright et al .The Debate on ClassesVerso, London-New York, 1989ISBN 0 86091 966 8, pbk, £10 .95ISBN 0 86091 251 5, hbk, £32 .95,pp. 356

Reviewed by Filio Diamanti

In this collection of essays a whole varietyof theoretical strands - within the broaderneo-Marxist framework - come togetherwith the aim of answering the long andtroublesome question of what social class isand its impact on the wider terrain ofpolitics and Left strategies for socialistadvance . The role of the 'historic subject ofchange', the influence of the intermediatelayers or what Marx called the 'ideologicalclasses' and the significance of cultural andgender identities are discussed in the courseof a theoretical (re)evaluation . The Debate onClasses is a discussion of Wright's use ofAnalytical Marxism and his theory of'contradictory class locations' as it wasformulated in his previous work especiallyClasses . (Verso, 1985)

What is missing from The Debate onClasses is the very idea of class as a relationof struggle . The predominant issue is therole of the middle classes, on which conflictis focussed, in that other issues are seen asperipheral and as surrounding this . Class

147

Capital & Class

148 by some of the commentators - Wrightinclusive - is treated as an ahistorical entity,without any reference to the role of the stateas not only shaping but also shaped by classconflict . For example the notion of themiddle class is discussed as a specificallycapitalist phenomenon which is strangebecause if one takes a look at pre-capitalistformations then one can see more that twoclasses in the class structure . An example isthe situation of the Athenian City State orPolis, where side by side with the two mainantagonistic classes, namely the free citizensand the slaves, there was a whole middlestratum - I leave the question of womenaside not because it is unimportant butbecause of its importance which mightchange the whole picture - the so-calledMetoikoi (they were predominantlyforeigner merchants) with no politicalrights . So here you are with a nice middleclass . Why then such a fuss over the'ideological classes' or 'intermediate layers'in the capitalist mode of production? Whyare they so significant now? The latter canbe explained in connection with thequestions of alliances and of the diminishingrole of the working class so common to theEurocommunist discourse . If classes are seenas unified subjects already formed in a givenclass structure then the whole idea ofalliances becomes meaningless . Wright'sconcentration on class formation rather thanclass structure is challenged by some of thecontributors and it is not difficult to seewhy. If classes are not defined objectivelyaccording to their relation to the means ofproduction and their position in the divisionof labour then the idea of class formationtakes predominance over the concept of classstructure . The middle classes in the classformation and the importance of 'contradic-tory class locations' based on income andskill credentials become the most importantelements in the formation of hegemonicblocs between classes and fractions ranging

from the working class to sections of thebourgeoisie itself. If the question of capital-ist exploitation becomes a question ofhegemony over capitalist relations of powerdistribution among classes then capitalismbecomes an 'open system' with infinitepossibilities which in turn suggests thatthere is no reason to abolish it .

The other issue is the concept of exploita-tion . For Wright exploitation is ' . . . aneconomically oppressive appropriation of thefruits of the labor of one class by another .'(Wright, 1985, p . 77), that is an economicnot a social relation . Exploitation togetherwith the concept of the ownership of themeans of production are seen as relations ofappropriation, thus as relations of distribu-tion instead of relations of production .Wright suggests that exploitation meansappropriation of the fruits of someone else'slabour, or its equivalent, consuming morethan one produces Carchedi's criticism ofthis notion is that exploitation should notbe seen as an economic relation having to dowith skills and their appropriation but as arelation of production having to do withwho produces for whom and who appropri-ates what, that is as having to do with theappropriation of surplus product whichunder capitalism is the struggle over thedistribution of surplus value (Wright et al,1989, p . 109).For Wright there are two kinds of assets

in the capitalist formation which define theposition of the middle classes and have todo on the one hand with the ownership ofskill assets (prototypically belonging toexperts) based on credentials and on theother with per capita share assets or organi-zation assets (prototypically belonging tomanagers and supervisors) . The workingclass, - or what Wright calls the 'uncreden-tialed and non-managerial employees' -then, consists of those wage-earners who areexploited both by the owners of skill (thenew middle classes) and the owners of

organizational assets (the capitalists) .

Exploitation then has to do with a causalrelationship between wealth and poverty not

between economic positions . Skill's owner-ship and their exploitation has little to do

with collectivities such as classes ; itpredominantly focusses on individuals intheir capacity to generate income . Class inits turn becomes an occupational group andWright's neo-Marxist theory is only a stepaway from the bourgeois stratificationtheory . If this classification is stressed to itslimits it supplies some very peculiaroutcomes, for example, the unemployed arenot exploited since they do not take part inthe production process ; women too. Bothgroups would be better off if they left thecapitalist society and set up one of their ownin terms of 'game theory' analysis .

Exploitation serves another purpose too .For Wright an exploitation-centred analysisof classes would make possible the overcom-ing of the methodological difficulty of theconcept of 'manipulative oppression', thatis, that classes can be defined as relations ofoppression and/or domination primarilyfrom the relations generated betweenindividuals . According to the exploitation-centred analysis women's oppression undercapitalism does not make them a distinctclass . This idea is taken up by Uwe Becker(Wright et al, 1989, p . 133ff) in order tocriticize the voluntarist and atomised post-Marxist understanding of class in Laclau andMouffe's book Hegemony and Socialist Strategy(Verso, 1985) where everything is reducedto discourse and subjectivity . But althoughWright's intention is to overcome theoppression-centred approach to classes at theend he only offers a modified version of itby bringing in economic relations alongsidepersonal exploitation .

The concept of exploitation is one of themost important concepts in Marxist theoryhaving to do with the way surplus labouris appropriated in capitalism and the

Book reviews

corresponding relations arising from the

production process . As Marx put it 'The

specific economic form, in which unpaidsurplus-labour is pumped out of directproducers, determines the relationship ofrulers and ruled, as it grows directly out ofproduction itself and, in turn, reacts uponit as a determining element. Upon this,however, if founded the entire formation of

the economic community which grows upout of the production relations themselves,thereby simultaneously its specific politicalform.' (Marx, 1984, pp . 791-2)

In the capitalist mode of production theextraction of surplus value takes place as aneconomic process, separated from othersocial relationships, whereas in earlier formsof societal organisation, based upon thelabour of slaves or serfs, it required somekind of extra-economic coercion . But thisalso means that exploitation is less apparent ;for, while the slave or serf experience directlythe fact that a part of the product of hislabour is appropriated by a dominant group,the wage-worker is engaged in a process ofproduction in which he/she apparentlyexchanges labour for other commodities (viathe wage) and the mechanism by which asurplus product is generated and appropri-ated is misty . Hence the need, according to

Marx, for a scientific analysis of thecapitalist economy in order to reveal,beneath the surface appearance, its funda-

mental structure and mode of operation, andthe crucial importance in such an analysis ofthe distinction between 'labour' and 'labourpower' .

Exploitation is the cement of the capital-labour relation . Without the extraction ofsurplus value for the sake of capital accumu-lation unpaid labour takes a differentmeaning according to how it is used .Surplus labour is not a characteristic ofcapitalism alone . An amount of surplus inthe form of surplus product is alwaysrequired for the reproduction of society, the

149

Capital & Class

150 problem is how and for whose sake it isextracted . Regardless of rising livingstandards and higher wages the basis of thesystem remains the same . The formation ofclass in capitalist society as based on thecapital-labour antagonism is constantlyreproduced because of the unsuccessfulchallenge to the basis of this relation by theexploited and this is the main issue thatshould be addressed by the Left . As Marxput it : 'We have seen that the capitalistprocess of production is a historicallydetermined form of the social process ofproduction in general . The latter is as mucha production process of material conditionsof human life as a process taking place underspecific historical and economical produc-tion relations, producing and reproducingthese production relations themselves andthereby also the bearers of the process, theirmaterial conditions of existence and theirmutual relations, i .e ., their particular socio-economic form . . . The surplus labour appearsas surplus-value and this surplus-value existsas a surplus product .' (Marx, 1984, pp .818-19)

Wright is defining classes as based onproperty relations but this is problematic . Ifexploitation is the supreme manifestation ofthe organisation of the capitalist mode ofproduction then the concepts of the divisionof labour and property relations take on aspecific meaning unique to capitalism .Classes are the outcome of the division oflabour and the rise of different materialinterests associated with the collectiveform of material existence of individualproducers . Property relations are the resultof alienated forms of labour and not theconstituting essence of them . If thisproposition is correct then what is primaryin the constitution of classes fur rich are notproperty relations but the division of labourbetween producers which enable some ofthem under certain historical circumstancesto control the means of existence for their

own sake and appropriate the surplus(religious sects, absolute monarch,victorious warriors etc) .

Hence, subjectively classes are not onlyconstituted according to their members'relation to the means of production but alsoaccording to their position in the division of,labour . This position carries with it not onlythe integration of their objective classsituation but also their subjectivesubordination/desubordination to the wholespectrum of material and ideological rela-tions . Class is the subjective and objectiveform of the dialectical constitution of realmaterial interests arising from the organisa-tion of society into antagonistic class forces .

Class constitutes its members, and isconstituted in the class struggle . Classstruggle is not a vague term used wheneverwe are out of concrete concepts of analysis .Class struggle is the fight over the rate ofexploitation which is manifested instruggles over wages, over working condi-tions, over the false separation of thepersonal from the political over myriads ofissues challenging the dominant mode ofproduction .

If the above propositions are correct thenclasses are not groups of individuals whooccupy a certain place in the work hierarchyaccording to their wage but class individualswho are constituted as such according totheir material interests in relation to capital .That is the working class is not only themanual workforce par excellence. What Marxmeant by the proletariat was the class ofsociety which has as its only private propertyits labour power to sell in order to keepgoing as a class in the most material sense .The working class is the class of the peoplewho are exploited in the form of theextraction of surplus value which is used forthe subsistence and reproduction of thecapitalist class and more specifically for thereproduction of the relations of productionas capitalist relations of production . Even if

we accept that capitalism has changedquantitatively it has not changed qualita-tively, that is the realisation of higher livingstandards and material wealth for theworking class does not change its positionin the production process and in thewhole sphere of the reproduction of itsmaterial and mental existence, thus in thereproduction of the antagonistic relations ofproduction . In which case there is no needto give the primacy to a theoretically privi-leged 'new middle class' or to myriads ofdiscoursive subjects .

The Debate on Classes carries a value per se .It is predominantly the discourse ofneo-Marxism trapped between 'neo' and'Marxism' and it is worth studying in orderon the one hand to see how Marxistcategories of analysis can be negated evenwhile using a Marxist language and on theother hand the shortcomings of analyticalMarxism and of 'game theory' . The majorlesson to be learned from The Debate onClasses is that capitalism is not a game buta very serious business especially for thosewho live under it in a by no means playfulway .

NotesLaclau, Ernesto & Mouffe, Chantal (1985)

Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, Towards aRadical Democratic Politics, London-NewYork: Verso

Marx, Karl (1983) Capital, A Critique ofPolitical Economy, Vol . I, London :Lawrence & Wishart

Marx, Karl (1984) Capital, A Critique ofPolitical Economy, Vol . III, London:Lawrence & Wishart

Wright, Erik, Olin (1985) Classes, London :Verso

Wright, Erik, Olin et al . (1989) The Debateon Classes, London-New York : Verso .

Book reviews

Henry PattersonThe Politics of Illusion : Republicanismand Socialism in Modern IrelandHutchinson Radius (London, 1989)pp. 247, £7 .95 pb .

Reviewed by Peter Gibbon

'Republican Socialism' is a tendency withinIrish Republicanism which has proved oneof its most enduring features . While nevera particularly successful force in Irishpolitics it has always proved a major assetfor Republicanism's external image, par-ticularly with the British left . However,while there is an extensive literature onRepublican Socialism's intellectual origins(Mellowes, O'Donnell, etc) and whileRepublicanism generally has been thesubject of a series of treatments by historiansfrom Macardle onwards, there has been noserious study of Republican Socialism - letalone a Marxist one - prior to this subtleand highly intelligent new work by HenryPatterson .

Irish Republicanism as a modern politicalmovement first became a major politicalforce in 1916-21, when it seized theinitiative in the independence struggle fromconstitutional nationalism . Its political linehas been defined by a commitment to 'full'national sovereignty, constitutional andterritorial, and by the use of physical force

151

152

Capital & Class

to establish it . Organisationally thetradition has been embodied in the SinnFein party and its armed wing, the IRA . Itssocial base was originally southern andrural, with support mainly from middle and

small peasants, but also from a significantsection of large peasants . After 1921 itslarge peasant support was transferred tomore explicitly right-wing Irish parties .Since 1970 its base has been located almostwholly in the urban north, where it is thedominant force amongst the unemployedCatholic working-class of the ghettos ofBelfast and Derry .

Patterson identifies Republican Socialismnot with any distinct class or class fractionin the Republican movement, but with apolitical strategy which from time to timehas been adopted by sections of the move-ment to address crises of stagnation in itsdevelopment . Its ideologically-definingcharacteristic has been the 'broadening' ofthe question of national sovereignty toinclude economic as well as constitutionaland territorial 'freedom', where economicfreedom denotes local and 'socially just'control of the means of production . Thecontent of this 'social justice' has normallybeen Proudhonist or simply vague . Republi-can Socialism has always coexisted withother ideological tendencies in Sinn Fein,notably narrow nationalism, militarism andclericalism .

Patterson distinguishes three majorphases of Republican Socialism since the endof the Irish Civil War in 1923 . The first ofthese lasted from 1926-35 and wasexpressed organisationally in Saor Eire andthe Republican Congress .

The second emerged in 1963-70 and was

expressed by the movement's leadershipprior to the Provisional split of January1970 . The third was expressed by theAdams-Morrison leadership of the Pro-visionals themselves in the period 1977-86 .A few words will be said about each period

in order to give a flavour of Patterson'sargument .

The launch of De Valera's Fianna Failparty in 1926 provoked a serious crisis forSinn Fein . Fianna Fail aimed at an identicalsocial base to Sinn Fein and articulated anidentical political platform, excepting its

decision to participate in the Free Stateparliament and to downplay physical force .For the next decade, the wing of Sinn Feinled by Peader O'Donnell endeavoured tooutflank Fianna Fail by combining militantpositions on the national question withcampaigns on social and economic issueswith 'anti-imperialist' dimensions - notablythe annuities paid by peasants to the Britishstate in lieu of rents to formerly Britishlanded property . These efforts culminated inO'Donnell and his supporters leaving SinnFein to set up the short-lived RepublicanCongress . This first phase of RepublicanSocialism failed to attract mass support toeither Sinn Fein or its more radicaloffshoots, since it overestimated the extentto which Fianna Fail's abandonment ofabstentionism and physical force would pre-clude it from developing the more popularRepublican theme of political sovereigntyeven in office . Moreover, Fianna Fail provedcapable of absorbing the annuities campaigntoo. The explicitly socialist element ofRepublican Socialism remained largelyundeveloped as O'Donnell made little effortto win over the urban working-class orcampaign within their organisations .

After the failure of Republican Social-ism's first expression, Sinn Fein's emphasischanged to the territorial aspect of thenational question, 'freeing the Six Countiesfrom British control' . This strategy alsoproved an abject failure in its own terms,particularly when insurgency in NorthernIreland in 1956-62 mobilised little morethan a diffuse sentimental level of supporteither side of the border . In a situation ofgeneral demoralisation the Sin Fein/IRA

leadership of Goulding, Cronin and Rocheresurrected Republican Socialism .

The content of this second version of thetrend was largely supplied by two intellec-tuals from the Communist Party of Ireland,Anthony Coughlan and Roy Johnston,whom Goulding invited to join Sinn Fein .It identified the then ruling Fianna Failparty with a compradorial betrayal of theIrish revolution and called for a 'broad anti-Imperialist alliance' against 'Green andOrange Tories' both sides of the border . Inkeeping with their cet provenance thesepositions were accompanied by othersemphasising secularism, gradualism anddemilitarisation . The political corollary wasSinn Fein's involvement in popularstruggles around housing in Dublin and itscrucial stimulative role in the Civil Rightsmovement in the north (1967-9) .

Republican Socialism Mark II was asunsuccessful as its predecessor . While thecampaigns Sinn Fein stimulated mobilisedmass support individually, no 'broad anti-imperialist movement' materialised . Sincethe 1950s social radicalism had becomedissociated from nationalism in the south .The working-class who supported thehousing campaigns were in employmentterms beneficiaries of Fianna Fail's compra-dorialism, which by attracting non-BritishTNCS to Ireland had stemmed the tide ofemigration and allowed a general rise inliving standards . Meanwhile in the north,popular support for Civil Rights preservedrather than dissolved communalistic formsof politics, and actually intensified them asthe brittle local state which partly institu-tionalised them began to disintegrate .

Unlike in 1935, Republican Socialistskept nominal control of Sin Fein after 1970 .On the other hand, by 1972 a large majorityof Irish republicans were to be found in thebreakaway Provisional organisation . Thisadvanced the position that the communal-ism unleashed in the north in 1969-70

Book reviews

should be harnessed into supporting a mili-tary campaign to force British withdrawalfrom what was (probably correctly) seen as abasically unreformable state . In the process,demilitarisation, gradualism and secularismwere all abandoned . The Provisionalscampaigned in the south only on the issueof territorial completion .

By 1977 a new Provisional leadershipemerged around Gerry Adams and DannyMorrison, who argued that while commu-nalism had re-established a significantpopular base for Republicanism in thenorth, this would remain confined to theghettos unless it addressed broader socialquestions both sides of the border . Acondition of this was a limited degree ofmovement away from the now predomi-nantly military profile - which had in turngiven rise to a basically anti-Provo 'peacemovement' . The Provisionals now hesitantlymoved toward mobilising popular socialgrievances by setting up advice centres,differentiating themselves on social andeconomic questions from the SDLP,

campaigning for political prisoner status forIRA men and women in the Maze andArmagh jails, as well as seeking to establisha 'broad national movement' in the south .Spectacularly successful as popular opinionwas mobilised by hunger strikes in theMaze, this strategy was to some extent thevictim of its own short-term effectiveness .Mass support for the political statuscampaign concealed the extent to which thiswas based on the deeply resonant butunsustainable tactic of martyrdom . Oncethe deaths ceased popular support in thesouth evaporated . Simultaneously, thesuccess of the Provisionals in consolidatinga political base of about 12 percent of thenorthern electorate persuaded the Britishgovernment to concede the Anglo-Irishagreement of 1986 . By giving the southerngovernment, and by implication the SDLP,

a consultative role in northern administra-

153

Capital & Class

154 tion this threatened to seriously marginalisethe Provisionals. Adams and Morrisonadjusted to this situation after 1987 by anopening to the SDLP . This has entailed adilution of Republican Socialism and a`refining' of the military campaign . Ofcourse this has had little or no impact in thesouth, where neither the Provisional's socialradicalism of 1977-86 nor their revivedasocial nationalism of 1987-90 has mademuch impression on an already crowdedpolitical stage .

The conclusion which Patterson drawsfrom these insightful and stimulatinganalyses are as follows. In the souththere probably was a base for RepublicanSocialism until the 1950s, but this wasincreasingly squeezed by Fianna Fail'sunanticipated capacity to broaden Irish poli-tical sovereignty while pursuing a certaindegree of social radicalism. After FiannaFail's dramatic shift of emphasis from aRepublican to an essentially Welfarist formof hegemony based on an internationalisedeconomy in the late 1950s, the class forceswhich would support socialist objectivesbecame largely indifferent to nationalistones . In the north a social basis for Republi-can Socialism has been maintained by thecontinued combination of political oppres-sion and economic exclusion of the Catholicworking-class . The uniqueness of thissituation is a source of difficulty as well asstrength however, as it allows the Pro-visionals to be marginalised and by-passedby the major players in Northern Irelandpolitics .

Besides its analysis of Republican Social-ism Patterson's book contains much else . Ofgreatest originality and interest is whatamounts to an oral pre-history of theWorkers' Party . Just as Fianna Fail slowlydisengaged from republicanism to become awholly bourgeois political formation by thelate 1950s, so between 1970 and 1982 theWorkers' Party disengaged from the

wreckage of Republican Socialism Mark II .Patterson does not join in the debate aboutthe exact characterisation of what it hasbecome since 1982 but instead leads thereader through the byzantine, painful andfor some fatal events involved . In the processhe makes clear that the main conditions forthe Workers' Party's emergence as a seriousforce in southern politics included theemergence of a new group of southernMarxist intellectuals around Eoghan Harrisinfluenced by the revisionist historiographyofJohn Murphy, L. M . Cullen and others, theviolent deaths of some of the less flexiblenorthern leaders of Official Sinn Fein andthe defection of the 1962-7 generation ofcoi 'import', the Irish Labour Party'ssuicidal strategy of coalitions and electoralpacts with the Thatcherite Fine Gael party,and above all the need for a sharp differen-tiation from Republican Socialism as itbecame articulated by the Provisionals .Patterson takes this process as far as 1977when its main elements were broadlysettled . Settled too is the virtual impossi-bility of the Provisionals following thispath .

The Politics of Illusion is a great bookwhich in effect completes the process ofdifferentiating Marxist and nationalistanalyses of Irish history in which Pattersonand his collaborators (chiefly Paul Bew) haveplayed such a major role . This process hasrun alongside the political differentiation ofthe Workers' Party from Republican Social-ism and been closely associated with it .Over the last decade, as this separation hasbecome ever more definite, the work of thisschool has moved nearer to contemporaryand (for the wp) more sensitive issues . Thisbook represents a settling of accounts withall that is most positive in the republicantradition . Which socialist tradition the wpwill be part of in the future remains to bedetermined, as does the role of intellectualsin this process .

CORRESPONDING EDITORS OF CAPITAL & CLASS

Australia:Stephen Castles Centre for Multicultural Studies, Universfty of W :9ongong, PO Box 1144 Wollongong, Australia 2500RachelSharpe School of Education, Macquarie Universfi Sydney, NSW 2109

BelgiumMichei deVioey Dept. des Sciences Eccnaniques, Unfversite Catholique de Louvain, Le Place Mc ttesquieu 3, B-1348Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium (tel :43-39-54/5)

BrazilFredericoJaymeKatzDepartment of Economics, Federal University of Pernamhuco, Recife, Brazil

CanadaA . Haroon Akram-LodhiDepartment of Economics FA 512, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2J. MacDonald 411-14 Carpenter Way, Ottawa, Ontario, ElK 4C9 Canada

DenmarkPtiterSkott Institute of Ectonanics, University of Aarhus, Building 350 DK-9000 Aarhus Denmark (tel : 45-6-13-01-11)

FranceAlain Lip1etz CEPREMAP 140, Rue de Chevaleret, Paris 75013

Weal GermanyDavid WeissertFidicinstrasse 13, 1000 Berlin 6 1, W.Germany

GreeceVassilisDroucopouku Technical University of Crete, 73132 Chania, Crete, Greece (work tel : 0821-58089/90/93)LoisLabrianidis Division of Urban and Regional Planning, Unfverstiy of Tessakimld, Greece (work tel :31-991586/992638)

Hang Kong:Thomas Chan Centre of Asian Studies, Hong Bong University Pokfulam Road, Hang Bong

IndiaRadhaKumar33 Anand Lok, New Delhi 110098GailOmvedt Kasegaan, District Sangli, Maharas't- 415404

ItalyVmcenxoRuggiero Via Po 2,10123 Tafno

JapanMakotoltoh Faculty of Ecawtnics, Tokyo University, Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan 113 (wcrktel :03-812-2111 x5645) (hone tel :03-774-0238)

Prof. Mitsuhito 7auruta Insititute of Business Research, Chuo University, Tkyo, Japan

NetherlandsHenkOverbeek Vakgroep Intemationale Betrekldngen en Volkenrecht, Universiteit van Amsterdam, FSWa Herengracht 510,1017 CC AmsterdamGeertReuten Fkculty of Ecoonrics, Department of Macro Economics, University of Amsterdam, Jodenbreestraat 23,1011 NHAmsterdam (tel: 525-4202)

New ZealandMike Williams Department of Economics, Victoria University, Private Bag, Wellington, NZ (tel : 721-000)

South AfricaBasherValySociology Department, University of Witwatersrand, PO Wits ., Johannesburg 2000

SpainMiren Echezarreta Departmento de Econamia Aplfcada, Fkcultad de Ciencias Eccrranicas, UniversidadAutmona de Barcelona,Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain (tel: 3-6920200 Ext. 1740)

USAJim Devine Economics Department, Loyola Marymount University Los Angeles, CA 90046NancyFblbre Economics Department, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Thanpson Hall, Amherst MA 01003(tel:413-545-4703)PeterMeyer School of Urban Planning and Development, Briginan Hall, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292, USA(tel: 502-588-2864)John Wil oughby Department of Economics, The American University, Washington, DC 20016 (work tel: 202-885-3770)(home tel: 202-387-6816)

YugoslaviaDrJasminka $ohinger Assistant Professor, Ekaaanski fhkultet Trg J F Kennedy 6,4 1000 Zagreb (041-231-111)

155

CLsN

G

Back issues -are available to individual membersNumbers 1, 2 or 3

£7.00 eachNumbers 4-27

£ 1.00 eachNumbers 28 onwards

£3.50 each/£4.00 non-membersLibrary rates

£ 10.00/$20.00 each

Please state which issues are requiredCheques payable to CSE Membership, or Giro Account59 209 4200 .

I enclose £

Please print clearly in block letters

Name

Address

Capital & Class

Conference of Socialist Economists: Membership

Fbr your membership fee you receive

•

3 issues/year of Capital & Class

•

Catalyst containing up-to-date economic and politicalanalysis

•

The right to vote on policy matters affecting the role/direction of the CSE . We encourage all new members toparticipate in the running of the CSE .

Complete and return to :CSE, 25 Horsell Rd, London NS 1XL

Please start/continue my subscription from Number/

the current issue of Capital & Class

Subscription by Bankers Order

157

UK O/SRill E12.00 E15 .00 $30 USReduced £ 8.00 £10 .00 $20 USSupporting £20.00 £20.00 $40 USLibraries and institutions £37.50 £40.00 $80 US

Capital & Class

158 Bankers order

(Name and full address of your bank, including branch title)

To

Please pay to the account of the CSE (No. 04820169) at NationalWestminster Bank (50-30-09), Islington Branch, 218 UpperStreet, London Ni 1RR, on receipt of and annually thereafteruntil further notification, the sum of £

Signature Account noName and address (in block letters)

Postcode

Date

CSE, 25 Horsell Road, London NS 1XL. (071) 607 9615

LMdMv-Lm0N

CO

Lm

C