The Suicide of New Left Review.

Carlos Eduardo Rebello crebello at
Wed May 3 14:02:47 MDT 2000

Well, what is heppening - if the account by Kagarlitsky is correct - is
coherent with Parry Anderson's intellectual development, perhaps. This
semester, I've been teaching a course on Postmodernism, and my ladt
class was dedicated exactly to a comparison between PA's and Alex
Callinico's views on the subject. According to Anderson, the drive for
all intellectual rebellions against capitalism - and, therefore the
basis for all anti-capitalist theorethical views that helped organize
coherent anti-capitalist movements - were the social remnants of the
_ci-devant_ classes and class strata- the aristocracy, petty-bourgeois
artisans, peasants, etc. _ mostly hurt by bourgeois modernization.In
short, all anti-capitalist thinking was just nothing but an enlarged
version of West European XIXth century Romanticism, something that leads
to the idea of a common cultural root between, say, Marx and Nietzsche.
With the spread worldwide of a bourgeois mass culture, all *loci* of a
possible coherent anti-capitalist *Weltsanschauung*, concerned with
struggling against burgeois philisteism, were smothered out and nothing
remains to be done agains bourgeois modernism, which at least offers the
possibility of realizing the old individualistic ideal of the
Enlightnment, no metter how philistinely. In Callinico's views, however,
capitalism incessantly recreates its own barbarism, backwardness,
archaism, as it's plagued from head to toe with the seeds of *combined
and uneven development*, so that bourgeois modernization will ultimately
fail to deliver the promised "Modernity", it is presently offering to
mankind. If Kagarlitsky's account is true - and my interpretation of
PA's views too - then, regretfully, I must say I will stay behind
Callinicos as opposed to the later PA's views.Too bad -and too sad - if
it Kagarlitsky happens to be correct.

Carlos Rebello

More information about the Marxism mailing list