Постмарксизм в социологии. Часть II
In the second part of the study of the historical dynamics of the “post-Marxism” concept the author notes that with the collapse of communism different Marxists begin to conceptualize the term in their own way. At the same time, two trends in the use of the concept (self-description and the accusation of “revisionism”), originating in the 1980s, persisted until the late 1990s, when the concept became analytically important for the academy and finally lost its negative connotations. The article states that academic works on post-Marxism of the 2000s and 2010s can be divided into two categories. In the first one researchers try to independently theorize the concept. In the second category scholars try to describe post–Marxism as a “tradition” based on the selected criteria, the genealogy of which the authors see in the social theories of Rosa Luxemburg, Cornelius Castoriadis, but most often in the book “Hegemony and Socialist Strategy” by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe. The author asserts that there is no consensus among researchers regarding the use of the “post-Marxism” concept in and for the language of current radical theory. For example, Oliver Harrison believes that it is necessary to decide who is a post-Marxist and who is not, in each specific case. The author of the article comes to the conclusion that today almost any radical social theorist working in the paradigm of Marxist sociology can be called a post-Marxist, especially since even among radical thinkers there seems to be an understanding that Marxism and post-Marxism cannot be separated. After all, post-Marxism remains Marxism.