If we think of an apocalypse as an event involving destruction or damage (and for the sake of this class, not just on an awesome or catastrophic scale), then we have to realize that nearly all socialist writing is apocalyptic in nature simply because it calls for the fall of capitalism. The “social [re]production of existence” (7) that would occur in moving from complete capitalism to complete socialism would by definition need to have an apocalyptic impetus. Something so incredibly radical must happen to bring about the end of capitalism in order to turn society on its head.
Marx discusses the legal, political – and essentially societal – superstructure based upon the relations of production and its constitution of society’s economic structure. It is this superstructure that must be drastically changed so that the “definite forms of social consciousness” (7) are not based on the economic structure of society, as they are in capitalism. The “era of social revolution” (7) begins when changes are made to the foundation of the superstructure, which in theory would subsequently cause the catastrophic end of capitalism.
Correct me if I am wrong, but our task in this class is not to define apocalypse in the words of Marx, Freud, de Saussure, etc., rather we should use our collective definition or perception of apocalypse and/or apocalyptic as a critical lens through which we can see these texts in new way. It is through this lens that I cannot help but see Marx’s piece as apocalyptic.
This is very well put. Concerning this phrase, "to turn society on its head"—isn't it more precisely a lopping of of society's 'head', or a changing of heads (like my little niece's Polly Pocket Pop 'N Swap "fashion frenzy" dolls)? Can we be specific about how real changes in the foundation affect the superstructure? Can the foundational changes be seen as 'apocalyptic', or should we hold this term in reserve for only super-structural revolution(s)? On a practical note, your assessment of the class—its aims and methods—is a helpful guide for how we should navigate our theoretical texts.
ReplyDeleteSorry—I meant: "...a lopping off of society's head..."
ReplyDeleteContinuing this evocative metaphor of an apocalyptic 'turning' (or lopping off) of society's head, I think it would be more appropriate to think of a cutting off of society's feet (at least when focusing solely on this text). When Marx writes that, "My inquiry led me to the conclusion that neither legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life...that the anatomy of this civil society, however, has to be sought in political economy" (p. 7), Marx is laying down a gauntlet, turning Hegel on His head by claiming that it is the foundation and not the superstructure which determines social (re)productions of existence..."the changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure." (p. 7) Thus it is not the superstructure that must be drastically changed but that the superstructure will be drastically changed, as when the body's entire balance and movement cannot but be changed because it must adjust to new feet. While I agree that such a radical change is apocalyptic in itself, I also think when looking at the 'Preface' what appears as the inevitability of this new political economy, the destruction (and revelation) around the corner, the sense in which all this is is going to happen and the best thing to do would be to prepare for the event is highly apocalyptic.
ReplyDeleteThis is an astute clarification: lopping off the feet in order that the head will have to change, too. (In which case it is even more like the Pop 'N Swap dolls than I thought.)
ReplyDelete