What Comes A f t e r 1991?

The events of 1989 held little surprise for Ernesto Laclau, nor those of 1991. His recent book, New Reflections On The Revolution Of Our Time, shows why. Here he talks to Martin Jacques about the post-communist, post-marxist era

ment, and a set of achievements of this kind which cannot be entirely negated. But on the whole I would tend to think that the democratic revolution was the revolution of February, not the revolution of October.
And in that sense October took the wrong route?

Yes, I think so.

What do you see remaining of marxism? To what extent do you think that Marx's ideas, or writers within the marxist tradition, like Gramsci, will endure?

Well, I didn't need to wait until these events to assert that we are today in a post-marxist era. For me marxism is just one moment in the radical tradition of the West. A moment which is definitely over. If we look at the central theses of marxism there is, firstly, the assertion of an increasing homogenisation of the social structure under capitalism, tending towards a rapid proletarianisation which would lead to a final showdown between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. That image of the historical process is, obviously, entirely Ernesto Laclau is director of the centre for theoretical studies at Essex University. wrong. His latest book is New Reflections On The Revolution Of Our Time (Verso) Secondly, marxism was a theory based, precisely for those reasons, on What do you see as the meaning of the portance of the role played by commun- the centrality of the working class as a recent events in the Soviet Union, the i s m in the 1930s, in the struggle against' historical actor. Again, this centrality is disappearing, everywhere. collapse of the Communist Party, and the fascism. And in ideological terms, in I think marxism has to be considered dramatic changes now taking place? -spite of the totalitarian aspects that I think they have more than one mean- communism undoubtedly had, it played as just one moment in a wider process, ing. There is the meaning this has for a very important role in the develop- which is the democratic revolution, in the former Soviet Union, for the inter- ment of the political consciousness of the sense that it tried to expand towards the economic sphere the notions of equnational Left, and for the balance of the masses. I have always been very critical of the ality that liberalism only recognised in world forces. Concentrating on the first aspect, the end of the tsarist empire is communist tradition, but that has not (the public sphere of citizenship. But taking place before our very eyes. The blinded me to the role that communist- marxism is just one limited episode in task of the October Revolution was, to a led mobilisations played in many cases this process. With the proliferation of large extent, to maintain a state in democratic struggles. Think what new historical actors, new social movemachine which would prevent the disin- democracy would be like in Italy if they ments in the world today, we find that tegration of the tsarist empire into a Communist Party had not existed there. the democratic revolution has a much wider base. We also have to remember plurality of nationalities. I think this is That communism was deeply wrong in clearly what is going on now. There was many respects - in. fundamental res- the fact that marxism was an extremely complex and diverse phenomenon. no distinctly Soviet identity which had pects - cannot be doubted. But the Left any deep roots in the popular masses. So has to come to terms with it as part of its they are going back to an older kind of own history, not as a temporary and When you say that marxism was a moment, accidental aberration. separate identity. do you therefore see the corpus of marxist ideas, in their plurality, as being basically As for the other meanings of this event, we are clearly at the end of a You describe the situation in relation to of historical interest but of little operabipolar world and we are entering an Italy, but what would you say about the tional significance now? I think very little can be maintained age in which international relations are legacy of the Soviet Union? going to be shaped in a totally different Traditionally, people conceived of the today from the theoretical apparatus of marxism. If we say that marxism consfashion. Finally, from the point of view Soviet Union in dual fashion. On the one isted of a theory of revolution, of an of the Left, it is the end of communism hand, more or less everybody accepted economic theory based on the laws of . in the sense in which we knew it, and the. that it was a brutal dictatorship, that capitalist development, and finally, of a big question is how to conceive of civil rights there were non-existent, theory of society based on the centrality socialism in a post-communist era. that exploitation was extreme. On the of class, then very little remains in other hand, people tended to say that in these areas which is of value today. order to build up the Soviet Union, in the Everyone is saying, correctly, that the I think marxism is important now from conditions which existed in the 1920s, events of 1989 and 1991 mark the end of the point of view of the history of politithey had to impose a dictatorship, which communism, the end above ail of the cal ideas. The fact remains, however, was necessary for economic progress, project inaugurated by the October Revothat some important tools for political development and so on. lution. And most conclude that there was analysis have emerged within the field Today we are far more critical of the more or less nothing positive in this era, of marxism, for instance the category achievements of the Soviet Union, even which has ended in historical collapse. Do of hegemony, formulated by Gramsci. at an economic level. I think it is still too you see it like that? No. In the first place, a movement of early to make a final judgement. But the such proportions and complexity as the' balance is definitely going to be much 1989 and the events in eastern Europe were international communist movement more negative than we used to think in deeply traumatising for the communist cannot be dealt with by such summary the past. There was a certain measure tradition. The collapse of these regimes judgements. We cannot ignore the im- of equality in the security of employ- was so rapid, so dramatic, so popular. 16 MARXISM TODAY OCTOBER 1991

Immediately the whole communist tradition was thrown into crisis. But by and large the social democratic tradition responded to the events of 1989 by saying that it was a separate tradition: it didn't really affect what they had stood for over a long historical period. Now, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, people are saying, 'this is the end of socialism'. Is that true? And if so, in what sense?

I don't think that we are at the end of socialism. I think we can say, about socialism, what another Marx, Groucho, said about sex: it is going to be with us for a while. But, to look in more detail at the limitations of the socialist tradition as we have known it, the central element in that tradition was the belief that the state, as the natural locus of social planning, could produce a stable social order. This belief has certainly been eroded but it is important to realise that it has not been replaced by any alternative mechanism - such as the market leading to the same kind of result. What we have begun to understand today is that social reproduction and regulation is a complex and pragmatic process, starting from a multiplicity of points of the social tissue and involving a plurality of social actors. This recognition also involves the possibility of moving in a democratic direction because it implies the multiplication of the constituencies which have a say in the decision-making process. That is how I see the future of socialism: as a radical democratisation of economic life and, in a more general sense, of the process of social regulation. The classical conception of socialism was based on the idea that total regulation by an unlimited social actor - a 'universal class' - had to replace a capitalism that was leading towards chaos. Today we realise that all historical actors are limited and that a democratic social order can only be the result of their interaction and negotiation. We " have to build a future on 'a human scale' and abandon the totalitarian dreams of a limitless historical actor. This means, among other things, that no single principle of social regulation can prevail; a socialist society will be one in which a mixed economy will prevail and in which the socialist component will consist in the plurality of the constituencies exercising social control.
So we are getting the breakdown of what was, basically, an historical estrangement of the traditions of left and right, which was based on certain historical certainties about paths of development, which were mutually exclusive. And you see countries like our own developing essentially on the basis of plurality, with many different forms coexisting for example in the economy, including different forms of the market, and also many different forms of social control. Of course. And there is no set road to pursue, so therefore each set of circumstances has to be considered on its own merits.

17

MARXISM TODAY OCTOBER 1991

Yes. I would add that the question of democratisation exceeds by far the economic arena that we have been discussing. In western Europe today we are facing an increasing wave of racism, linked to, among other things, the problem of immigration. And it is perfectly clear that the fall of the communist regimes in eastern Europe has not just been succeeded by the triumph of democratic forces. The democratisation of society is far from being an automatic process. Antisemitism and all kinds of xenophobia are only too present. In the next decade, democratic struggles will not have to be fought against totalitarianism, but rather against all kinds of reactionary prejudices and ideologies. We are in an extraordinary political moment Oh to be 18 in 1991. A generation is going to grow up in an utterly different environment, and with a completely different set of assumptions from all the postwar generations and, in a sense, most of the generations of this century. We are entering a deeply unknown period. How do you see the era that we are now entering? I would say that globally it is perhaps the first time in modern history that we have no dividing line in the international arena. Before the cold war there was fascism, and before that there was a complex game of confrontations between European powers. But now we are entering a kind of world order in which this division is no longer

there, and that creates a completely different milieu for historical action. I think the important issue now is going to be how to make democracy and particularism compatible.
By particularism you mean for example, in terms of religion, ethnicity, nationality?

I think so. And the same process is being repeated now in the Soviet Union.
Exactly. How do you see this tension between democracy and particularism developing?

'l think we can say, about socialism, what another Marx, Groucho, said about sex: it is going to be with us for a while'

Exactly. The rights of various minorities and so on. Particularism can move in many ways which do not lead at all to a democratic outcome. I think the big problems in the decade to come are essentially these two: on the one hand, there is the right to difference and the explosion of all kinds of particularism, which before were contained to some extent by a certain universalism, which was partly the result of the cold war. Now that this universal dimension is no longer there, particularism is developing freely, and this is going to be more and more the case. How to make this expansion of particularism and democracy compatible, is, I think, the big political issue of the decade to come. I don't think it is clear at all that particularisms are going to develop in democratic ways.
In a sense, there have been two explosions. The rise of particularism as you describe it was initially the detonation of the social subject represented by a moment like 1968 in the West - the culture of difference and then 1989, thinking of it in a European compass in particular, saw the explosion of a new national particularism.

I think it presents a challenge for the Left. I have always thought that a plurality of social identities had to be hegemonised by a socialist discourse. I have insisted that the national-popular dimension had a decisive influence and that one of the limitations of the Left had been its exclusive concentration on class analysis. I don't think there is any essential reason for today's particularisms to be articulated in a reactionary direction, but no a priori reason why they would lead in a democratic direction either. This is a political struggle whose outcome is largely indeterminate.
But part of the failure of the Left since 1968, and before that as well of course, has been an inability beyond a point to articulate democracy and particularism.

Sure. We could trace a whole history of the figures of the 'universal' which have haunted the political imaginary of the Left since the enlightenment. I certainly don't reject that tradition, though I think that a great deal of ethnocentrism was linked to it. But I think today our great challenge is how to advance democratic causes in a far more fragmented world than the one we have mentally inhabited. The era of the 'Internationals' is definitely over.O

19

MARXISM TODAY OCTOBER 1991