The Theoretical Evaluation of Nicholas Planchas

Nicholas Planchas: An Atypical Western Marxist

According to perry anderson's definition, "Western Marxism is the product of the failure of the proletarian revolution in the advanced capitalist areas of Europe after the First World War, and it was developed under the condition that socialist theory and working class practice were increasingly separated." ① This separation of theory and practice is manifested as follows: "Western Marxism deliberately keeps silent on the core issues of the classic tradition of historical materialism, such as a detailed study of the laws of economic movement of capitalist mode of production, a careful analysis of the political machine of bourgeois countries and the class struggle strategy necessary to overthrow this state machine." However, among western Marxists, Nicholas Planchas is an anomaly, and the theme of his theoretical exploration in his life is precisely around those "core issues". It is in this sense that Planck can be said to be "an atypical western Marxist". Those "core issues" have been puzzling Marxists. After Marx, Marxists always jump on two poles: economism (represented by the Second International) or historicism and humanism (represented by Lukacs and Sartre). Neither of them can reasonably explain and interfere with the development of history, especially how the developed capitalist society transits to the socialist society. Planck tried to solve this problem and make Marxism a scientific theory to guide the proletarian revolutionary practice (change the world). He believes that Marx, Engels, Lenin and Gramsci directly engaged in political practice, so they did not discuss political issues from the perspective of theoretical systematization. Now we need to elaborate a set of basic concepts of political theory and rebuild Marxist political theory.

one

In terms of method, Planck was decisively influenced by Althusser's "multi-determinism", from which a "expression method" was derived. This method originated from Althusser's application of materialist dialectics in Marx's Introduction to Criticism of Political Economy. Althusser believes that the mirror image relationship between thought and reality belongs to the same personality fantasy. Ideological grasp really needs certain theoretical methods as an intermediary. Concrete is only the premise of understanding, and only "concrete thinking" can be grasped by thinking. Planck thinks this theoretical method is dialectical materialism. Reality is a complex whole with a dominant structure (principal contradiction), and each link is relatively independent. Each link is linked around the main contradiction, forming a contradiction matrix. The complex whole is given, and one link cannot be reduced to another. Only in a complex whole can we understand the meaning of each link. Among them, the main contradiction is constantly shifting and compressing, which is manifested in the "present stage" of a certain historical period. In fact, Planck's idea is to transform the general theory of historical materialism into a theory that can analyze the specific situation in a specific historical period, so as to find a realistic way to transition from a developed capitalist society to socialism.

Marx, Engels, Lenin and Gramsci are all engaged in political practice, so many concepts and principles are in a decentralized and implicit state and must be produced by scientific methods. Planck reinterpreted the basic concepts of historical materialism, such as mode of production and social formation, by means of connection, trying to construct a scientific theory suitable for specific historical conditions. Planck believes that the mode of production consists of three relatively independent departments: economy, politics and ideology. In Das Kapital, Marx only analyzed the pure form of capitalist mode of production. In fact, there is more than one mode of production in capitalist society. Lenin analyzed this situation in the development of Russian capitalism. Secondly, Planck distinguished two concepts: the legal and political superstructure of a country is called politics; Political class practice (political class struggle) is usually called politics. He actually distinguished the two concepts of state machine and state power. Politicalpractice refers to the practice of class struggle leading against state power in a country. Marx thinks that class struggle is the motive force of history, and Planck defines "politics" as class struggle against state power, in order to eliminate the opposition between economic base and superstructure, structure and history, the key lies in capitalist countries. The concept of political power refers to the ability of a class to realize its special objective interests. The relationship shown by power is not directly determined by structure, but depends on the exact relationship between various social forces shown by class struggle. The power of one class divides the power of other classes. This boundary is very important, so on political and strategic issues, we should show our opponents' strategies, which is actually a game theory analysis and closer to social reality. The definition of politics and power laid the foundation for re-planning the political strategy under the conditions of developed capitalist society.

two

Therefore, the analysis of capitalist countries has become the core issue of Planck's political theory. Planck believes that in the capitalist mode of production, economy and politics are relatively independent, economy is the final decisive factor, and politics is put into the structure of a social form, which makes it possible for us to put forward the departmental theory of capitalist countries. Social form has the complex characteristics of multiple decisions, disordered relations and unbalanced development. Therefore, the state not only becomes the concentration of contradictions in all links, but also exists as a function of the unity and harmony of social forms. As a "historical motive force", the purpose of political struggle lies in the country, and the place where contradictions in all links are concentrated is the country. The state machine is the materialization and concentration of class relations and the premise of class relations. Gramsci and Althusser explained the role of the state's repressive machine and ideological machine, while Planck thought they ignored the role of the state's economic machine. State power is closely related to social class struggle practice. Planck pointed out that the state should not be understood as a thing, as if it were a tool manipulated by a certain class, nor should it be understood as a subject. Like Das Kapital, capitalist countries are more of a power contrast. In the early days, he regarded capitalist countries as a sector of a mode of production, and later he regarded capitalist countries as a relationship, which was a major shift in Planck's view. Initially, the state, as an intermediary factor, played a role in maintaining the general conditions of capitalist relations of production. Later, through the analysis of the reproduction of capitalist relations of production, especially the reproduction of labor force, the relationship between the state and capitalist relations of production changed from externality to dialectical unity of internalization and externality. Planck believes that capitalist countries serve bourgeois rule, but they are not tools of bourgeois rule. Due to sharp class contradictions and the need to maintain political ruling order, capitalist countries show relative autonomy. Planck broke the mechanistic understanding of the relationship between economic base and superstructure in traditional Marxist theory, and the state became a strategic field for the internal construction of the relationship between economic base and superstructure.

Planchas believes that social class is not an "empirical thing". The concept of class includes social relations as a structural influence, just as the concepts of capital, wage labor and surplus value are the concepts of production relations. His social class theory has the following essential differences from the social stratification theory of mainstream western sociology. 1 1 The structural criteria for judging class nature are different. He emphasized political and ideological standards, and the nature of class was determined in the process of class struggle. Class judgment can't be simplified as class position, because the class position adopted by social class factions or classes is inconsistent with their own interests. The class position is related to the specific situation of class struggle. 2 1 social stratum is not the superposition of individuals, and the relationship between them is not the relationship between individuals. The class qualification of each agent depends on the class position they occupy, not the class origin or social origin of the agent. 3 1 The working class cannot be economically determined by wages. Wage is a form of social product distribution, which corresponds to the market relationship and contractual relationship that dominate the sale of labor. Although every employee is an employee, every employee is not necessarily an employee, because every employee is not engaged in productive labor. Social division of labor leads technical division of labor. The relationship between politics and ideology in the process of labor is very important for the class judgment of engineers and production technicians. On the one hand, the existence of classes in the 4 1 social form is influenced by class struggle, and other classes and factions are divided around basic classes, such as the class division around the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in capitalist society. On the other hand, due to the existence of different modes of production, social forms contain complex class conditions. 5 1 Marxist social class theory is mainly based on the status of factions, classes and social categories in the relationship between politics and ideology. According to the relationship with the state machine to determine the class nature of state bureaucrats; Determine the class nature of intellectuals through ideology. 6 1 The relationship between the structural judgment of the class and the class status in the social form is embodied in the strategic concept. It includes class differentiation and class alliance. On the one hand, the concepts of ruling class and power group indicate the special alliance between ruling class and factions; On the one hand, the concept of people shows the special alliance of these classes and factions. Factions, classes and categories correspond to specific situations and become relatively independent social forces. Whether a class, faction or stratum becomes a part of the power group or a part of the people depends on the different stages, periods and specific conditions of social formation. The fact that classes, factions and strata become part of these alliances does not mean changing their class nature. For example, when the national bourgeoisie becomes a part of the people, it is still a bourgeoisie. Planck thinks that it is an idealism to generalize class alliance by the masses of the people or the working class. Generally speaking, Planck's social class analysis serves the socialist political strategic planning. This point is embodied in the judgment of the class nature of the "middle class".

three

Planck's analysis of capitalist countries and social classes is actually to plan the political strategy for the transition from developed capitalism to democratic socialism. He initially insisted on the idea of proletarian dictatorship, but later gradually began to criticize Lenin's socialist revolutionary strategy. Lenin believed that in order to carry out the socialist revolution in capitalist society, it was necessary to smash the bourgeois state machine and replace the bourgeois regime with the Soviet regime of the workers and peasants alliance. Planchas believes that the "dual power" strategy is suitable for Russia's national conditions, but not for developed capitalist countries. He inherited the views of Gramsci and Althusser, and carefully distinguished the state machine from the state power. The leadership of the bourgeoisie depends not only on the violent machine of the state, but also on the ideological state machine and economic machine. Therefore, it is impossible to realize the fundamental change of political power simply by smashing the state machine. As the cohesion of power contrast, the state is not a tool that can be smashed or transferred. Only through the political practice of class struggle can the transformation of leadership be realized. He first criticized social democracy and its idea of a welfare state. Social democracy emphasizes democratic principles such as "equal opportunity" and "social justice", which is a petty-bourgeois ideology. It was by using "social democracy" that the bourgeoisie disintegrated the mass struggle. Historically, the Social Democratic Party and its ideology have an unshirkable responsibility for the rise of fascism. In reality, by intervening in labor reproduction, collective consumption, economic life and other fields, it seems that capitalist countries have become "welfare countries" on the surface, which seems to sound the horn of socialist victory. In fact, the welfare state has promoted capital accumulation and eased the crisis of capitalism. Capitalist relations of production have not changed, but have intensified.

But Planck believes that capitalist democracy, as a historical achievement, should not be simply abandoned, and there should be no Wan Li Great Wall between socialist democracy and capitalist democracy. Socialist democracy should critically inherit the achievements of bourgeois democracy. Therefore, Planck criticized bourgeois democracy. Through the requirements of bourgeois democracy such as individual freedom, equal opportunity and social justice, as well as political means such as universal suffrage and multi-party system, the bourgeois state emerged as the representative of the common interests of the people, and bourgeois rule gained legitimacy. However, the deviation between the form and the essence of bourgeois democracy has caused the fundamental contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the masses, and the bourgeois liberal democratic system has emerged a crisis of legitimacy, thus providing an opportunity for the arrival of democratic socialism. However, after the collapse of military dictatorships in Greece, Spain and Portugal in the 1970s, the working class missed the chance of success, while the bourgeoisie gained political rule. Planck believes that we must pay attention to political ideology and class alliance. At the same time, as capitalism enters the stage of monopoly capitalism, the social structure and class structure have undergone tremendous changes, and an intermediate class with production technicians, managers and civil servants as the main body has emerged. Planck defined "middle class" as a new petty bourgeoisie on the basis of productive labor and unproductive labor, manual labor and mental labor. The urgent task of the socialist revolutionary strategy is to form an alliance with the new petty bourgeoisie and oppose monopoly capital rule. Planck believes that the present stage of capitalist mode of production still conforms to Lenin's judgment on imperialism, the main contradiction of social form is the inherent contradiction of capitalist mode of production, and the main class contradiction is still the contradiction between proletariat and bourgeoisie. The new petty bourgeoisie will be divided into proletarian camps around this principal contradiction. Because capitalist countries intervene in the reproduction of economy and labor force, it already exists in capitalist production relations. As a country with relatively concentrated strength, it has become an area where contradictions are concentrated. The national crisis has become the main contradiction at present. Planck has noticed the rise of new social movements such as ecological movement, feminism, immigration, anti-racism and student movement. He believes that contradictions within the country should be linked with new social movements. The working class should gain the leadership of the people's alliance through political organization and ideological struggle, so as to realize the transition from developed capitalism to democratic socialism. However, Planck's plan for democratic socialism is still qualitative, and even hopes for the evolution of bourgeois democratic forms. He said: "History has not provided us with successful experience on the road of socialist democracy: it has provided some negative cases to be avoided and mistakes to be reflected. In the name of realism, it will naturally be said that if democratic socialism has never existed, it is because it cannot exist. "

four

By introducing the concept of cohesion, Planck redefined the mode of production and social form. Regarding the definition of capitalist mode of production, he emphasized the connection between economy, politics and ideology. In the definition of capitalist social form, the relationship between different modes of production is emphasized. In the class analysis of capitalist social form, he opposed the traditional theory to fix the judgment standard of class nature on the economic structure, emphasized the role of political ideology, and particularly highlighted the decisive role of class struggle in judging class nature. Starting from the road pioneered by Althusser, Planck criticized Lukacs' historical ideology. Lukacs believes that ideology is "a label attached to the back of the class subject". In the view of historical ideology, ideology has been over-politicized and lost its relative autonomy. Because it emphasizes that ideology is the world view of class subject, it is impossible to imagine that the ideology of one class will be invaded by the ideological components of other classes. For example, the ruled class is controlled by the ideology of the ruling class and is used to expressing their dissatisfaction with the language and logic of the ruling class, which is bound to be detrimental to the socialist political strategic planning. At the same time, Planck put class analysis in a prominent position, making class struggle play a central role. On the issue of the transition from developed capitalist society to socialist society, he insisted that class alliance is the condition for realizing socialism, and socialism could not be established without the decisive role of the working class.

Although Planck's plan criticized the traditional Marxist political theory, including the theory of class analysis, it put political ideology factors in a decisive position and class struggle in a fundamental and decisive position, which is obviously challenged today. Murphy believes that any ultimate foundation and fundamental legitimacy are impossible, and the advent of this form of social democracy and modernity itself is made up of this impossibility. Ernst Laclau and Chater Murphy believe that "the complexity and diversity of contemporary society have irrevocably dispelled the ultimate foundation of political fiction". The validity of the concepts of socialism, subjectivity and proletariat as the ontological center and the historical process of capitalist development in Marxist theory is questioned. Therefore, "post-Marxism" accuses classical theories of essentialism and class reductionism. Although they emphasized the relationship between ideology and class struggle, they cut off the inevitable connection between socialism and the working class and replaced Althusser's ideological criticism paradigm with discourse analysis paradigm. Discourse has become the ontological principle of all social and political life, thus abandoning all social determinism based on economic structure and class analysis. This position eventually criticized Marxism as essentialism, economism and reductionism, and merged into the tide of post-structuralism. Post-Marxism claims that radical and pluralistic democratic planning "avoids the hidden dangers of Marxist socialism and social democracy, and provides a brand-new concept for the left, which not only affirms the great tradition of liberation struggle, but also takes into account the latest theoretical achievements of psychoanalysis and philosophy." During the transition from Althusser to post-Marxism, we found that there are many internal logical conflicts. Post-Marxism temporarily resolved this theoretical crisis through discourse analysis, but Planck, who is at the center of contradictions and conflicts, failed to find a clear way out.