Marx or Spinoza
The Spinoza invoked by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri in their work together seems quite distinct from the one encountered in Spinoza’s thought. Sean Grattan asks if a truncated Spinoza can be useful for a liberatory politics.
The injunction to choose — Spinoza or Marx — is a kind of blackmail. To conjoin them — Spinoza and Marx — is easier said than done. How can the friction between them be made productive? Peter Hitchock asks: How can commonism, the Spinozist horizon, be made a precondition of communism, the Marxist one?
Spinoza’s multitude is less a universal subject than a localized, contingent phenomenon: a crowd. Justin Rogers-Cooper draws the consequences.
Nature writing might seem among the furthest thing possible from questions of Marxist praxis. Rachel Greenwald Smith argues for their connection.
In recent decades, Marxists have tended to want to preserve the specificity of Marx’s materialism by distinguishing it from competing “new materialisms,” including the materialism of the body. James Arnett, closely reading Marx and Spinoza along with Engels and Samuel Delany, reminds us that things are not nearly so simple.
Marx and Spinoza, economics and politics, socialism and communism, utopian program and utopian impulse: what are we to do with these binaries if not to choose? Phillip Wegner plots a dialectical path through the possibilities.
How does Fredric Jameson’s Marxism extend his Hegel, and how does his Hegelianism inflect his Marx? Peter Hitchcock reviews The Hegel Variations: On the Phenomenology of Spirit.
Contemporary theory encounters two Spinozas. Sean Grattan reviews Spinoza Now.