The world, arguably, has never been in greater need of change. Can philosophy provide it, or is the discipline destined to forever interpret the world without meaningfully effecting it? Is postmodernism not only the epitome of this, but the cause of current our dire situation? Mike Cole uncovers the problems with postmodernism, and the promise of Marxism. Read Simon Glendinning's response. 

The rationale for this article is to insist that Marx’s famous pronouncement that ‘philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it’ is more relevant today than ever before. Postmodernism is by definition merely an interpretation of the world and as such precludes a political project, whereas what is needed is to heed the call for the transformative progressive change that Marxism represents.

Challenges to Marxism have a long history and began perhaps with the sociologist Max Weber. While Albert Salomon’s famous observation that Weber was involved in a debate ‘with the ghost of Marx’ (Salomon, 1935) may be somewhat overstated, ever since Weber (c. 1915) made a number of criticisms of Marx and Marxism, the intellectual struggle against Marxist ideas has been at the forefront of critical social theory. Weber suggested that social class might not be solely related to the mode of production; that political power does not necessarily derive from economic power; and that status as well as class might form the basis of the formation of social groups.

Subsequent attempts to undermine Marxist ideas have ranged from the post-structuralist writings of Michel Foucault who believed that power is diffuse rather than related to the means of production, and of Jacques Derrida who stressed the need for the deconstruction of all dominant discourses; to the postmodernism of Jean-François Lyotard who was incredulous of all grand narratives, and of Jean Baudrillard who argued that binary oppositions (such as the ruling and working classes) had collapsed. Foucault’s treatment of the connections between the body, power and sexuality has understandably been widely adapted in feminist analysis. With respect to Derrida, attempting to make the case that ‘deconstruction … is not the same as destruction’ (Atkinson, 2002, p. 77), prominent UK postmodern feminist Elizabeth Atkinson, cites leading social thinker and philosopher, Judith Butler who argues:
To deconstruct is not to negate or to dismiss, but to call into question and, perhaps most importantly, to open up a term … to a reusage or redeployment that previously has not been authorised (cited in Atkinson, ibid.)

Marxism demystifies discourse that masks the inherently exploitative nature of capitalist society and, unlike poststructuralism, points in the direction of a non-exploitative world.

As I have argued in Cole (2004; see also Cole, 2003; Cole and Hill, 1995), this is precisely what Marxism does. It demystifies discourse that masks the inherently exploitative nature of capitalist society, thus providing a means of both analysing that society, understanding its exploitative nature and, unlike poststructuralism, pointing in the direction of a non-exploitative world. As far as incredulity to the grand narrative of Marxism, and the collapse of binaries are concerned, I argue in this article that Marxist remains a coherent worldview, albeit adapted, and that the binary opposition between capital and labour is greater than ever.