As we know, Marx never wrote a distinct tome on either international trade or on war and geopolitics – a tome that would have problematized the spaceless assumptions of either a stagist conception of world history or a universalizing capitalist world market. And in that sense International Relations – less as a discipline but more as a problematic – remains very pressing and urgent for Marxists to reappropriate.
We are no longer dealing with an anthropological causality referred to the act of a subjectivity, but with a quite new causality which we can call metonymic causality.
We in Argentina are faced with a right-wing that is more modern, versatile in the world of mass media and social networks, much more attentive and lucid in everything that has to do with the production of consensus. We must ask ourselves, how is a government like this possible in the country today?
Eight months after a co-ordinated attack against a refugee center in Heidenau, Eastern Germany, we discuss the newly emerging right-populist PEGIDA movement and the Alternative for Germany party with anti-fascists on the ground. What are the possibilities for left regroupment? And how can we move beyond “firefighting” and regain the offensive momentum the German left had last spring?
The MIR was born on August 15, 1965, out of the confluence of several small currents of the critical left that at that time opposed parliamentarianism and the legalism of the majority of the left and aspired to construct a Marxist revolutionary organization, rupturing with electoral strategies and the state.
The analysis of James’s thought elaborated here is only a preliminary to what we have called a counter-genealogy of race. Tracing this genealogy could assist us in overcoming the aporias that stall contemporary debates around race, and requires suspending any pre-given conception of the concept in order to shed light on the heterogeneous, and sometimes contradictory, historical instances of a counter-concept of race within struggles against racial oppression.