ABSTRACTThis contribution emphasises the importance of conditions of production and relations of production in Discourse Studies. It argues that rather than constituting an extra-discursive realm that simply belongs to the economic sphere of a social formation, conditions and relations of production present a veritable concern for Discourse Studies. They constitute two central concepts of Marxism, and grasp two intertwined processes that assure the survival of a specific mode of production. It is not only the conditions of production that need to (...) be reproduced under certain relations of production. It is also these relations themselves that need to be reproduced discursively and ideologically. Hence, conditions and relations of production and their reproduction are fundamentally material-discursive. In the early days of discourse analysis in France, both concepts and a Marxist take on production constituted an important point of reference. Here, the conditions of production of discourse were more than the setting, context or the situation semiotic material is produced in. In today's Discourse Studies, however, conditions and relations of production are often conceived of as the ‘material other’ of discourse, and are rarely scrutinised explicitly on the theoretical, analytical, and political level. We argue that such an understanding not only obfuscates the materialist heritage of Discourse Studies. It also contributes to a depoliticised understanding of research, in which the conditions in which discourse is produced are strangely separated from the broader conditions and relations of production in late capitalism. (shrink)

From 1919 to 1929, the great Hungarian Marxist philosopher Georg Lukács was one of the leaders of the Hungarian Communist Party, immersed not simply in theorising but also in significant practical-political work. Along with labour leader Jenö Landler, he led a faction opposing an ultra-left sectarian orientation represented by Béla Kun. If seen in connection with this factional struggle, key works of Lukács in this period – History and Class Consciousness, Lenin: A Study in the Unity of His Thought, Tailism (...) and the Dialectic and ‘The Blum Theses’ – can be seen as forming a consistent, coherent, sophisticated variant of Leninism. Influential readings of these works interpret them as being ultra-leftist or proto-Stalinist. Such readings distort the reality. Lukács’s orientation and outlook of 1923–9 are, rather, more consistent with the orientation advanced by Lenin and Trotsky in the Third and Fourth Congresses of the Communist International. After his decisive political defeat, Lukács concluded that it was necessary to renounce his distinctive political orientation, and completely abandon the terrain of practical revolutionary politics, if he hoped to remain inside the Communist movement. This he did, adapting to Stalinism and shifting his efforts to literary criticism and philosophy. But the theorisations connected to his revolutionary politics of the 1920s continue to have relevance for revolutionary activists of the twenty-first century. (shrink)

In this review essay, I consider a number of possible versions of a contemporary socialist balance-sheet, by way of the three very different recent accounts provided by Alain Badiou, Peter Beilharz, and Goran Therborn. Exploring these broad, colliding understandings of the socialist past, present, and future, I seek to evaluate the responses to some of those large and pressing socialist questions: Who owned the 20th century? What was 1968? What is the meaning of the period since? What remains of Marxism (...) and of socialism? What are the situation and tasks of social theory today? (shrink)