Capitalism. A single logic or several? Social heterogeneity and agency in Postone and Fraser

Nancy Fraser and Moishe Postone are two important figures in contemporary critical theory. Both share similar political-intellectual pursuits, as they offer broad critical theories of capitalist society. They pay attention to the plethora of forms of resistance, collective action and political mobil...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Martín, Facundo Nahuel
Formato: Artículo revista
Lenguaje:Español
Publicado: Centro Universitario Regional Zona Atlántica - Universidad Nacional del Comahue - Argentin 2023
Acceso en línea:https://revele.uncoma.edu.ar/index.php/Sociales/article/view/4818
Aporte de:
Repositorio de Revistas Electrónicas REVELE (UNComahue) de Universidad Nacional del Comahue
id I22-R128-article-4818
record_format ojs
institution Universidad Nacional del Comahue
institution_str I-22
repository_str R-128
container_title_str Repositorio de Revistas Electrónicas REVELE (UNComahue)
language Español
format Artículo revista
author Martín, Facundo Nahuel
spellingShingle Martín, Facundo Nahuel
Capitalism. A single logic or several? Social heterogeneity and agency in Postone and Fraser
author_facet Martín, Facundo Nahuel
author_sort Martín, Facundo Nahuel
title Capitalism. A single logic or several? Social heterogeneity and agency in Postone and Fraser
title_short Capitalism. A single logic or several? Social heterogeneity and agency in Postone and Fraser
title_full Capitalism. A single logic or several? Social heterogeneity and agency in Postone and Fraser
title_fullStr Capitalism. A single logic or several? Social heterogeneity and agency in Postone and Fraser
title_full_unstemmed Capitalism. A single logic or several? Social heterogeneity and agency in Postone and Fraser
title_sort capitalism. a single logic or several? social heterogeneity and agency in postone and fraser
description Nancy Fraser and Moishe Postone are two important figures in contemporary critical theory. Both share similar political-intellectual pursuits, as they offer broad critical theories of capitalist society. They pay attention to the plethora of forms of resistance, collective action and political mobilization that are structured around social movements. At the same time, Fraser and Postone thematize the self-moving dynamics of capital as subject as the structural (and reified) core of capitalism. This enables them to articulate a concept of capitalist society informed by the Marxian critique of political economy. However, the aforementioned coincidences do not enable a simple synthesis of their theories. Fraser (I will focus on her writings from 2012 onwards) partly follows Marx's critique of political economy, but analyzes other, not strictly economic, dimensions of capitalist society as well. She develops an expanded theory of capitalism, a complex social system that is not structured solely by value-oriented production. Postone, on the other hand, works on the categorical reconstruction internal to the critique of political economy. I will try to formulate the basic elements of a dialogue between the two, focusing on the relation between agency, structure, contingency and necessity. In my view, Postone is mistaken when he intends to reduce capitalist relations to the development of value, labor and the commodity. Fraser, however, does not pay sufficient attention to the specifically historical character of capital as a social form. I will argue that the concept of capital as subject cannot, by its fundamental structural determinations, totalize society. It is a logically totalizing but materially truncated subject, incomplete in its effective social dynamics. Capital is confronted with other "ontologies", which it must subsume or with which it must articulate in each historical moment, but which do not derive from its internal determination.
publisher Centro Universitario Regional Zona Atlántica - Universidad Nacional del Comahue - Argentin
publishDate 2023
url https://revele.uncoma.edu.ar/index.php/Sociales/article/view/4818
work_keys_str_mv AT martinfacundonahuel capitalismasinglelogicorseveralsocialheterogeneityandagencyinpostoneandfraser
AT martinfacundonahuel capitalismounalogicaovariasheterogeneidadsocialyagenciaenpostoneyfraser
first_indexed 2024-08-12T23:06:54Z
last_indexed 2024-08-12T23:06:54Z
_version_ 1807224945132961792
spelling I22-R128-article-48182024-04-09T11:52:39Z Capitalism. A single logic or several? Social heterogeneity and agency in Postone and Fraser Capitalismo: ¿una lógica o varias? Heterogeneidad social y agencia en Postone y Fraser Martín, Facundo Nahuel Nancy Fraser and Moishe Postone are two important figures in contemporary critical theory. Both share similar political-intellectual pursuits, as they offer broad critical theories of capitalist society. They pay attention to the plethora of forms of resistance, collective action and political mobilization that are structured around social movements. At the same time, Fraser and Postone thematize the self-moving dynamics of capital as subject as the structural (and reified) core of capitalism. This enables them to articulate a concept of capitalist society informed by the Marxian critique of political economy. However, the aforementioned coincidences do not enable a simple synthesis of their theories. Fraser (I will focus on her writings from 2012 onwards) partly follows Marx's critique of political economy, but analyzes other, not strictly economic, dimensions of capitalist society as well. She develops an expanded theory of capitalism, a complex social system that is not structured solely by value-oriented production. Postone, on the other hand, works on the categorical reconstruction internal to the critique of political economy. I will try to formulate the basic elements of a dialogue between the two, focusing on the relation between agency, structure, contingency and necessity. In my view, Postone is mistaken when he intends to reduce capitalist relations to the development of value, labor and the commodity. Fraser, however, does not pay sufficient attention to the specifically historical character of capital as a social form. I will argue that the concept of capital as subject cannot, by its fundamental structural determinations, totalize society. It is a logically totalizing but materially truncated subject, incomplete in its effective social dynamics. Capital is confronted with other "ontologies", which it must subsume or with which it must articulate in each historical moment, but which do not derive from its internal determination. Nancy Fraser y Moishe Postone son dos exponentes de la teoría crítica contemporánea. Ambos comparten búsquedas político-intelectuales afines, en cuanto ofrecen sendas teorías críticas amplias de la sociedad capitalista. Prestan atención a la plétora de formas de resistencia, acción colectiva y movilización política que se estructuran en torno a los movimientos sociales. Al mismo tiempo, Fraser y Postone tematizan la dinámica semoviente del capital como sujeto en cuanto núcleo estructural (y reificado) del capitalismo. Sin embargo, las coincidencias mencionadas no habilitan una síntesis fácil entre sus teorías. Fraser (me centraré en sus escritos a partir 2012) parte de la crítica de la economía política de Marx, pero analiza otras dimensiones sociales no estrictamente económicas que son sin embargo consustanciales a la sociedad capitalista. Propone una teoría ampliada del capitalismo, una forma social compleja que no se estructura únicamente por la producción orientada al valor. Postone, en cambio, trabaja en la reconstrucción categorial interna a la crítica de la economía política. Intentaré formular los elementos básicos de una puesta en diálogo entre ambos, centrándome en la relación entre agencia, estructura, contingencia y necesidad. Desde mi punto de vista, Postone erra cuando pretende reducir las relaciones capitalistas al despliegue del valor, el trabajo y la mercancía. Fraser, sin embargo, no presta atención suficiente al carácter histórico específico del capital como forma social. Voy a sostener que el concepto del capital como sujeto no puede, por sus determinaciones estructurales fundamentales, totalizar la sociedad. Es un sujeto lógicamente totalizante pero materialmente trunco, incompleto en su dinámica social efectiva. El capital se enfrenta a “ontologías” otras, que debe subsumir o con las que debe articulares en cada momento histórico, pero que no se derivan de su determinación interna. Nancy Fraser e Moishe Postone são duas figuras importantes na teoria crítica contemporânea. Ambos partilham perseguições político-intelectuais semelhantes, uma vez que oferecem amplas teorias críticas da sociedade capitalista. Prestam atenção à pletora de formas de resistência, acção colectiva e mobilização política que estão estruturadas em torno de movimentos sociais. Ao mesmo tempo, Fraser e Postone tematizam a dinâmica de auto-movimento do capital como sujeito enquanto núcleo estrutural (e reificado) do capitalismo. Isto permite-lhes articular um conceito de sociedade capitalista informado pela crítica marxista da economia política. Contudo, as referidas coincidências não permitem uma simples síntese das suas teorias. Fraser (centrar-me-ei nos seus escritos a partir de 2012) segue parcialmente a crítica de Marx à economia política, mas analisa também outras dimensões, não estritamente económicas, da sociedade capitalista. Ela desenvolve uma teoria ampliada do capitalismo, um sistema social complexo que não é estruturado apenas por uma produção orientada para o valor. Postone, por outro lado, trabalha na reconstrução categórica interna à crítica da economia política. Tentarei formular os elementos básicos de um diálogo entre os dois, centrando-me na relação entre agência, estrutura, contingência e necessidade. Na minha opinião, Postone está enganado quando pretende reduzir as relações capitalistas ao desenvolvimento do valor, do trabalho e da mercadoria. Fraser, contudo, não presta atenção suficiente ao carácter histórico específico do capital como forma social. Argumentarei que o conceito de capital como sujeito não pode, pelas suas determinações estruturais fundamentais, totalizar a sociedade. É um sujeito logicamente totalizante mas materialmente truncado, incompleto na sua dinâmica social efectiva. O capital é confrontado com outras "ontologias", que deve subsumir ou com as quais deve articular em cada momento histórico, mas que não derivam da sua determinação interna. Centro Universitario Regional Zona Atlántica - Universidad Nacional del Comahue - Argentin 2023-07-03 info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion application/pdf https://revele.uncoma.edu.ar/index.php/Sociales/article/view/4818 Revista Pilquen. Sección Ciencias Sociales; Vol. 26 Núm. 2 (2023): Revista Pilquen. Sección Ciencias Sociales; 62-84 1851-3123 1666-0579 spa https://revele.uncoma.edu.ar/index.php/Sociales/article/view/4818/61779 Derechos de autor 2023 Revista Pilquen. Sección Ciencias Sociales https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0

Ejemplares similares