//INTEGRAFS5/KCG/2-PAGINATION/TANDF/RHME/APPLICATIONFILES//CHAP31.3D 337 [ ] :47AM PART V. Marxian Traditions

//INTEGRAFS5/KCG/2-PAGINATION/TANDF/RHME/APPLICATIONFILES//CHAP31.3D 337 [337 349] 24.11.2016 9:47AM PART V Marxian Traditions

//INTEGRAFS5/KCG/2-PAGINATION/TANDF/RHME/APPLICATIONFILES//CHAP31.3D 338 [337 349] 24.11.2016 9:47AM

//INTEGRAFS5/KCG/2-PAGINATION/TANDF/RHME/APPLICATIONFILES//CHAP31.3D 339 [337 349] 24.11.2016 9:47AM 31 POSTMODERNISM Jack Amariglio and David F. Ruccio In the latter part of the twentieth and the early part of the twenty-first century, the intellectual movement generally referred to as postmodernism has fundamentally transformed the Marxian critique of political economy. Postmodernism (and, with it, poststructuralism and deconstruction) has been utilized to engage in a fundamental rethinking of key concepts and conceptual strategies of Marxian economic theory. It has also helped to identify and extend aspects of the Marxian tradition that had been forgotten or suppressed by modernist approaches, and to explore overlaps with other disciplines (such as anthropology, philosophy, and literary criticism) and other theoretical traditions within economics (especially institutionalism, feminism, postcolonialism, and Austrian economics). The result has been the emergence of distinctly postmodern interpretations of Marxian economic theory. Traditional interpretations of Marxian economics have mostly been based on a modernist approach. Modernist Marxist economists tend to invoke a mirror of nature epistemology and a deterministic notion of causality. For these scholars, Marx s Capital presents a science of law-driven capitalism based on an objective labor theory of value (as against, for example, the preference-based subjective theory of value of neoclassical economics). The problem of Marxist economics, on this interpretation, is to identify the order underlying the apparent disorder of capitalism and to point in the direction of a transition from capitalist disorder to the planned order of socialism. One illustrative example of modernist Marxian economics concerns the relationship between production and exchange. According to the modernist reading, the value and surplus-value (the extra value created by laborers and appropriated by capitalists) created in the orderly process of capitalist production determine, and thus explain, the prices and profits that obtain in the chaotic and uncertain realm of capitalist exchange. Since the anarchy of a capitalist economy leads to crises, modernist Marxists argue that the disorder and irrationality of private property and markets can and should be replaced by the order and rationality of state property and planning within socialism. Postmodern interpretations are quite different. In them, the theory of knowledge most often is relativist (Marx s and Marxian approaches, like all economic theories, can be distinguished by particular entry points, logics, discursive structures, and sets of social consequences) and causality is nondeterministic (in the sense that everything is conceived to be both cause and effect). The aim of Marxist economics, according to such approaches, is 339

//INTEGRAFS5/KCG/2-PAGINATION/TANDF/RHME/APPLICATIONFILES//CHAP31.3D 340 [337 349] 24.11.2016 9:47AM Amariglio & Ruccio to produce a particular class-analytical story about capitalism and non-capitalism and to point toward nonexploitative or communal ways of organizing the economy and social life. Again, the relationship between the processes of production and exchange can be used to illustrate the approach. On a postmodern interpretation, production and exchange each comprising a particular and changing combination of order and disorder exist on the same discursive level. Thus, for example, capitalists need to purchase commodity inputs, at their exchange-value, which are then used to produce new commodities, which in turn need to be sold to realize the embodied value and surplus-value. So, each commodity has two numbers attached to it production value and exchange-value each of which simultaneously determines the other. Capitalism faces problems, related to class exploitation, that occur in both production and exchange (and the interaction between them). For postmodern Marxian economists, socialism is a constantly changing way of eliminating capitalist exploitation (and its conditions and consequences) and enabling situations in which workers collectively appropriate and distribute the surpluses they create. Postmodernisms Since its inception, postmodernism has had at least four different meanings in relation to Marxian theory. Some have taken it to identify, following the work of Fredric Jameson (1991) and David Harvey (1989), a particular world-historical phase the cultural logic of the contemporary stage of capitalism (which is often referred to as late capitalism, due to the work of Belgian Marxist Ernest Mandel [1975]). The idea is that mass commodification (along with changes in global production and the rise of new information technologies) has reached a point where it has created the conditions for a distinct postmodern culture, characterized by fragmentation, depthlessness, generalized alienation, and a lack of historical perspective. A second approach, which is mostly associated with Jean-François Lyotard (1984), focuses on changes in discourse itself, especially those that pertain to knowledge, technology, and science. This notion of postmodernism as a condition of contemporary life involves an incredulity toward post-enlightenment metanarratives (including Marxism) and the emergence of new scientific games in which meaning and consequence are always in play. Postmodernism has also acquired a third meaning, more connected to a new style of theorizing, which can be traced to the work of Michel Foucault (1972 and 1973) and Jacques Derrida (1976). While Foucault s archaeology emphasized the radically changed conditions of different forms of knowledge over time (thereby challenging the idea of the progress of science), Derrida focused on the undecideable moments created by the play of words and signs within a text, including for some followers the text of the world. There has been a great deal of debate about the extent to which these different interpretations of postmodernism are compatible with Marxism and other forms of critical social theory. (Good overviews of the debate include Best and Kellner 1991, Sarup 1993, and Drolet 2003. Major criticisms of postmodernism include Hutcheon 1989, Callinicos 1990, and Eagleton 1996.) But the approach that has exercised the most influence over recent Marxian economic theory is actually a fourth one, the idea of postmodernism as critique. While it is informed by the other three approaches, postmodernism as critique tends to eschew stage, condition, and style in favor of challenging and posing alternatives to modernist ways of interpreting and deploying Marxian economic categories and forms of analysis. The general relationship of postmodernism as critique to Marxian economics has been elaborated in different but related ways in three texts: Knowledge and Class, by Stephen Resnick and Richard Wolff (1987); The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It), by 340

//INTEGRAFS5/KCG/2-PAGINATION/TANDF/RHME/APPLICATIONFILES//CHAP31.3D 341 [337 349] 24.11.2016 9:47AM Postmodernism J. K. Gibson-Graham (1996); and Postmodern Moments in Modern Economics (2003) by David F. Ruccio and Jack Amariglio. The authors of Knowledge and Class, perhaps ironically, were inspired by the work of Louis Althusser (and Balibar 1970) and set out to criticize the modernist determinisms or essentialisms that had characterized much of existing Marxian economic theory (ironic in the sense that Althusser has often been characterized as a modernist structuralist ). While Resnick and Wolff do not explicitly refer to postmodernism, they do utilize many of the concepts and conceptual strategies that had, in the work of Richard Rorty 1979 and others, become associated with postmodernism. Thus, for example, they criticize both major forms of post-enlightenment epistemology (empiricism and rationalism) that rely on the modernist dichotomy between theory and reality as well as the various types of determinism (of an economic base, a human essence, and so on) that are based on cause-and-effect notions of causality. Resnick and Wolff then elaborate a nondeterministic or postmodern interpretation of both epistemology (the discursive world comprises a variety of theories that produce different and incommensurable realities within theory, which shape and are shaped by the world outside of discourse) and causality (everything is conceived to be both cause and effect simultaneously, constituted in a contradictory fashion by everything else in the social totality). They refer to this alternative approach (via a radical extension of Althusser s original borrowing of Freud s term) as overdetermination. Gibson-Graham (the pseudonym for Julie Graham and Katherine Gibson) follow a somewhat different approach, under the influence, in addition to many of the same sources as Resnick and Wolff, of feminist and queer theory. For them, one of the key problems of modernist Marxian economics has been the language the depiction and analysis of capitalism as a unified, totalizing system, governed by a singular logic, often referred to as capitalism s laws of motion, which they refer to as capitalocentrism. They set out to decenter what we mean by capitalism, both by discursively constituting capitalism as smaller and less unified than has been the case in modernist Marxism and by creating discursive space, within the contemporary economic and social landscape, of many different forms of noncapitalism. The result is a conception of the economic space as a field of difference, constituted by various instances of capitalist and noncapitalist kinds of transactions, types of labor, and enterprises (including ways of producing, appropriating, and distributing surplus), and the complex and contradictory interactions among them. Ruccio and Amariglio developed still another way of understanding and using postmodernism in Marxian economic theory: in terms of moments. Their idea is that the predominant modernism the scientism, determinism, humanism, and much else of much existing economic theory (including but certainly not limited to Marxism) has also given rise to a series of postmodern moments instances in which apparent anomalies, such as uncertainty, the instability of subjectivity, the possibility of various rationalities, and so on, have threatened to overrun and overturn the limits of modernism. Such disruptions, in Marx s texts and across the history of Marxian economics, if appropriately identified and developed, can serve both to deconstruct modernist Marxian theory (including dichotomies such as science/ideology, order/disorder, and much else) and to point in the direction of different, postmodern formulations of key notions within Marxian economics (such as decentered notions of the enterprise, uncertainty about profits, and the disorder of capitalist competition). Over the course of the past thirty years, these three texts (and their original sources and influences as well as other work in postmodernism, poststructuralism, and deconstruction) have generated a large and still-growing body of work with a postmodern orientation within 341

//INTEGRAFS5/KCG/2-PAGINATION/TANDF/RHME/APPLICATIONFILES//CHAP31.3D 342 [337 349] 24.11.2016 9:47AM Amariglio & Ruccio Marxian economic theory. Its authors have made contributions in a wide variety of specific areas, including philosophy, value theory, subjectivity, class, and socialism and communism. Marxian Economics The philosophy of Marxian economics both epistemology and methodology has often been interpreted through the lens of modernism. Postmodern Marxists have sought to challenge that framing and to reinterpret, in a more postmodern vein, the philosophical orientation of the Marxian critique of political economy. In terms of epistemology, they have eschewed scientism (the idea that there is or can be a singular truth based on a privileged language or method) in favor of different scientific or discursive frameworks (the idea that there are or can be multiple truths based on different, incommensurable languages and methods). Thus, for example, from a postmodern perspective, Marxian economics differs from both neoclassical and Keynesian economics (Resnick and Wolff 2012) not on the basis of one being more scientific than the others or their having a better grasp on reality, but because they have different entry points (class, human nature, and structures) and logics (determinism and overdetermination). What this means is that, in terms of assessing the differences among the truths produced in and through these theories, the emphasis is not on their correspondence or not with a supposedly extra-theoretical reality, but on their different economic and social consequences. In addition, postmodern Marxists have focused on the role of the body and power in modernist conceptions of knowledge (Amariglio 1988), criticized the privileged role of mathematics in economic discourse (Ruccio 1988), identified the significant overlaps with the non-modernist tendencies in other philosophical positions (e.g., Deweyan pragmatism [Wilson 1996 and Aoki 2005], feminism [Gibson-Graham 1996 and Bergeron 2006], institutionalism [Cullenberg 2000], and postcolonialism [Charusheela 2000]), and analyzed the performativity of economic discourses (the extent to which Marxian and other economic theorists create, in part, the realities they seek to analyze, [cf. Gibson-Graham 1996 and Madra and Adaman 2014]). Deterministic notions of causality in modernist interpretations of Marxian economic theory have been challenged in a similar manner. Determinism is based on the idea that causality runs in one direction, from causes to effects. Thus, for example, economic determinism presumes that the economy (mode of production or one part thereof, such as relations or forces of production) determines, in the first or last instance, all other aspects (such as culture and politics) of social totalities. The other major form of determinism in Marxian economics, theoretical humanism, presumes that human nature, itself usually reduced to one of its components, such as rationality or needs or class interests, is the essence that can be used to explain economic and social practices and institutions. Postmodernism rejects determinism in favor of alternative notions of causality, which focus on the randomness of causation and the effectivity of chance, the indeterminacy of events, the multiplicity of possible causes, the fluidity of the relationship between seeming causes and possible effects, and the reversibility of positions between causes and effects. Postmodernists, of course, have had to confront the charge of everythingism (Carling 1990, and the response by Resnick and Wolff 1992), in other words, that giving up determinism means surrendering to the claim that everything goes that both theory and concrete analyses are rendered impossible. A postmodern answer has been to suggest both alternative notions of causation (overdetermination, juxtaposition, synchronic simultaneity, and ceaseless change) and the importance of conjunctural analyses (that are always specific, partial, and incomplete). Postmodern criticisms of determinism affect a wide variety of specific topics within Marxian economics, 342

//INTEGRAFS5/KCG/2-PAGINATION/TANDF/RHME/APPLICATIONFILES//CHAP31.3D 343 [337 349] 24.11.2016 9:47AM Postmodernism including the law of capitalist accumulation (Norton 1986), the necessity/contingency dualism in Marxian crisis theory (DeMartino 1993), notions of totality in theories of the falling rate of profit (Cullenberg 1994), and the subservient or secondary role of consumption (McIntyre 1992, Diskin and Sandler 1994, Pietrykowski 1994, and MacNeill 1997). Given its key role in the Marxian critique of political economy, it is not surprising that value theory has been one of the major sites of tension between modernist and postmodern interpretations of Marxian economic theory. The examples above highlight the relationship between production and exchange whether, as modernists interpret it, production determines exchange (in an essentialist manner), or, as postmodernists see it, production and exchange are mutually constitutive (by relinquishing the usual depth metaphors). On the latter view, the discussion of production and exchange across the three volumes of Capital is not a matter of hierarchical causal significance (production being more important than exchange), but a discursive presentation, in steps from production in volume 1 to exchange in volume 2, and then, in volume 3, both realms together of a decentered totality. But postmodernism has influenced many other aspects of Marxian value theory as well. At the most general level, postmodernists have read Capital as representing a radical break (in both object and analytical method) from classical political economy (Wolff, Callari, and Roberts 1984 and Roberts 1987), combining both modern and postmodern moments or strands (Garnett 1995), making it possible to see and count the class content of the quantitative relations of capitalism (Roberts 1996), containing a socially contingent (as opposed to a unchanging, embodied labor) conception of value (Biewener 1998), and being based on different levels of abstraction each of which contains new contingencies (Kristjanson-Gural 2008b). The result is an approach that focuses on both the production/appropriation and distribution/receipt of surplus-value (Resnick and Wolff 1987), the simultaneity of the realization of value and the redistributions of surplus-value as a result of capital mobility, monopoly power, and much else (Roberts 1988), the non-inevitable tendency of the rate of profit to fall (Cullenberg 1998), how demand and supply act together to determine both value and exchange-value (Kristjanson-Gural 2003), and the role of money as a central component of a commodity-producing economy in the sense that it represents the means by which private expenditures of labor are articulated in a social division of labor (Kristjanson-Gural 2008a). One of the features of modernist Marxian economics is an essentialist conception of the subject. Thus, for example, when commodity fetishism (as presented by Marx in chapter 1 of volume 1 of Capital) is interpreted as a theory of the subject within capitalist societies, the subject of such fetishism is often taken to be to be the effect of an underlying economic reality: such subjects are thought to then possess a false consciousness. However, when commodity fetishism is developed in a more postmodern vein, subjects and their forms of consciousness are seen as both shifting products and producers of history and society; they are as much a cause or condition of the fetishizing economic processes of commodity exchange, constituted in and through politics and culture as they are a result of this commodity exchange (as Amariglio and Callari 1989 argue). The implications for Marxian economic theory of such a postmodern approach to subjectivity, together with Althusser s (1971) notion of a process without a subject (that is, the idea that history is not the work of a subject, whether absolute or human) and his theory of the ideological interpellation of the subject (Althusser 2001), have been enormous (Özselçuk 2013). Thus, for example, it has become possible to argue that a society in which the products of human labor take the form of commodities can be and often is accompanied by a variety of individual and collective subjectivities (Ruccio 1992); that Lacanian psychoanalytic theory (Özselçuk and Madra 343

//INTEGRAFS5/KCG/2-PAGINATION/TANDF/RHME/APPLICATIONFILES//CHAP31.3D 344 [337 349] 24.11.2016 9:47AM Amariglio & Ruccio 2010) can be a useful complement to Marxism in theorizing both the emptiness of the subject (the extent to which it is never entirely determined or subjected by social reality) and the performativity of resubjectification (both the obstacles to and the possibilities of the formation of new, noncapitalist subjectivities, as discussed by Graham and Amariglio 2006, Madra 2006, Özselçuk 2006, Byrne and Healy 2006, Rebello 2006, and Sato 2006); that the rethinking of noncapitalist subjectivities such as those of feudalism can help us identify both the acceptance of subordination and forms of resistance (Kayatekin and Charusheela 2004); and, finally, that communal subjectivities are constitutive both of the various types of historical communal societies (Amariglio 2010) and of a way of traversing the fantasy beyond capitalism today (Madra and Özselçuk 2010). Class analysis is arguably the central component of Marxian economic theory. And it, too, has been revised and rethought through the lens of postmodernism. In the most general terms, the idea of class as being the essential determinant of economic and social reality has been discarded in favor of its discursive importance (as one of the defining features of a particularly Marxian analysis, a point of entry into social reality, without according class any more causal significance than the other processes that make up a specific society or social situation). In addition, class analysis has been decentered in terms of both society as a whole (there can be and often are different class structures within a social formation) and any individual within a society (who may and often does occupy multiple class positions within space and over time). The result is that, from a postmodern perspective, class is seen more as an adjective than a noun (attached to a subset of the processes that make up society, instead of as the designator of specific groups within society), while class struggle becomes the object of conflicts and tensions (defined in terms of the particular aspects of the society individuals and groups struggle over, quantitatively and qualitatively, as against the subjects of such struggles). Two entire volumes Class and Its Others (Gibson-Graham, Resnick, and Wolff 2001a) and Re/Presenting Class: Essays in Postmodern Marxism (Gibson-Graham, Resnick, and Wolff 2001b) have been devoted to developing and deploying the new lines of inquiry created by postmodern interpretations of Marxian class analysis. The specific topics of this novel form of class analysis include the following: the noncapitalist nature of the independent commodity production of African-American women involved in domestic labor (Rio 2001); the existence of significant differences among various groups of self-employed, contingent workers (Hotch 2001); the importance of identity formation in determining the class nature of household production (Cameron 2001); the significance of the articulated mix of class processes for determining the class mapping of a space such as Los Angeles (Arvidson 2001); the problematic nature of the blue-collar/white-collar binary that has long held sway in left-wing and union politics (Southern 2001); the tensions among different distributions of the surplus (rather than a singular drive to accumulate capital) for capitalists (Norton 2001); the role of community development practices in creating notions of collectivity that look beyond capitalist exploitation (Biewener 2001); how struggles over distributions of the surplus can reconfigure capitalist enterprises and their effects on the wider society (Gibson-Graham and O Neill 2001 and Vlachou 2001); the consequences for historical communal societies of unequal distributions of the surplus (Saitta 2001); the role of culture (in southern U.S. sharecropping) and politics (in Iran) in constituting the conditions of existence of feudal, ancient, and capitalist class processes (Kayatekin 2001 and Gabriel (2001); and the class structure of liberal arts colleges, where credit-hour commodities are produced by wage-worker professors (Curtis 2001). Other examples include the changing class structure of U.S. households (Fraad, Resnick, and Wolff 2009), the class consequences 344

//INTEGRAFS5/KCG/2-PAGINATION/TANDF/RHME/APPLICATIONFILES//CHAP31.3D 345 [337 349] 24.11.2016 9:47AM Postmodernism and contradictions generated by remittances within immigrant households (Safri 2009), the capitalist structure of the production of Broadway musicals (Mulder 2009), and the hybrid (communist, capitalist, and so on) class structures of enterprises (Levin 2014). These postmodern interpretations of Marxian class analysis serve to challenge the persistence of capitalism at the heart of postdevelopment discourses (Gibson-Graham and Ruccio 2001), to cultivate a desire for class justice (DeMartino 2003), to confront and deconstruct the hegemony of power essentialism within radical politics (Wolff and Resnick 2005), and to create new possibilities of political transformation by identifying and cultivating fields of class difference (Gibson-Graham 2005). Finally, postmodernism has served to challenge and move beyond modernist Marxian conceptions of socialism and communism (cf. Burczak 2006). Of particular concern to postmodern thinkers has been the fullness attached to ideas like socialism and communism, that is, their role in describing entire economies and societies that either have been or can be created after capitalism, which are often characterized by an orderliness associated with forms of property ownership, planning, and much else that are said to overcome the disorder created by capitalist markets. The role of postmodernism within Marxian economic theory has been, on one hand, to narrow the focus of what we mean by socialism and communism and, on the other hand, to broaden their reach by identifying socialist and communist impulses in and around contemporary capitalism. The narrowing has occurred as a result of identifying the specifically class dimensions of Marxian conceptions of socialism and communism (Resnick and Wolff 1988 and Diskin 1996), which in turn leads to a thin conception based only on the social predominance of the collective appropriation of the surplus (Cullenberg 1992). At the same time, socialism and communism have been broadened to include antiessentialist notions of subjectivity of both collective social agency (Ruccio 1992) and communal class positions (Amariglio 2010) and, following on the debates concerning subjectivity, an axiom of justice that does not describe an ideal social order, but rather an axiom whereby no one is excluded from the appropriation and distribution of the surplus (Madra 2006). Much, of course, remains to be done to continue to develop the insights and implications of a postmodern approach (Bergeron 2012 and Kayatekin 2012). Many concepts that are central to Marxian economic theory from alienation to utopia continue to be interpreted and utilized according to modernist protocols. If they are rethought and redeployed in postmodern directions, we can expect to see a continued loosening of the orthodoxies associated with Marxian economic theory and the remaining constraints imposed on the Marxian critique of political economy. Acknowledgements We want to thank the editors for inviting us to contribute and their patience in awaiting this entry, and Dwight Billings for his comments and suggestions on the initial draft. References Althusser, L. 1971. Lenin before Hegel, in Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, 71 84. New York: Monthly Review Press.. 2001. Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes Towards an Investigation), in Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, trans. B. Brewster, 85 126. New York: Monthly Review Press. Althusser, L. and E. Balibar. 1970. Reading Capital. Trans. by Ben Brewster. London: New Left Books. 345

//INTEGRAFS5/KCG/2-PAGINATION/TANDF/RHME/APPLICATIONFILES//CHAP31.3D 346 [337 349] 24.11.2016 9:47AM Amariglio & Ruccio Amariglio, J. 1988. The Body, Economic Discourse, and Power: An Economist s Introduction to Foucault. History of Political Economy 20 (4): 583 613.. 2010. Subjectivity, Class, and Marx s Forms of the Commune. Rethinking Marxism 22 (3): 329 44. Amariglio, J. and A. Callari. 1993. Marxian Value Theory and the Problem of the Subject: The Role of Commodity Fetishism. In Fetishism as Cultural Discourse, ed. E. Apter and W. Pietz, 186 216. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Aoki, M. 2005. Whipping Boy or Ally? Rethinking Dewey on Education and Capitalism. Rethinking Marxism 17 (1): 119 37. Arvidson, E. 2001. Los Angeles: A Postmodern Class Mapping. In Class and Its Others, ed. Gibson- Graham, Resnick, and Wolff, 163 89. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Bergeron, S. 2006. Fragments of Development: Nation, Gender, and the Space of Modernity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.. 2012. Postmodern Subjects and the Power of Economics. Rethinking Marxism 24 (3): 338 43. Best, S. and D. Kellner. 1991. Postmodern Theory. New York: Guilford Press. Biewener, C. 1998. Socially Contingent Value. In Marxian Economics: A Reappraisal, vol. 2, Price, Profits, and Dynamics, ed. R. Belllofiore. 57 69: New York: St. Martin s Press.. 2001. The Promise of Finance: Banks and Community Development. In Re/Presenting Class: Essays in Postmodern Marxism, ed. Gibson-Graham, Resnick, and Wolff, 131 58. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Burczak, T. 2006. Socialism after Hayek. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Byrne, K. and S. Healy. 2006. Cooperative Subjects: Toward a Post-Fantasmatic Enjoyment of the Economy. Rethinking Marxism 18 (2): 241 58. Callinicos, A. 1990. Against Postmodernism: A Marxist Critique. New York: St. Martin s Press. Cameron, J. 2001. Domesticating Class: Femininity, Heterosexuality, and Household Politics. In Class and Its Others, ed. Gibson-Graham, Resnick, and Wolff, 47 68. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Carling, A. 1990. In Defence of Rational Choice: A Reply to Ellen Meiksins Wood. New Left Review, no. 184 (November/December): 97 109. Charusheela, S. 2000. On History, Love, and Politics. Rethinking Marxism 12 (4): 45 61. Cullenberg, S. 1992. Socialism s Burden: Toward a Thin Definition of Socialism. Rethinking Marxism 5 (2): 64 83.. 1994. The Falling Rate of Profit: Recasting the Marxian Debate. London: Pluto Press.. 1998. Decentering the Marxian Debate over the Falling Rate of Profit: A New Approach. In Marxian Economics: A Reappraisal. Essays on Volume II of Capital, vol. 2: Price, Profits, and Dynamics, ed. R. Bellofiore, 163 76. New York: St. Martin s Press.. 2000. Old Institutionalism, New Marxism. In R. Pollin, ed., Capitalism, Socialism and Radical Political Economy: Essays in Honour of Howard Sherman, 81 102. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Curtis, F. 2001. Ivy-Covered Exploitation: Class, Education and the Liberal Arts College. In Re/ Presenting Class: Essays in Postmodern Marxism, ed. Gibson-Graham, Resnick, and Wolff, 81 104. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. DeMartino, G. 1993. The Necessity/Contingency Dualism in Marxian Crisis Theory: The Case of Long Wave Theory. Review of Radical Political Economics 25(3): 68 74.. 2003. Realizing Class Justice. Rethinking Marxism 15 (1): 1 31. Derrida, J. 1976. Of Grammatology. Trans. G. C. Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Diskin, J. 1996. Rethinking Socialism: What s In a Name? In Postmodern Materialism and the Future of Marxist Theory: Essays in the Althusserian Tradition, ed. A. Callari and D. F. Ruccio, 278 99. Hanover: Wesleyan University Press. Diskin, J., and B. Sandler. 1994. Essentialism and the Economy in the Post-Marxist Imaginary: Reopening the Sutures. Rethinking Marxism 6 (3): 28 48. 346

//INTEGRAFS5/KCG/2-PAGINATION/TANDF/RHME/APPLICATIONFILES//CHAP31.3D 347 [337 349] 24.11.2016 9:47AM Postmodernism Drolet, M., ed. 2003. The Postmodernism Reader: Foundational Texts. New York: Routledge. Eagleton, T. 1996. The Illusions of Postmodernism. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Foucault, M. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. Trans. A. M. S. Smith. New York: Harper and Row.. 1973. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. Trans. A. Sheridan. New York: Vintage. Fraad, H.; S. Resnick; and R. Wolff. 2009. For Every Knight in Shining Armor, There s A Castle Waiting To Be Cleaned: A Marxist-Feminist Analysis Of The Household. In Class Struggle on the Home Front: Work, Conflict and Exploitation In The Household, ed. G. Cassano, 19 70. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gabriel, S. J. 2001. A Class Analysis of the Iranian revolution of 1979. In Re/Presenting Class: Essays in Postmodern Marxism, ed. Gibson-Graham, Resnick, and Wolff, 206 26. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Garnett, R. F., Jr. 1995. Marx s Value Theory: Modern or Postmodern? Rethinking Marxism 8 (4): 40 60. Gibson-Graham, J. K. 1996. The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.. 2005. Dilemmas of Theorizing Class. Rethinking Marxism 17 (1): 39 44. Gibson-Graham, J. K., and P. O Neill. 2001. Exploring a New Class Politics of the Enterprise. In Re/ Presenting Class: Essays in Postmodern Marxism, ed. Gibson-Graham, Resnick, and Wolff, 56 80. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Gibson-Graham, J. K.; S. Resnick, and R. D. Wolff, eds. 2001a. Class and Its Others. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press., eds. 2001b. Re/Presenting Class: Essays in Postmodern Marxism. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Gibson-Graham, J. K., and D. F. Ruccio. 2001. After Development: Re-imagining Economy and Class. In Re/Presenting Class: Essays in Postmodern Marxism, ed. Gibson-Graham, Resnick, and Wolff, 158 81. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Graham, J. and J. Amariglio. 2006. Subjects of Economy: Introduction. Rethinking Marxism 18 (2): 199 203. Harvey, D. The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell. Hotch, J. 2001. Classing the Self-Employed: New Possibilities of Power and Collectivity. In Class and Its Others, ed. Gibson-Graham, Resnick, and Wolff, 143 62. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Hutcheon, L. 1989. The Politics of Postmodernism. New York: Routledge. Jameson, F. 1991. Postmodernism or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Durham: Duke University Press. Kayatekin, S. A. 2001. Sharecropping and Feudal Class Processes in the Postbellum Mississippi Delta. In Re/Presenting Class: Essays in Postmodern Marxism, ed. Gibson-Graham, Resnick, and Wolff, 227 46. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.. 2012. Walking in the Graveyard that Is Economics: Comments on Postmodern Moments in Modern Economics. Rethinking Marxism 24 (3): 344 54. Kayatekin, S. A. and S. Charusheela. 2004. Recovering Feudal Subjectivities. Rethinking Marxism 16 (4): 377 96. Kristjanson-Gural, D. 2003. Demand and the (Re)distribution of Value: An Overdetermined Approach. Rethinking Marxism 15 (1): 117 40.. 2008a. Money Is Time: The Monetary Expression of Value in Marx s Theory of Value. Rethinking Marxism 20 (2): 257 72.. 2008b. Poststructural Logic in Marx s Theory of Value. Rethinking Marxism 21 (1): 14 33. Levin, K. M. 2014. A Class Theory of Hybrid-Directed Enterprises. Rethinking Marxism 26 (4): 507 25. 347

//INTEGRAFS5/KCG/2-PAGINATION/TANDF/RHME/APPLICATIONFILES//CHAP31.3D 348 [337 349] 24.11.2016 9:47AM Amariglio & Ruccio Lyotard, J. F. 1984. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Trans. G. Bennington and B. Massumi. Foreword by F. Jameson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. MacNeill, A. 1997. New Directions in the Political Economy of Consumption. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Madra, Y. M. 2006. Questions of Communism: Ethics, Ontology, Subjectivity. Rethinking Marxism 18 (2): 205 24. Madra, Y. M. and F. Adaman. 2014. Neoliberal Reason and Its Forms: De-Politicisation Through Economisation. Antipode (46): 691 716. Madra, Y. M. and C. Özselçuk. 2010. Jouissance and Antagonism in the Forms of the Commune: A Critique of Biopolitical Subjectivity. Rethinking Marxism 22 (3): 481 97. Mandel, E. 1975. Late Capitalism. London: Verso. McIntyre, R. 1992. Consumption in Contemporary Capitalism: Beyond Marx and Veblen. Review of Social Economy 50 (1): 40 60. Mulder, C. 2009. Unions and Class Transformation: The Case of the Broadway Musicians. New York: Routledge. Norton, B. 1986. Steindl, Levine, and the Inner Logic of Accumulation: A Marxian Critique. Social Concept 3 (December): 43 66.. 2001. Reading Marx for Class. In Re/Presenting Class: Essays in Postmodern Marxism, ed. Gibson-Graham, Resnick, and Wolff, 23 55. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Özselçuk, C. 2006. Mourning, Melancholy, and the Politics of Class Transformation. Rethinking Marxism 18 (2): 225 40.. 2013. Louis Althusser and the Concept of Economy. In Encountering Althusser: Politics and Materialism in Contemporary Radical Thought, ed. K. Diefenbach, S. R. Farris, G. Kim, and P. Thomas, London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Özselçuk. C. and Y. M. Madra. 2010. Enjoyment as an Economic Factor: Reading Marx with Lacan. Subjectivity. 3: 323 347. Pietrykowski. B. 1994. Consuming Culture: Postmodernism, Post-Fordism, and Economics. Rethinking Marxism 7 (3): 62 80. Rebello, J. T. 2006. The Economy of Joyful Passions: A Political Economic Ethics of the Virtual. Rethinking Marxism 18 (2): 259 72. Resnick, S. A. and R. D. Wolff. 1987. Knowledge and Class: A Marxian Critique of Political Economy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.. 1988. Communism: Between Class and Classless. Rethinking Marxism 1 (1): 14 42.. 1992. Everythingism, or Better Still, Overdetermination. New Left Review, no. 195 (September October), 124 26.. 2005. The Point and Purpose of Marx s Notion of Class. Rethinking Marxism 17 (1): 33 37.. 2012. Contending Economic Theories: Neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxian. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rio, C. M. 2001. This Job Has No End : African American Domestic Workers and Class Becoming. In Class and Its Others, ed. Gibson-Graham, Resnick, and Wolff, 23 46. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Roberts, B. 1987. Marx after Steedman: Separating Marxism from Surplus Theory. Capital & Class 11 (2): 84 103.. 1996. The Visible and the Measurable: Althusser and the Marxian Theory of Value. In Postmodern Materialism and the Future of Marxian Theory, ed. A. Callari and D. F. Ruccio, 193 211. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press. Rorty, R. 1979. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ruccio, D. F. 1988. The Merchant of Venice, or Marxism in the Mathematical Mode. Rethinking Marxism 1 (4): 37 68.. 1992. Failure of Socialism, Future of Socialists? Rethinking Marxism 5 (2): 7 22. Ruccio, D. F. and J. Amariglio. 2003. Postmodern Moments in Modern Economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 348

//INTEGRAFS5/KCG/2-PAGINATION/TANDF/RHME/APPLICATIONFILES//CHAP31.3D 349 [337 349] 24.11.2016 9:47AM Postmodernism Safri, M. 2009. Economic Effects of Remittances on Immigrant and Non-Immigrant Households. In Class Struggle on the Home Front: Work, Conflict and Exploitation in the Household, ed. G. Cassano, 176 96. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Saitta, D. 2001. Communal Class Processes and Pre-Columbian Social Dynamics. In Re/Presenting Class: Essays in Postmodern Marxism, ed. Gibson-Graham, Resnick, and Wolff, 247 63. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Sarup, M. 1993. An Introductory Guide to Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism. 2 nd ed. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Sato, C. 2006. Subjectivity, Enjoyment, and Development: Preliminary Thoughts on a New Approach to Postdevelopment. Rethinking Marxism 18 (2): 273 88. Southern, J. 2001. Blue Collar, White Collar: Deconstructing Classification. In Class and Its Others, ed. Gibson-Graham, Resnick, and Wolff, 191 224. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Vlachou, A. 2001. Nature and Class: A Marxian Value Analysis. In Re/Presenting Class: Essays in Postmodern Marxism, ed. Gibson-Graham, Resnick, and Wolff, 105 30. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Wilson, L. 1996. John Dewey s Pragmatism and Economic Method: Modernism and Postmodernism in Economics. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Wolff, R. D.; A. Callari; and B. Roberts. 1984. A Marxian Alternative to the Traditional Transformation Problem. Review of Radical Political Economics 16 (2/3): 115 35. 349