Abstract
Post-Marxism has been defined as the attempt to insist on the continuing value of Marxist thought while incorporating post-structuralist criticisms of holism. In this essay, I use a perspective developed through studying the contours of power in actually existing socialist and post-socialist regimes to critically examine three influential works in post-Marxism. While finding much of value in these books’ development of non-totalizing forms of social theory, I argue that they also reproduce some of the theoretical logics that plagued the worst moments of socialist governance. In particular, I take issue with their implicit assumptions about the performance of political identities in academic writing and the relationship of empirical research to social theory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
