Books by Simon Choat
The Grundrisse is widely regarded as one of Marx's most important texts, with many commentators c... more The Grundrisse is widely regarded as one of Marx's most important texts, with many commentators claiming it is the centrepiece of his entire oeuvre. It is also, however, a notoriously difficult text to understand and interpret. In this - the first guide and introduction to reading the Grundrisse - Simon Choat helps us to make sense of a text that is both a first draft of Capital and a major work in its own right. As well as offering a detailed commentary on the entire text, this guide explains the Grundrisse's central themes and arguments and highlights its impact and influence.
The Grundrisse's discussions of money, labour, nature, freedom, the role of machinery, and the development and dynamics of capitalism have influenced generations of thinkers, from Anglo-American historians such as Eric Hobsbawm and Robert Brenner to Continental philosophers like Antonio Negri and Gilles Deleuze, as well as offering vital insights into Marx's methodology and the trajectory of his thought.
Contemporary examples are used throughout this guide both to illuminate Marx's terminology and concepts and to illustrate the continuing relevance of the Grundrisse. Readers will be offered guidance on:
-Philosophical and Historical Context
-Key Themes
-Reading the Text
-Reception and Influence
READ THE FIRST TWO CHAPTERS FOR FREE HERE: http://bloomsburycp3.codemantra.com/Marketing.aspx?ID=JKMKTG10AUG16&ISBN=9781472523112&sts=b
Marx Through Post-Structuralism presents a thorough critical examination of the readings of Marx ... more Marx Through Post-Structuralism presents a thorough critical examination of the readings of Marx given by four post-structuralist thinkers, all key figures in Continental philosophy: Jean-François Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Gilles Deleuze. Arguing that both Marx and the post-structuralists seek to produce a genuinely materialist philosophy, the author aims to develop a better understanding of both Marx and post-structuralism and in so doing to reflect on the possibilities and problems for materialist philosophy more broadly.
Against the common assumption that post-structuralism begins with a rejection of Marx, Choat argues that Marx has been a key influence on post-structuralist thought and that each of the four thinkers examined affirms Marx's contemporary significance. By looking at how these thinkers have read Marx - analysing their direct comments, unspoken uses, and implicit criticisms - the book demonstrates that there is a distinct and original post-structuralist approach to Marx that allows us to read him in a new light.
Papers by Simon Choat
Politics, 2020
Recent calls to 'decolonise the curriculum' are especially pertinent to the teaching of political... more Recent calls to 'decolonise the curriculum' are especially pertinent to the teaching of political theory, which has traditionally been dominated by a canon made up overwhelmingly of White (and male) thinkers. This article explores why and how political theory curricula might be decolonised. By mapping core political theory modules provided at UK universities, and examining associated textbooks, the article shows that non-White thinkers and discussions of colonialism and race are marginalised and neglected. It then argues that there are intellectual, political, and pedagogical reasons why this neglect is problematic and should be reversed. Finally, the article reflects on the experience of rewriting and delivering a core second-year undergraduate modern political thought module at a post-92 London university, including assessing the impact of the changes on the attainment gap between White students and Black and minority ethnic students.
Political Studies Review, 2019
Recent Foucauldian critiques of neoliberalism – especially those by Wendy Brown, Philip Mirowski,... more Recent Foucauldian critiques of neoliberalism – especially those by Wendy Brown, Philip Mirowski, Béatrice Hibou, and Pierre Dardot and Christian Laval – have argued that the Marxist interpretation of neoliberalism as a class project is reductive and economistic, and have instead conceptualised neoliberalism as a form of governmental rationality. This article compares these two influential approaches to understanding neoliberalism. It will: outline the central features of the Foucauldian and Marxist approaches; assess the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches; argue that a synthesis of the two approaches is both possible and desirable. While the Foucauldian approach enables a microphysics of everyday neoliberalism and its modes of subjectivity, it is argued that such an analysis must be placed within the broader, macrostructural approach of Marxism. The article thus defends Marxism against its Foucauldian critique, while nonetheless encouraging Marxists to engage with Foucauldian accounts of neoliberalism which they have so far tended to ignore.
New Political Science, 2018
Contesting the central tenets of mainstream economic theory,
Michael Sandel’s work on markets arg... more Contesting the central tenets of mainstream economic theory,
Michael Sandel’s work on markets argues that the marketization of
certain goods risks corrupting the value of those goods, and that a
reinvigorated public discourse is needed to establish the appropriate
use of markets. This article assesses Sandel’s work on markets, arguing
that although it provides a convincing critique of liberal defenses of
the market, it does not do enough to challenge marketization itself. To
illuminate the flaws of Sandel’s argument, the article contrasts it with
Marxist critiques of neoliberalism, arguing that the latter oppose the
expansion of markets and market thinking in more comprehensive
and productive ways. Specifically, it is argued that Sandel ignores the
one market that underpins all other markets, namely the labor market;
erroneously suggests that marketization is caused by the dominance
of market thinking; and fails to appreciate the class interests that are
served by growing marketization.
Published in Renewal, vol. 25, nos. 3-4 (2017)
Political Studies, 2018
In recent years the work of a diverse range of thinkers has been grouped together under the label... more In recent years the work of a diverse range of thinkers has been grouped together under the label 'new materialism'. This article offers a critical introduction to new materialism that challenges its understanding of historical materialism. It aims to demonstrate not that historical materialism is superior to new materialism, but rather that the latter would benefit from engaging with rather than ignoring or dismissing the former. It begins by defining new materialism in relation to its reappraisal of science, its concept of agency, and its underlying ontology. Second, it locates new materialism by demonstrating how and why many new materialists are hostile to historical materialism. Finally, it responds to new materialist criticisms of historical materialism, arguing both that there are potential areas of agreement between the two materialisms and that historical materialism offers valuable resources for analysing historically specific and asymmetric power relations.
This article is a review essay of Gareth Stedman Jones’s biography
'Karl Marx: Greatness and Illu... more This article is a review essay of Gareth Stedman Jones’s biography
'Karl Marx: Greatness and Illusion'. It begins by situating the book in
relation to existing biographies before outlining Stedman Jones’s
approach, which is to conceive of Marx’s works as interventions
within contexts which the historian of ideas must reconstruct. I
argue that although the book provides an excellent account of
the political contexts within which Marx lived and worked, its
interpretations of his writings are frequently ungenerous,
unbalanced, and misleading. I defend Marx against charges that
his work was economically confused, politically naïve, and overly
abstract, using the 'Grundrisse' in particular for illustrative purposes.
I also take issue with Stedman Jones’s methodology, questioning
whether it is desirable or possible to separate Marx from Marxism
and return him to his nineteenth-century context. I end by
suggesting that Stedman Jones’s attempt to return Marx to his
context brings into focus the contexts of Stedman Jones’s own
intellectual development.
Challenging claims of a recent 'anarchist turn', this article argues that calls for a 'left conve... more Challenging claims of a recent 'anarchist turn', this article argues that calls for a 'left convergence' between anarchism and Marxism should be treated with caution. It sets out to establish what distinguishes Marxism from anarchism today, and argues that the former contains superior resources with which to challenge the current dominance of neoliberalism. In order to elucidate the strengths of Marxism, it addresses three common anarchist criticisms of Marxism, concerning its authoritarian strategies; its economic reductionism; and its lack of moral or ethical perspective. It argues that each of these criticisms inadvertently highlights the advantages of Marxism over anarchism.
Constellations
This paper engages with the question of the historical and ontological status of the logics of he... more This paper engages with the question of the historical and ontological status of the logics of hegemony articulated by Ernesto Laclau. It interrogates the concept of real abstraction that Laclau mobilises to explain the historical status of his theory. It is argued that while Laclau grounds his conceptual system in an ontology of generalised antagonism, this is done to the exclusion of formally conceiving the historical conditions of those logics. The paper demonstrates that it is the irreducible gap between reflection on historical and ontological conditions of possibility from which the most pervasive critiques of Laclau’s work are derived. In turning to the work of Alfred Sohn-Rethel, the paper suggests a different conception of real abstraction, one which locates the sources of abstraction in the division of mental and manual labour. In drawing on the Marxist analysis of real abstraction and the division of labour, the essay seeks to deflate the subsumption of politics to ontology and to turn attention to the logics which condition the possibility of social struggle today – namely, the logics of contemporary capitalism.
Recent years have seen the development of a new form of anarchism. Under the label ‘postanarchism... more Recent years have seen the development of a new form of anarchism. Under the label ‘postanarchism’, writers such as Todd May, Saul Newman and Lewis Call have sought to combine the insights of anarchism with those of recent Continental philosophy, in particular post-structuralism. A central but neglected element of postanarchist thought is its critique of Marxism. The main aim of this article is to counter the postanarchist dismissal of Marxism. It will: introduce the key ideas and arguments of postanarchism; locate its critique of Marxism, demonstrating its importance to the postanarchist project; and highlight weaknesses in the postanarchist critique of Marxism. It argues that the postanarchist portrayal of Marxism is reductive and misleading. Contrary to
postanarchist claims, many post-structuralists have drawn inspiration from Marxism rather than rejecting it: as such, Marxism anticipates many of the poststructuralist-inflected ideas of postanarchism, in particular their approach to the state, power, subjectivity and politics. In addition, some Marxist criticisms of
classical anarchism apply equally to postanarchism, thus raising questions to which postanarchists should respond.
Postanarchists have tended to portray Marxism as an anachronism, taking the alleged redundancy of... more Postanarchists have tended to portray Marxism as an anachronism, taking the alleged redundancy of Marxism as a starting point for their revitalization of classical anarchism via post-structuralism. Critical assessments of postanarchism have so far failed to interrogate this portrayal of Marxism. This is unfortunate, I argue, because Marxism plays an important function within the postanarchist project, and because it allows postanarchist characterizations of Marxism and poststructuralism to go unchallenged. The first part of this paper delineates the role of Marxism in postanarchism, before examining connections between post-structuralism and Marxism: I argue that Marx's work anticipates post-structuralist concepts of power and subjectivity. The aim of the paper is not to offer a Marxist critique of postanarchism but to establish equal relevance for both anarchism and Marxism to contemporary political thought and practice.
Book Reviews by Simon Choat
Marx & Philosophy Review of Books, 2018
Any film about Karl Marx faces some notable potential difficulties. First, although his life may ... more Any film about Karl Marx faces some notable potential difficulties. First, although his life may have been more interesting and varied than those of most philosophers, the interest we have in Marx today stems from his writings: how can a life whose enduring significance ultimately derives from hours sat in libraries reading, thinking, and writing be represented in a cinematically engaging way? Second, the nature and content of Marx's works raises problems of representation, given that its central 'characters' are abstract and impersonal forces, with individuals appearing only as personifications of economic categories and bearers of class relations. Finally, these issues of representation are further complicated by the existence of a large body of Marxist film theory, much of which -focused less on the social, political, and economic conditions of its production and consumption and more on formal analysis -has insisted that there can be distinctively Marxist forms of cinematography, editing, and so forth.
Uploads
Books by Simon Choat
The Grundrisse's discussions of money, labour, nature, freedom, the role of machinery, and the development and dynamics of capitalism have influenced generations of thinkers, from Anglo-American historians such as Eric Hobsbawm and Robert Brenner to Continental philosophers like Antonio Negri and Gilles Deleuze, as well as offering vital insights into Marx's methodology and the trajectory of his thought.
Contemporary examples are used throughout this guide both to illuminate Marx's terminology and concepts and to illustrate the continuing relevance of the Grundrisse. Readers will be offered guidance on:
-Philosophical and Historical Context
-Key Themes
-Reading the Text
-Reception and Influence
READ THE FIRST TWO CHAPTERS FOR FREE HERE: http://bloomsburycp3.codemantra.com/Marketing.aspx?ID=JKMKTG10AUG16&ISBN=9781472523112&sts=b
Against the common assumption that post-structuralism begins with a rejection of Marx, Choat argues that Marx has been a key influence on post-structuralist thought and that each of the four thinkers examined affirms Marx's contemporary significance. By looking at how these thinkers have read Marx - analysing their direct comments, unspoken uses, and implicit criticisms - the book demonstrates that there is a distinct and original post-structuralist approach to Marx that allows us to read him in a new light.
Papers by Simon Choat
Michael Sandel’s work on markets argues that the marketization of
certain goods risks corrupting the value of those goods, and that a
reinvigorated public discourse is needed to establish the appropriate
use of markets. This article assesses Sandel’s work on markets, arguing
that although it provides a convincing critique of liberal defenses of
the market, it does not do enough to challenge marketization itself. To
illuminate the flaws of Sandel’s argument, the article contrasts it with
Marxist critiques of neoliberalism, arguing that the latter oppose the
expansion of markets and market thinking in more comprehensive
and productive ways. Specifically, it is argued that Sandel ignores the
one market that underpins all other markets, namely the labor market;
erroneously suggests that marketization is caused by the dominance
of market thinking; and fails to appreciate the class interests that are
served by growing marketization.
'Karl Marx: Greatness and Illusion'. It begins by situating the book in
relation to existing biographies before outlining Stedman Jones’s
approach, which is to conceive of Marx’s works as interventions
within contexts which the historian of ideas must reconstruct. I
argue that although the book provides an excellent account of
the political contexts within which Marx lived and worked, its
interpretations of his writings are frequently ungenerous,
unbalanced, and misleading. I defend Marx against charges that
his work was economically confused, politically naïve, and overly
abstract, using the 'Grundrisse' in particular for illustrative purposes.
I also take issue with Stedman Jones’s methodology, questioning
whether it is desirable or possible to separate Marx from Marxism
and return him to his nineteenth-century context. I end by
suggesting that Stedman Jones’s attempt to return Marx to his
context brings into focus the contexts of Stedman Jones’s own
intellectual development.
postanarchist claims, many post-structuralists have drawn inspiration from Marxism rather than rejecting it: as such, Marxism anticipates many of the poststructuralist-inflected ideas of postanarchism, in particular their approach to the state, power, subjectivity and politics. In addition, some Marxist criticisms of
classical anarchism apply equally to postanarchism, thus raising questions to which postanarchists should respond.
Book Reviews by Simon Choat
The Grundrisse's discussions of money, labour, nature, freedom, the role of machinery, and the development and dynamics of capitalism have influenced generations of thinkers, from Anglo-American historians such as Eric Hobsbawm and Robert Brenner to Continental philosophers like Antonio Negri and Gilles Deleuze, as well as offering vital insights into Marx's methodology and the trajectory of his thought.
Contemporary examples are used throughout this guide both to illuminate Marx's terminology and concepts and to illustrate the continuing relevance of the Grundrisse. Readers will be offered guidance on:
-Philosophical and Historical Context
-Key Themes
-Reading the Text
-Reception and Influence
READ THE FIRST TWO CHAPTERS FOR FREE HERE: http://bloomsburycp3.codemantra.com/Marketing.aspx?ID=JKMKTG10AUG16&ISBN=9781472523112&sts=b
Against the common assumption that post-structuralism begins with a rejection of Marx, Choat argues that Marx has been a key influence on post-structuralist thought and that each of the four thinkers examined affirms Marx's contemporary significance. By looking at how these thinkers have read Marx - analysing their direct comments, unspoken uses, and implicit criticisms - the book demonstrates that there is a distinct and original post-structuralist approach to Marx that allows us to read him in a new light.
Michael Sandel’s work on markets argues that the marketization of
certain goods risks corrupting the value of those goods, and that a
reinvigorated public discourse is needed to establish the appropriate
use of markets. This article assesses Sandel’s work on markets, arguing
that although it provides a convincing critique of liberal defenses of
the market, it does not do enough to challenge marketization itself. To
illuminate the flaws of Sandel’s argument, the article contrasts it with
Marxist critiques of neoliberalism, arguing that the latter oppose the
expansion of markets and market thinking in more comprehensive
and productive ways. Specifically, it is argued that Sandel ignores the
one market that underpins all other markets, namely the labor market;
erroneously suggests that marketization is caused by the dominance
of market thinking; and fails to appreciate the class interests that are
served by growing marketization.
'Karl Marx: Greatness and Illusion'. It begins by situating the book in
relation to existing biographies before outlining Stedman Jones’s
approach, which is to conceive of Marx’s works as interventions
within contexts which the historian of ideas must reconstruct. I
argue that although the book provides an excellent account of
the political contexts within which Marx lived and worked, its
interpretations of his writings are frequently ungenerous,
unbalanced, and misleading. I defend Marx against charges that
his work was economically confused, politically naïve, and overly
abstract, using the 'Grundrisse' in particular for illustrative purposes.
I also take issue with Stedman Jones’s methodology, questioning
whether it is desirable or possible to separate Marx from Marxism
and return him to his nineteenth-century context. I end by
suggesting that Stedman Jones’s attempt to return Marx to his
context brings into focus the contexts of Stedman Jones’s own
intellectual development.
postanarchist claims, many post-structuralists have drawn inspiration from Marxism rather than rejecting it: as such, Marxism anticipates many of the poststructuralist-inflected ideas of postanarchism, in particular their approach to the state, power, subjectivity and politics. In addition, some Marxist criticisms of
classical anarchism apply equally to postanarchism, thus raising questions to which postanarchists should respond.