The Marxism after Communism by Michael Burawoy

Michael Burawoy is a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Throughout his sociological career he has engaged with Marxism, seeking to reconstruct it in the light of his research and more broadly in the light of historical challenges of the late 20th and early 21st. centuries.

What is the fate of Marxism after Communism? Death? Resurrection? Appropriation? As a scientific research program that evolves in response to historical challenges and internal contradictions, Marxism is a living tradition. Its roots can be found in the canonical works of Marx and Engels. Its trunk is formed from the continually-revised theory of capitalism’s dynamics. Its different branches reflect the particular exigencies under which they grow or shrink, progress or regress. Recognizing this tradition – with its foundations, its trunk and its branches – leads us to situate contemporary Marxism as a response to the global expansion of the market, and as such we can talk of a “sociological Marxism,” based in a distinctive notion of socialism.

Professor Michael Burawoy’s visit in Sofia was met by the academic community with great interest. For this reason except the talk at Xaspel on Marxism after Communism, three others took place: at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences on Global Sociology, at the New Bulgarian University on Social Movements in the Neoliberal Age and at St. Kliment Ohridski University of Sofia on Public Sociology. Also Michael Burawoy gave two interviews: one for the Bulgarian National Radio and one for Sociological Problems, the journal of the Institute for the Study of Societies and Knowledge at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.

All four talks were well attended and the one at Xaspel in particular attracted an audience of some 70 people among whom were academics, university students, political activists and NGO representatives. The talk was followed by a lively discussion in which Michael Burawoy was asked by professor Liliana Deyanova to clarify the place of exploitation in the Sociological Marxism which he presented as the direction of future development of the Marxist tradition as a scientific research program. Professor Burawoy replied that he did not by any means discard exploitation but his focus was on the experience of reification as exploitation remains inevitably invisible to those exploited and the experience of reification is thus more important if Marxist theory is to lead to political practice. Professor Burawoy was also criticized by activists for differentiating between proletariat and precariat and for his scepticism as to the revolutionary potential of the precariat.

Of the three other talks, attended mainly by academics and university students, the one at the New Bulgarian University deserves special mention. In this talk professor Burawoy gave an account of protest movements around the world and in Bulgaria as a response to the third wave of marketisation. In particular he engaged in dialogue with the students who were present, delivering a militant critique of the commodification of education and the production of knowledge. In a private university this was met by part of the audience with applause and by others with uneasiness.

Photos and text by Anarres Association / Social Center Xaspel