Critical Theory: The Podcast

Bernard E. Harcourt introduces Marx 1/13 on Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach and Ernst Bloch’s Commentary from The Principle of Hope, with the philosopher Étienne Balibar @CGCParis.

Read more here: https://marx1313.law.columbia.edu/1-13/

The full text of this introduction to Marx 1/13 is here: https://the1313.law.columbia.edu/2024...

The video recording of the seminar Marx 1/13 with Étienne Balibar can be watched here: https://www.youtube.com/live/x7jOhfgF...

Information about Marx 13/13: https://marx1313.law.columbia.edu/

Information on the 13/13 series: https://cccct.law.columbia.edu/conten...

Ludwig Feuerbach’s writings served both as a foil and a springboard for Marx to develop his radical philosophical approach. Feuerbach was a pivotal thinker, for Marx, who put him on the path to a new materialism having the standpoint of “human society, or socialized humanity,” as Marx wrote in Thesis #10. Feuerbach turned idealist systematicity on its head in order to focus attention on the being of humans (what was called human essence, human nature, species being). Although Feuerbach did not complete that turn to the satisfaction of Marx, Feuerbach launched a movement that would give Marx momentum.

Marx wrote extensively about Feuerbach in the years 1844-1845 in The Holy Family: A Critique of Critical Criticisms (1844) and The German Ideology (unpublished, 1845). In 1888, Frederick Engels published Marx's jottings from a notebook under the title "Theses on Feuerbach" as an appendix to his book, Ludwig Feuerbach and the Outcome of Classical German Philosophy (1888).

Engels' publication of the Theses on Feuerbach has been a source of controversy and commentary since, with the Theses themselves entering what Étienne Balibar calls the pantheon of "emblematic formularies of Western philosophy." With that, of course, comes the risk of distortions or misreadings or projections or, as well, excellent commentaries on such emblematic formulas. Engels had a project in mind when he published the Theses, possibly to systematize Marx's thought, perhaps to solidify his interpretation of historical materialism. Was that Marx's project as well?

In this seminar, the philosopher Étienne Balibar rereads the Theses in conversation with Ernst Bloch's commentary on the Theses from The Principle of Hope. Balibar uses the Theses as an entry point for our study of Marx this year.

Why start with Marx’s Theses on Feuerbach? you may ask. How does Ernst Bloch's commentary reorient the interpretation of Marx and shape a style of Marxism? Please join us for the seminar to hear Étienne Balibar address these questions.

Welcome to Marx 1/13!

Readings for Marx 1/13: https://marx1313.law.columbia.edu/1-1...

Bernard E. Harcourt introduces the new seminar series Marx 13/13.

This seminar series is part of the "13/13 Seminars" hosted by the Columbia Center for Contemporary Critical Thought at Columbia University.

Information about Marx 13/13 is available at https://marx1313.law.columbia.edu.

Recording of automated telephone message from the Montgomery County Courthouse, Montgomery, Alabama, on Monday, June 6, 1994, recorded by Bernard E. Harcourt:

"Thank you for calling! The courthouse is closed in memory of our great president, Jefferson Davis. We will open at 8 o'clock Tuesday, June 7th. For weekend and nighttime calls, please consult the directory for direct dial numbers. Have a great and happy holiday!"

Courte présentation par Prof. Bernard E. Harcourt (Columbia University/EHESS) pour le lancement de la nouvelle édition du livre, *Nietzsche. Cours, conférences et travaux* (Gallimard/Seuil/EHESS, 2024) de Michel Foucault, paru aujourd'hui, le 31 mai 2024.

Lecture (in French) of Professor Bernard E. Harcourt at the Collège de France in Paris, France, on the topic of "Abolition and Cooperation," on May 21, 2024. The lecture develops chapter 6 of Harcourt's book *Cooperation: A Political, Economic, and Social Theory* (Columbia University Press, 2023)

Joselyn Chuquillanqui joins Charles Smith and Giselle Williams of Columbia's WKCR for a conversation on union organizing at Starbucks.

Joselyn Chuquillanqui, 28, of Elmont, was fired on July 27 after what she describes as months of being targeted by managers, who she also claims caused the Great Neck store’s April union vote to fail. While all 11 store employees initially signed petition cards for a union vote, the vote failed 5-6.

This conversation is part of the Utopia 13/13 seminars at the Columbia Center for Contemporary Critical Thought. Chuquillanqui joined us for Utopia 3/13 at the Jerome Greene Annex on October 26, 2022. You can find the full recording from the seminar and additional resources on the Utopia 3/13 page here: blogs.law.columbia.edu/utopia1313/3-13/

You can learn more about Chuquillanqui's organizing work here: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62426940

More on Starbucks unionizing here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBGwcCZK6Ok

Professor Alyssa Battistoni joins Charles Smith and Giselle Williams of Columbia's WKCR for a conversation on union organizing and the future of work.

This conversation is part of the Utopia 13/13 seminars at the Columbia Center for Contemporary Critical Thought. Professor Battistoni joined us for Utopia 3/13 at the Jerome Greene Annex on October 26, 2022. You can find the full recording from the seminar and additional resources on the Utopia 3/13 page here: https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/utopia1313/3-13/

We discussed Professor Battistoni's essay "Spadework" at Utopia 3/13. You can read her essay here: https://www.nplusonemag.com/issue-34/politics/spadework/

She reflects further on her essay in her blog post here: https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/utopia1313/alyssa-battistoni-on-spadework/

At the seminar, Professors Battistoni and Harcourt discussed “Spadework” and “Labor Without Love” by Alyssa Battistoni and “Debt and Study” in The Undercommons by Fred Moten and Stefano Harney.

Professor Étienne Balibar joins Charles Smith and Giselle Williams of Columbia's WKCR for a conversation on the critical theoretic foundations for concrete utopias.

This conversation is part of the Utopia 13/13 seminars at the Columbia Center for Contemporary Critical Thought. Professor Balibar joined us for Utopia 1/13 at the Maison Française on September 28, 2022. You can find the full recording from the seminar and additional resources on the Utopia 1/13 page here: https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/utopia1313/1-13/

At the seminar, Professor Balibar presented a new paper, “Uncovering lines of escape: towards a concept of concrete utopia in the age of catastrophes." You can read the full paper in English here: https://blogs.law.columbia.edu/utopia1313/etienne-balibar-uncovering-lines-of-escape-towards-a-concept-of-concrete-utopia-in-the-age-of-catastrophes/

In his lecture, “Uncovering lines of escape: towards a concept of concrete utopia in the age of catastrophes,” the philosopher Étienne Balibar develops three dimensions of the urgency of rethinking concrete utopias in these times of crises: first, Balibar discusses the dilemmas surrounding the concept of utopia and utopian thinking, without which there could be no “radical” politics, but at a time and in an age of at least three major catastrophes (the climate, the nuclear, and the digital); second, Balibar explores “real” or “concrete” utopias in light of the Foucauldian distinction between “utopias” and “heterotopias,” which could also be interpreted as a conversion of utopia into heterotopias; third, Balibar concludes on the transcendental problems of the different modalities of the “possible,” the “impossible,” the “necessary,” the “inevitable,” in their relationship to a concept of time (e.g. Bloch’s time of “not-yet”), as displaced by the questioning of “utopia” in today’s catastrophic circumstances.

At the seminar, Professors Balibar and Harcourt discussed Ernst Bloch, The Spirit of Utopia (1918); Michel Foucault, “Of Other Spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias” (1967/1984); Fredric Jameson, Archaeologies of the Future (2005); Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1847; Alex Williams and Nick Srnicek, Manifesto for an Accelerationist Politics (2013; Erik Olin Wright, Envisioning Real Utopias (Verso 2010); and Zapatista Army of National Liberation, Sixth Declaration of the Selva Lacandonia (2005).

In episode 5 of Critical Theory: Bernard E. Harcourt explores the utility of genealogical critique for revolutionary praxis. This presentation serves as a conclusion to this year’s 13/13 seminar that has interrogated the relationship between critical theory and revolutionary practice by examining the written works of worldly, revolutionary philosophers.

This episode focuses precisely on the place where critique can nourish worldly activity—and vice versa. It explores the activist writings of Nietzsche and Foucault in relation to praxis. It locates specifically when, how, and where critical philosophy and worldly activism can work together productively.

“In any case, I hate everything that merely instructs me without augmenting or directly invigorating my activity.”

It is with those words of Goethe, you will recall, that Nietzsche opened his untimely meditations on the value of history. Today, history has been eclipsed by the genealogical method, within critical circles. Foucault’s genealogical approach now dominates historically inflected critique. But not all genealogical work today encourages praxis. Not all genealogies, nor all philosophical debates over genealogy, directly invigorate our activity.

In part because of its proliferation and now ubiquity, the genealogical method has essentially become what history was in the nineteenth century. It is crucial now that we assess the value of genealogical critique for praxis. The proper metric against which to evaluate genealogical writings is whether they contribute to transforming ourselves, others, and society.

Here, Bernard E. Harcourt proposes that we use the term “critical genealogy” to identify those genealogical practices that nourish our activity and thereby advance the ambition of critical philosophy, namely to change the world. It is time, once again, Harcourt argues, that we test whether our historical critiques are productive or demobilizing. It is imperative that we knock on them to determine which are hollow and which are robust—which discourage and which nourish action. It is time, once again, that we do philosophy with a hammer.

The more polished and updated paper can be found on SSRN here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4147668

Episode 4: George Jackson and Revolutionary Prison Writings with Paul Redd former member of the Short Corridor Collective, Pelican Bay State Prison, California.

In episode 4 of Critical Theory: The Podcast, Bernard E. Harcourt sits down with Paul Redd, who was incarcerated for 46 years in California, 35 of them in solitary confinement, and was released on May 21, 2020, to discuss the influence of prison writings and the experience of the Short Corridor Collective at Pelican Bay State Prison. The members of the Short Corridor read and exchanged the critical works of George Jackson, Assata Shakur, Eldridge Cleaver, Michel Foucault, Bobby Sands, and others, leading to the country’s largest ever prison hunger strike, in 2013, involving more than thirty thousand women and men throughout California prisons who refused to eat, as part of a series of prison hunger strikes that began in July 2011. The hunger strikes and aggressive litigation ultimately led to California’s agreement to end indeterminate solitary confinement based on gang affiliation. Paul Redd participated in organizing the hunger strikes on the Short Corridor, was part of the efforts to end hostilities, and was a signatory to the agreement. He discusses the role of reading Bobby Sands, George Jackson and others with us in preparation for the public seminar, Revolution 7/13, at the Columbia Center for Contemporary Critical Thought.

Join us at: http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/revolution1313/7-13/