4. Various Responses to Miliband-Poulantzas Debate
4.1. Ernesto Laclau: Methodological and Epistemological Problem
Robin Blackburn (2014) described Ernesto Laclau as “the outstanding Argentinean political philosopher ... the author of landmark studies of Marxist theory and of populism as a political category and social movement. ... Used the work of Antonio Gramsci to reject what they saw as the reductionism and teleology of much Marxist theory... a ‘post-Marxist’ and an advocate of ‘radical democracy’ ”. On the other hands, Norman Geras who involved in long polemic against Laclau and Moffe in the 1980s, dubbed Laclau --and Moffe-- as "a pair of ex-Marxists" who used Gramsci as the mantle to "represent themselves as post-Marxists" (1987, …show more content…
This also included what Laclau (1975) observed; "Miliband 's whole analysis remains on an empirical layer: it starts with assertions referring to reality and it proves that reality is in contradiction with those assertions." (p. 52). This approach, as mentioned in section 3, had been a foothold of Poulantzas ' critiques, which is considered by omitting the first step to submitting bourgeoise ideology into the critique of Marxist science in order to demonstrate their inadequacy to the real, Miliband 's approach is not …show more content…
On the other hand, Laclau thought that Poulantzas is too far in criticizing Miliband incorporate 'uncritically ' the ideological conceptions of the adversary to scientific criticism. For Laclau, “Miliband 's text has not progressed sufficiently to the field of theoretical formalization be able to accept Poulantzas ' categorical assertion that Miliband reduces 'the role of the State to the conduct and behavior of the members of the State apparatus '. Miliband 's text consent of different readings, for example, that the links between members of the State apparatus and members of the ruling class are an indication of class domination and not its cause." (p. 62).
Not only criticized Miliband’s methodology, Laclau also do the same thing to Poulantzas. Laclau assesses Poulantzas’s article is not satisfactory, although better than Miliband 's work. The problem is not adequate empirical inquiry, to oppose, in "the lack of theoretical confrontation with the problematic of his adversaries." (p.
4.1. Ernesto Laclau: Methodological and Epistemological Problem
Robin Blackburn (2014) described Ernesto Laclau as “the outstanding Argentinean political philosopher ... the author of landmark studies of Marxist theory and of populism as a political category and social movement. ... Used the work of Antonio Gramsci to reject what they saw as the reductionism and teleology of much Marxist theory... a ‘post-Marxist’ and an advocate of ‘radical democracy’ ”. On the other hands, Norman Geras who involved in long polemic against Laclau and Moffe in the 1980s, dubbed Laclau --and Moffe-- as "a pair of ex-Marxists" who used Gramsci as the mantle to "represent themselves as post-Marxists" (1987, …show more content…
This also included what Laclau (1975) observed; "Miliband 's whole analysis remains on an empirical layer: it starts with assertions referring to reality and it proves that reality is in contradiction with those assertions." (p. 52). This approach, as mentioned in section 3, had been a foothold of Poulantzas ' critiques, which is considered by omitting the first step to submitting bourgeoise ideology into the critique of Marxist science in order to demonstrate their inadequacy to the real, Miliband 's approach is not …show more content…
On the other hand, Laclau thought that Poulantzas is too far in criticizing Miliband incorporate 'uncritically ' the ideological conceptions of the adversary to scientific criticism. For Laclau, “Miliband 's text has not progressed sufficiently to the field of theoretical formalization be able to accept Poulantzas ' categorical assertion that Miliband reduces 'the role of the State to the conduct and behavior of the members of the State apparatus '. Miliband 's text consent of different readings, for example, that the links between members of the State apparatus and members of the ruling class are an indication of class domination and not its cause." (p. 62).
Not only criticized Miliband’s methodology, Laclau also do the same thing to Poulantzas. Laclau assesses Poulantzas’s article is not satisfactory, although better than Miliband 's work. The problem is not adequate empirical inquiry, to oppose, in "the lack of theoretical confrontation with the problematic of his adversaries." (p.