مرکز منطقه ای اطلاع رسانی علوم و فناوری پژوهش سیاست نظری 2008-5796 21 39 2026 9 23 A Comparison of the Concept of Violence and the Revolutionary Subject in the Thought of Marxism and Post-Marxism مقایسۀ مفهوم خشونت و سوژۀ انقلابی در اندیشۀ مارکسیسم و پسامارکسیسم 81 111 fa محمدحسن اسدی دانشگاه یاسوج علیرضا سمیعی اصفهانی علی باقری دولت‌آبادی 2025 11 18 A Comparison of the Concept of Violence and the Revolutionary Subject in the Thought of Marxism and Post-Marxism   Mohammadhasan Asadi<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">*</a> Alireza Samiee Esfahani<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">**</a> Ali Bagheri Dolatabadi<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">***</a>   The present study seeks to answer the key question: What changes and transformations have the concepts of violence and the revolutionary subject undergone in the transition from classical Marxist thought (Marx) to the post-Marxist current (Laclau and Mouffe)? The aim of this research is to answer this question and explain the theoretical evolution of violence and the revolutionary subject in these two intellectual currents. The importance of this issue lies in the fact that the theoretical representation of violence and the definition of the revolutionary subject shape the relationship between humanity, power, and social order, reflecting fundamental changes in the logic of struggle and political resistance. The necessity of the research arises from the fact that the transformation of the concept of violence and the representation of the revolutionary subject in the transition from classical Marxism to post-Marxism cannot be reduced to a simple shift from violence to reformism; rather, this transformation concerns deeper shifts in the degree to which the economy and politics influence the mode of action of the revolutionary subject, the emergence of plural political subjects, and the transformation in the logic of contestation from violence to peaceful forms of competition.   Keywords: Violence, Revolutionary Subject, Marxism, Post-Marxism, Quentin Skinner’s Hermeneutics.   Introduction In recent years, questions concerning violence and the revolutionary subject have come to prominence in contemporary political and social theories. Among the most significant of these theories are Marxism and post-Marxism, which have exerted a profound impact on society, academia, politics, and international relations. Marxism is the only doctrine named after a single individual: Marx. In Marxist sociology and according to the theory of historical materialism, societies pass through five stages to achieve a communist society: primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, bourgeoisie (capitalism), socialism, and ultimately communism. In Marx’s thought, violence is understood not as a desirable normative principle in itself, but within the framework of the historical analysis of class struggle. Marx views history as the arena of class struggles and conflicts, arguing that the working class (or proletariat), as the revolutionary subject, in the process of gaining consciousness and political action, is inevitably driven to confront and ultimately dismantle the capitalist structure through violence because, according to Marx, those who benefit from the privileges of capitalism will not surrender their power and property without war. Post-Marxists are, in most cases, former Marxists whose point of departure is the critique of classical Marxism (especially economic reductionism and the conception of a singular revolutionary subject), aimed at reconstructing and redeeming the Left under present complex conditions where it finds no answers to the transformations of capitalism and new social movements. Laclau and Mouffe are among the post-Marxists who strive in this direction; they argue that the world is the product of discourses and that discursive conflicts must exist, for otherwise, difference and plurality would be eradicated, giving way to rigid hierarchies. In Laclau and Mouffe’s view, the greater the capacity of discourses to transform antagonism into agonistic competition (through the politics of pluralist democracy and an agonistic approach), the more their position becomes stabilized. Consequently, the question of violence and the modes of confronting political enmity acquires a distinct significance within democratic and discursive contexts. Despite numerous studies on Marxism and post-Marxism, a coherent investigation specifically addressing the conceptual evolution of violence and the redefinition of the revolutionary subject in the transition between these two intellectual traditions has received comparatively little attention. Hence, this study, focusing on this theoretical gap, attempts to answer how the concepts of violence and the revolutionary subject have been transformed in the transition from classical Marxism to post-Marxism. To this end, employing the methodological framework of Quentin Skinner’s hermeneutics, the concepts under study are analyzed not as static categories, but in relation to the historical contexts and ideological-intellectual climates prevailing during the eras of each examined thinker, including Marx, Laclau, and Mouffe.   Literature Review Alex Callinicos (2011), in his book The Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx, argues that Marx’s view that the working class must overthrow the capitalist system and replace it with a classless society is even more necessary today than in Marx’s own time. This is because capitalism is still founded upon the exploitation of the working class and remains susceptible to continuous crises crises such as inequality in wealth distribution, economic austerity policies that have provoked militant waves of resistance, war, the accumulation of nuclear weapons, and talk of nuclear conflict, all casting a shadow over the whole of humanity. Under these conditions, a socialist revolution becomes an imperative, presenting a choice between socialism or barbarism. James Ryan (2012), in his book Lenin’s Terror: The Ideological Origins of Early Soviet State Violence, argues that ideology is of primary importance in understanding the violent and dictatorial nature of early Soviet party elites like Lenin, since ideas and ideologies generally play a critical role in dictating behavior. Nevertheless, ideology cannot be understood in a contextual vacuum, as contextual factors such as the oppressive nature of Tsarist rule, the bloodshed of the First World War, and the vulnerability of the early Soviet state to internal and external opponents were of immense significance. Thus, the author situates Lenin’s ideas within Russian and European historical contexts, arguing that Bolshevik violence (and the communist outlook) was a reaction to the violent and unjust political systems of Russia and Europe, as well as a struggle for survival. Oliver Harrison (2014), in his book Revolutionary Subjectivity in Post-Marxist Thought, examines the theory of revolutionary subjectivity in the works of post-Marxists such as Ernesto Laclau, Antonio Negri, and Alain Badiou. He contends that although each of these theories has gradually distanced itself from Marx in its own distinctive manner forming what we know as post-Marxism Marx’s theory of revolutionary subjectivity nevertheless remains at the center of each of these thinkers’ reflections.   Methodology The methodological framework employed in this study is Quentin Skinner’s hermeneutic method, with data and source material collected via desk-based library research for subsequent analysis and interpretation. Skinner’s methodology is a historical and interpretive approach in political thought, developed through a critique of both textualist and contextualist paradigms. According to Skinner’s methodology, to understand a thinker’s political thought, one must first comprehend the intellectual-ideological context and climate governing their era; for Skinner posits that the works and utterances of any thinker are responses to the questions and problems of their own time, making the identification of the political questions and dilemmas of that age a prerequisite for understanding any political text. Second, one must grasp the thinker’s intention to communicate within the discourse of their era, as weighing the intention of authors is critical when attempting to interpret the meaning of their texts. However, it must be noted that while Skinner emphasizes the importance of authorial intent, he maintains that primary attention should not be directed solely toward individual authors, but rather toward the prevailing discourse of the author’s period, through which the author’s intent and what they intended to do can be uncovered.   Findings The findings demonstrate that Marx influenced by the intellectual-ideological climate of his historical context prioritized the economy (as the base) and maintained that the structure of class societies is the product of their mode of production. In his view, there has always existed a ruling class and an exploited class, from which the contradictions of the mode of production and class struggle emerge contradictions and class struggles that persist until the attainment of a socialist and communist society. Therefore, in terms of analyzing revolution and the concepts of violence and the revolutionary subject, the problem presents itself as a conflict between the productive forces and the relations of production, or generally within the mode of production that determines the structure of social relations; the replacement of one mode of production with another does not occur peacefully or incrementally, but requires a violent revolution in which the old ruling class is expropriated and a new class is installed in its place. In contrast, Laclau and Mouffe shaped by the intellectual-ideological climate of their own time dismantled objectivism or essentialism, arguing that there are no objective laws dividing society into pre-given groups; existing groups are always the product of political and discursive processes. Hence, for Laclau and Mouffe, political processes are of paramount importance because political articulation determines how we create society. It is here that the deterministic role of the economy is entirely discarded within discourse theory, and this dual realm (base/superstructure) is referred to the level of discourse. Utilizing a discursive approach to explicate contemporary society, alongside discourse theory to foster peaceful competition, they propose “radical democracy” as a reliable horizon for Left-wing parties and thinkers in the contemporary world a democracy complemented by an agonistic relation that ultimately eliminates violence from Laclau and Mouffe’s revolutionary subject.   Conclusion Through an analytical comparison, it becomes evident that classical Marxism (including Marx’s economy-centered approach) divides society into two primary classes (workers and capitalists) and perceives the path to emancipation in the dismantling of the capitalist structure through violence and material force. In post-Marxism (including the thought of Laclau and Mouffe), however, politics and discourse replace the economy as the locus of analysis. Within this framework, social divisions are understood not through objective economic laws, but as the outcomes of political and discursive processes. Consequently, the deterministic role of the economy is abandoned, and rather than engaging in violent class struggle, the subject must manifest its resistance and rebellion through the deployment of biopolitics within the framework of new social movements. The findings of this research thus indicate that in the transition from classical Marxism to post-Marxism, the perspective on violence has shifted from a necessary instrument of class emancipation to an analytical and discursive component, and the revolutionary subject has transformed from a singular, violence-oriented agent into a plural, multifaceted subject rooted in peaceful, discursive contestation.   References Bayat, A. (2017) Revolution without revolutionaries: Making sense of the Arab Spring. Stanford University Press. Callinicos, A. (2011) The revolutionary ideas of Karl Marx. Haymarket Books. Ghadery, H. (2013) Andisheh-haye siasi dar gharn-e bistom [Political thoughts in the 20th century]. Samt Publications. [in Persian] Harrison, O. (2014) Revolutionary subjectivity in post-Marxist thought: Laclau, Negri, Badiou. Ashgate. Laclau, E. (2005) On populist reason. Verso. Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (2014) Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics (M. Rezaei, Trans.). Sales Publishing. (Original work published 1985) [in Persian] Marx, K. (1887) Capital: A critique of political economy, Volume I (S. Moore & E. Aveling, Trans.; F. Engels, Ed.). Progress Publishers. Marx, K. (1988) Naghd-e falsafe-ye hagh-e Hegel [Critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right] (R. Salahshoor, Trans.). Naghd. [in Persian] Marx, K. (2003) Moghadame-ie bar naghd-e egtesad-e siasi [A contribution to the critique of political economy] (S. Ansari & A. Barzegar, Trans.). Akhgar. [in Persian] Marx, K. (2006) Sarmaye (Capital), Vol. 1 (I. Eskandari, Trans.; Y. Azari, Ed.). Socialist Worker Publishing. [in Persian] Marx, K. (2009) Tezhayi dar bare-ye Feuerbach [Theses on Feuerbach]. In F. Engels (Ed.), Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy (M. Pourhormozan, Trans.). Tudeh Party of Iran. [in Persian] Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1998) Ideology-e Almani [The German ideology] (T. Niki, Trans.). Payam Pirouz. [in Persian] Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2006) Manifest-e hezb-e komonism [Manifesto of the communist party] (M. Pourhormozan, Trans.). Tudeh Party of Iran. [in Persian] Moeini Alamdari, J. (2021) Ravesh-shenasi-ye nazariye-haye jadid dar siasat [Methodology of new theories of politics]. University of Tehran Press. [in Persian] Mouffe, C. (1995) Dimensions of radical democracy: Pluralism, citizenship, community. Verso. Mouffe, C. (2005) On the political. Routledge. Mouffe, C. (2012) Dar bare-ye amr-e siasi [On the political] (M. Ansari, Trans.). Rokhdad-e No. [in Persian] Ryan, J. (2012) Lenin’s terror: The ideological origins of early Soviet state violence. Routledge. Schmitt, C. (2014) Mafhoom-e amr-e siasi [The concept of the political] (Y. Jirani & R. Namazi, Trans.). Ghoghnos. [in Persian] Skinner, Q. (1993) Machiavelli (E. Foladvand, Trans.). Tarh-e No. [in Persian] Skinner, Q. (2011) Azadi moghadam bar liberalisme [Liberty before liberalism] (F. Majlesi, Trans.). Farhang-e Javid. [in Persian] Skinner, Q. (2014a) Bonyadha-ye andisheh-ye siasi-ye modern, Vol. 1: Renaissance (K. Firouzmand, Trans.). Agah. [in Persian] Skinner, Q. (2014b) Binesh-haye elm-e siasat, Vol. 1: Dar bab-e ravesh [Visions of politics] (F. Majidi, Trans.). Farhang-e Javid. [in Persian] Tajik, M. (2006) Post-marxism va post-marxism [Post-Marxism and post-Marxism]. Research in Theoretical Politics, 2(2), 25–45. [in Persian] Tully, J. (1988). Meaning and context: Quentin Skinner and his critics. Princeton University Press. Wolff, J. (2003) Why read Marx today?. Oxford University Press.   <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">*</a> M.A. in Political Science, Faculty of Humanities, Yasouj University, Yasuj, Iran. mohammad.asadi9595@gmail.com <a href="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7549-0118">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7549-0118</a> <a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">**</a> Corresponding Author: Associate Professor, Political Sciences, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran. a.samiee@ase.ui.ac.ir <a href="https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4729-075X">https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4729-075X</a> <a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">***</a> . Professor in International Relations, Department of Political Sciences, Faculty of Humanities, Yasouj University, Yasouj, Iran. abagheri@yu.ac.ir  <a href="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4584-5870">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4584-5870</a> پژوهش پیشِ رو درصدد پاسخ به این پرسش کلیدی است که مفهوم خشونت و سوژه انقلابی در گذر از اندیشه مارکسیسم کلاسیک (مارکس) به جریان پسامارکسیسم (لاکلائو و موف) دستخوش چه تغییر و تحولاتی شده است؟ هدف پژوهش حاضر، پاسخ به این پرسش و تبیین تحول نظری خشونت و سوژه انقلابی در این دو جریان فکری است. اهمیت این موضوع از آن جهت است که بازنمایی نظری خشونت و تعریف سوژه انقلابی، رابطه انسان با قدرت و نظم اجتماعی را شکل می&zwnj;دهد و بازتاب تغییرات بنیادین در منطق مبارزه و مقاومت سیاسی است. ضرورت پژوهش از آنجا ناشی می&zwnj;شود که دگرگونی مفهوم خشونت و بازنمایی سوژه انقلابی در گذار از مارکسیسم کلاسیک به پسامارکسیسم را نمی&zwnj;توان به یک جابه&zwnj;جایی ساده از خشونت به اصلاح تقلیل داد؛ بلکه این تحول، ناظر بر تغییرات عمیق&zwnj;تر در نسبتِ اثرگذاری اقتصاد و سیاست بر نحوه کنشِ سوژه انقلابی، ظهور سوژه&zwnj;های سیاسی متکثر، و تحول در منطق منازعه از خشونت&zwnj; به رقابت&zwnj;های مسالمت&zwnj;آمیز است.

http://political.ihss.ac.ir/fa/Article/Download/51951