https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2011-9888
![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The national appropriations of Marx’s work have received two kinds of approaches. On the one hand, Marxists have dealt with the topic based on their internal disputes, elaborating “genealogies of ideas” in the service of demanding “ideological coherence” from each other or highlighting faithful interpretations and supposed betrayals. On the other hand, the field of historical sociology has neglected to address the transnational circulation of the work of Marx and Marxist authors. This area has accepted the current theoretical hierarchy, in which Marxism has no credibility – therefore, studies about its presence in the scientific field are unnecessary. Contrary to these two trends, the following article does not judge the value of Marx’s work. It focuses on the disputes surrounding its legitimate readings and uses, by addressing the main initiative that lifted this author out of a marginal position and turned him into an unavoidable figure in Brazil: the first university reading circle of Capital in the country started in 1958 at the University of São Paulo (USP). This is followed by an in-depth analysis of the determining factors behind Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s membership in that initiative and his stance on capitalism, slavery, and Marxism. Then, it defines the “reading capital” (in a Bourdieusian sense) of Capital and addresses its fate in current times.
RESUMO
As apropriações nacionais da obra de Marx têm sido objeto de dois tipos de abordagens. Por um lado, os marxistas têm-se debruçado sobre o tema a partir das suas disputas internas, elaborando “genealogias de ideias,” exigindo uns dos outros “coerência ideológica,” acusando-se mutuamente “fidelidade” e de “traição” à obra de Marx. Por outro lado, no campo da sociologia histórica tem negligenciado a circulação transnacional da obra de Marx. Esta área aceita a hierarquia teórica vigente, na qual o marxismo não tem credibilidade – portanto, estudos sobre a sua presença no campo científico são desnecessários. Na contramão dessas duas tendências, o artigo a seguir não faz juízo de valor sobre a obra de Marx. Centra-se nas disputas em torno da legitimidade de suas leituras e usos, abordando a principal iniciativa que tirou esse autor de uma posição marginal e o transformou em figura incontornável no Brasil: o primeiro círculo de leitura universitária d’O Capital, iniciado em 1958, na Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Em seguida, analisa em profundidade os fatores determinantes da posição de Fernando Henrique Cardoso, membro desta iniciativa, em relação ao capitalismo, à escravidão e ao marxismo. Finalmente, define o “capital de leitura” (no sentido bourdieusiano) do Capital e aborda seu destino nos tempos atuais.
RESUMEN
Las apropiaciones nacionales de la obra de Marx se han abordado de dos maneras. Por un lado, los marxistas han abordado la cuestión desde el punto de vista de sus disputas internas, elaborando “genealogías de ideas” al servicio de la exigencia de “coherencia ideológica” entre ellas o destacando las interpretaciones fieles y las supuestas traiciones. Por otra parte, el campo de la sociología histórica ha descuidado la circulación transnacional de la obra de Marx y de los autores marxistas. Esta área ha aceptado la jerarquía teórica actual, en la que el marxismo no tiene credibilidad – por lo tanto, los estudios sobre su presencia en el campo científico son innecesarios. Contrariamente a estas dos tendencias, el siguiente artículo no juzga la obra de Marx. Se centra en las disputas en torno a la legitimidad de sus lecturas y usos, abordando la principal iniciativa que sacó a este autor de una posición marginal y lo transformó en una figura ineludible en Brasil: el primer círculo universitario de lectura filosófica del país comenzó en 1958 en la Universidad de São Paulo (USP). A continuación, se analizan en profundidad los factores determinantes de la posición de Fernando Henrique Cardoso ante el capitalismo, la esclavitud y el marxismo. A continuación, se define el “capital de lectura” (en el sentido bourdieusiano) de El Capital y se discute su destino en los tiempos actuales.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1 Studies on the Brazilian reception of Marx are no exception to this. One of the most widespread books on this topic states that “dialectics and Marx's thought were only partially understood in Brazil” and because of this the communists were defeated politically (Konder Citation2009, 15). This article follows the criticisms addressing this “Marxist idealistic” approach offered by Gouarné (Citation2013); Tarcus (Citation2007); Ymonet (Citation1984); Colliot-Thélène (Citation1984); Hobsbawn (Citation1983); Bourdieu (Citation1982).
2 Obviously, value judgments of this type will be highlighted in this article as native classifying categories. The above term, “greatest text” is used in the opening biographical outline of Marx in a collection of texts organized by José Arthur Giannotti on the occasion of the centenary of Karl Marx (Giannotti Citation1985, XVI).
3 The sociology of religion and culture, as formulated by Bourdieu (Citation1971), inspires this analysis. So, “seminarians” is adopted to emphasize the practice of ascetic reading (instead of “Marxist,” an unstable category whose definition depends on the outcome of symbolic disputes under my own analysis).
4 For this reason, none of the seminarians based their historical interpretations on the "classification" of the “mode of production” in the Iberian colonies from the 15th to the 18th centuries.
5 The rare Brazilian academic readers of Marx who preceded them cited Marx sporadically, alluding to one idea or another, yet these were secondary to the theoretical frameworks established by the disciplinary tradition. An illustrative example of this can be found in the way in which Candido (Schwarz's thesis advisor) alluded to Marx in his thesis, defended in 1954: “I owe to Marx’s work the awareness of the importance of livelihoods as a dynamic factor” (Candido Citation1975, 11).
6 These are native categories: “Group 1” and “Group 2” or “theoretical-practical” (found in Sola Citation1993) and “Brasilia group” or “Group of 4” (found in Kay Citation2021).
7 There was also a “schooling” (Elias Citation1982) of Marx's work: discussion protocols were established prior to reading and appropriating it, engendering the demand for propaedeutic texts by Marx and Marxist sociology, Lukacs and comments on translation choices, among other editorial apparatuses once unimaginable. Unfortunately, it is impossible to demonstrate here in detail these effects on the publishing world.
8 The group from Brasilia was helped by Fernando Henrique Cardoso to establish themselves professionally in Chile – where the sociologist stayed between 1964 and 1967. They stand out as dependentistas and the Brazilian segment was transported to Chile. Cardoso, who came from the autonomous pole, was based at ILPES (Latin American Institute for Economic and Social Planning) and was the most famous representative of “reformist” dependentismo. The Brasilia group, coming from the less autonomous pole, was based at CESO (Center for Socio-Economic Studies, Universidad de Chile/UC) and was the most famous representative of “revolutionary” dependentismo (Rodrigues, 2023). However, analyzing this scenario would take away from the focus of this article.
9 The term “Ford mafia” was used by an interviewee in July 2021 whose anonymity is maintained.
10 The statements in this paragraph are based on a survey carried out with 988 self-designated Marxist individuals working in Brazilian universities. For preliminary numbers, see Rodrigues (Citation2018; Citation2019).
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Lidiane Soares Rodrigues
Lidiane Soares Rodrigues, Associate professor at the Federal University of ABC (UFABC). PhD in History from the University of São Paulo.