Cornelius Castoriadis On The Error of Marx

Cornelius Castoriadis (March 11, 1922 - December 26, 1997) was a Greek philosopher, social critic, economist, psychoanalyst and author. Castoriadis has influenced European (especially continental) thought in important ways. His interventions in sociological and political theory have resulted in some of the most well-known writing to emerge from the continent. Hans Joas published a number of articles in American journals in order to highlight the importance of Castoriadis' work to a North American sociological audience, and Johann P. Arnason has been of enduring importance both for his critical engagement with Castoriadis' thought and for his sustained efforts to introduce it to the English speaking public (especially during his editorship of the journal Thesis Eleven). In the last few years, there has been growing interest in Castoriadis’ thought, including the publication of two monographs authored by Arnason's former students: Jeff Klooger's Castoriadis: Psyche, Society, Autonomy (Brill), and Suzi Adams' Castoriadis' Ontology: Being and Creation (Fordham University Press).
Castoriadis' work will be remembered for its remarkable continuity and coherence as well as for its extraordinary breadth which was "encyclopaedic" in the original Greek sense, for it offered us a paideia that brought full circle our cycle of otherwise compartmentalized knowledge in the arts and sciences. Castoriadis wrote essays on mathematics, physics, biology, anthropology, psychoanalysis, linguistics, society, economics, politics, philosophy, and art.
One of Castoriadis' many important contributions to social theory was the idea that social change involves radical discontinuities that cannot be understood in terms of any determinate causes or presented as a sequence of events. Change emerges through the social imaginary without determinations, but in order to be socially recognized must be instituted as revolution. Any knowledge of society and social change “can exist only by referring to, or by positing, singular entities…which figure and presentify social imaginary significations.”
Castoriadis used traditional terms as much as possible, though consistently redefining them. Further, some of his terminology changed throughout the later part of his career, with the terms gaining greater consistency but breaking from their traditional meaning (neologisms). When reading Castoriadis, it is helpful to understand what he means by the terms he uses, since he does not redefine the terms in every piece where he employs them.
Castoriadis views the political organization of the ancient Greek city states as an example of an autonomous society. He argues that their direct democracy was not based, as many assume, in the existence of slaves and/or the geography of Greece, which forced the creation of small city states, since many other societies had these preconditions but did not create democratic systems. Same goes for colonisation since the neighbouring Phoenicians, who had a similar expansion in the Mediterranean, were monarchical till their end. During this time of colonisation however, around the time of Homer's Epic poems, we observe for the first time that the Greeks instead of transferring their mother city's social system to the newly established colony, they, for the first time in known history, legislate anew from the ground up. What also made the Greeks special was the fact that, following above, they kept this system as a perpetual autonomy which led to direct democracy. This phenomenon of autonomy is again present in the emergence of the states of northern Italy during the Renaissance, again as a product of small independent merchants.
Key concepts in Castoriadis' thought are autonomy and heteronomy, the imaginary, and chaos. Translations of works by Castoriadis include
• The Imaginary Institution of Society [IIS] (trans. Kathleen Blamey), MIT Press, Cambridge 1997 [1987]. 432 pp. ISBN 0-262-53155-0 (pb.)
• The Castoriadis Reader (ed./trans. David Ames Curtis) Blackwell Publisher, Oxford 1997. 470 pp. ISBN 1-55786-704-6 (pb.)
• World in Fragments: Writings on Politics, Society, Psychoanalysis, and the Imagination. [WIF]. (ed./trans. David Ames Curtis) Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA 1997. 507 pp. ISBN 0-8047-2763-5

[@scottkuhn4026]

This man seems to be babbling about nothing. He enjoys Marx but eventually criticizes him for being a philosopher and not a revolutionary. He knows full well that asking for a new particular to arise is obscenely counter revolutionary. Ridiculing communists because they are saying the same thing that they were saying 100 years ago is extremely childish. As a philosopher he should know the difference between particulars and universals. This man is only a thinker who wants something new to think about. Why doesn't he study race relations or something? Those would be more to his liking.

[@serjordie]

You haven't read any of his work have you? lol

[@scottkuhn4026]

charmlessman my time is too valuable to read every new flavor of the day. But you didn't show me where I went wrong. Have you?

[@serjordie]

It's not my job to oversimplify philosophy and politics in a youtube comment. If you want to be able to criticize one of the most relevant thinkers in our time you should at least read SOME of his work... Otherwise you're simply pointless :)

[@scottkuhn4026]

I am not criticizing ONE person. This is a large phenomena. Many thinkers on CZcams say Marx or Marxists are wrong or that nothing new has come about. So are you a Marxist because it was new? This is childish. I am not asking for his philosophy. I am asking you to tell me why he is not a Marxist any longer. Nothing deep is necessary and the question can be answered in one simple sentence. Why?

[@serjordie]

Castoriadis isn't a thinker on CZcams, he was one of the biggest, most influential thinkers of the 20th century. Also you make no sense, it is possible to be a marxist and then criticize it, until you gradually decide you can no longer call yourslef a "marxist".
He was a revolutionary Marxist, founder of the Socialisme ou Barbarie group in France, but he abandonned Marxism (orthodox marxism, because he was still influenced by it). There are multiple reasons for that, the way marxism was used at the time, some of Marx's analysis that he criticised, but his main point was that it wasn't a revolutionary theory insofar that it's dogmatic. He said that marxist theory contains an absolutist dogma whereas revolution can only be a continuous self-institution of a society which questions, reinterprets, et re-institutes itself at all time. Marxism presents a political and economic theory as an absolute knowledge, a truth, which doesn't leave any place for this to happen. This is a very short and oversimplified explanation, if you want to learn more about it you should read The imaginary insitution of society.