Proletarian experience, class interest and discourse: how far can classical marxism still be defended?

Abstract

This article examines the current debate in marxist theory between, on the one hand, the discourse‐theoretical approach developed in particular by E Laclau and C Mouffe, and, on the other, the recent defence of classical class theory and critique of the approach of Laclau and Mouffe developed by E Wood. It argues that whilst Wood's critique of Laclau and Mouffe amounts, ultimately, to little more than a regress to assumptions and theses they have demonstrated to be untenable, their own theory of political identity must also be criticised for itself falling into essentialism and for exaggerating the identity of discourse and society.