Salvador López Arnal – I can’t help but sincerely congratulate you on your work: what a beautiful book![1], what a magnificent presentation!, such essential annotations!, what an excellent selection! Thank you, thank you very much. Allow me to step outside the book for a moment: where did your interest in the work of Manuel Sacristán come from? Since when?
Renzo Llorente: I think I first came across Sacristán’s name in Alain Guy’s *History of Spanish Philosophy *. It was around 1993 or 1994. The paragraphs about Sacristán caught my attention because I had already read quite a bit of Marxist literature, but I didn’t really know anything about the Marxist tradition in Spain, apart from some vague knowledge I had regarding the history of the communist movement in the Spanish state. But Guy’s information also caught my attention because it made it clear that Sacristán was, above all, a philosopher —the book was, after all, a history of philosophy—and what interested me most within Marxism at that time, when I was working on my doctorate in philosophy, was precisely Marxist philosophy .
Thanks to that reference, Sacristán’s name stuck in my mind, but I didn’t look for any of his writings at the time. (Let’s not forget that back then there were no online bookstores and hardly any websites.) Fortunately, I later discovered, by chance, * On Marx and Marxism: Pamphlets and Materials I* in a bookstore in Madrid, and a year or two later (I’m talking about 1996 or 1997), * About Manuel Sacristán *, the book of interviews with and about Sacristán that you coordinated with Pere de la Fuente. Reading that book was decisive: it’s a fascinating introduction to Sacristán’s life and work, and it convinced me that I should get to know his writings. In fact, shortly after finishing that book I ordered the volumes of the Pamphlets and materials that I was missing – which was a bit complicated, since I was living in the United States – and then I began to read Sacristán little by little, motivated and guided, to some extent, by the comments and assessments of the interviewees in About Manuel Sacristán .
Salvador López Arnal: Thank you, thank you very much. Is there any text you’d like to highlight from that initial approach? Weren’t you surprised that it touched on such diverse topics: philosophy, logic, Marxism, literary criticism, political interventions, philosophy of science…?
Renzo Llorente: I found it very curious—and still do—that Sacristán could be so interested in Heidegger’s work as well as in formal logic. These aren’t tastes that one philosopher usually combines. Regarding the variety of topics Sacristán addresses, it did catch my attention, but I think it was clear to me from the beginning that in his case it wasn’t a matter of dilettantism, as it is in the case of some philosophers who dabble in different fields and genres.
Among the texts I read at the beginning, I would highlight “The University and the Division of Labor” and “Studium Generale for Every Day of the Week.” Both address the problem of the division of labor, a topic I was already working on—it was, in fact, the subject of my doctoral dissertation—when I began reading Sacristán. On the other hand, I remember being quite impressed when I first read “ Engels’s Task in Anti-Dühring .”
Salvador López Arnal: What do you find most unique, most interesting, about his Marxism? What attracts you most to Sacristán’s perspective?
Renzo Llorente: To avoid going into too much detail, I’ll mention two things. First, his recognition of the moral dimension of Marxism. Historically, many Marxists have tended to deny this aspect of Marxism—or, at best, ignore it—because they thought Marxism was exclusively or fundamentally a “science.” There have even been Marxists and philosophers interested in Marxism who maintained that Marx’s condemnation of capitalism has nothing to do with moral considerations (as was evident in an important debate within Anglo-Saxon analytical Marxism in the 1970s and 80s).
Although passages in which Sacristán directly addresses morality are rather scarce, it is clear that, as Francisco Fernández Buey observed on at least one occasion, Sacristán considers moral inspiration fundamental to Marxism. Secondly, I would highlight his sensitivity to the new social movements that emerged from the 1960s onward. As many know, Sacristán understood very early on that Marxism would have to respond to the challenges posed by environmentalism, feminism, and pacifism. In other words, Marxists could not ignore the problems brought to light by these movements. But unlike many Marxists who, upon realizing the importance of the concerns of environmentalists, feminists, and pacifists, seem to believe that all that needs to be done is to add a few practical commitments (for example, some ecological initiatives or those related to women’s labor demands) to an already well-defined strategic vision, Sacristán understood that taking these concerns seriously meant rethinking and revising many tenets, some very basic, of classical Marxism. Furthermore, I believe that the trait I mentioned earlier—Sacristán’s understanding of the moral foundation of Marxism—facilitated this approach to the new problems, since the most important affinities between the new social movements and Marxism are moral in nature (some shared normative principles).
Salvador López Arnal: Two questions about what you just said: Why is moral inspiration so fundamental in Marxism? What shared normative principles
are you referring to?
Renzo Llorente: Regarding your first question, I think it’s important to distinguish between two issues: the importance of moral inspiration in Marxism, on the one hand, and, on the other, the importance of Marxists explicitly acknowledging this aspect of Marxism. I believe that moral inspiration is fundamental to Marxism because it’s the reason why a socialist or communist society might seem desirable to us. Almost a century ago, Hilferding said that socialism might be inevitable—he was thinking of a certain deterministic interpretation of historical materialism—and that one might resist this inevitability, that is, fight against socialism. Political commitment cannot simply be derived from the acceptance of theoretical postulates. Why is it important to recognize this aspect of Marxism? Three reasons come to mind. First, to foster a correct understanding of the nature of Marxism. Secondly, it is important because when Marxism—that is, Marxist socialism—is compared with liberalism (or any other political doctrine), some points of comparison have to do with moral issues. If the moral dimension of Marxism is barely acknowledged (and developed), these comparisons can hardly be made, and for the same reason, it becomes more difficult to defend Marxism against liberalism, or against any other doctrine. Finally, the moral aspect of Marxism is, I believe, precisely the aspect that most appeals to many people. To deny it—and for that reason, to refuse to develop it—is therefore tantamount to overlooking one of the aspects of Marxism
that attracts, and can attract, many people who wish to build a just world.
Salvador López Arnal – Regarding the normative principles…
Renzo Llorente.- With respect to the normative principles shared between Marxism and the new social movements, I would mention a certain conception of equality, freedom and social justice, as well as the vision of a society in which the spirit of community prevails and where there is no type of domination.
Salvador López Arnal.- Now, almost 30 years after his death, are his theoretical contributions and praxeological reflections still relevant to our problems?
Renzo Llorente: I believe that his way of framing or approaching various problems remains highly relevant today. For example, by embracing the concerns of the new social movements, Sacristán insisted that a profound and radical change in our subjectivity or psyche is truly necessary if we intend to put an end to the destruction of nature, the domination of women, and warmongering. Sacristán expresses this idea particularly vividly in ‘Marxist Tradition and New Problems,’ a lecture he gave in 1983, but the idea is also reflected in his observations on the need for us to change our daily lives.
On the other hand, Sacristán maintained that the working class would continue to be the primary and indispensable agent in any project of social transformation. But he didn’t believe this out of dogma, but for reasons that are still valid today. This stance is especially interesting when we recall the extent to which Sacristán had assimilated some of the approaches of the new social movements. In any case, sin
READ MORE: https://rebelion.org/si-te-interesa-la-filosofia-marxista-merece-la-penar-leer-estos-textos/
