Transmodernism, Marxism and Social Change:
some implications for teacher education
MIKE COLE
Bishop Grosseteste College, Lincoln, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT

The author first briefly outlines what he considers to be the defining features of
transmodernism and its relationship both to postmodernism and to Marxism. He then
suggests that transmodern interpretations of the legacy of the European invasions of the
Americas are illuminating, as is Marxism, in providing an understanding of how the
imperialism in which contemporary US foreign policy is currently engaged has a specific and
long-standing genealogy. However, he argues that the Marxist concept of racialisation is
more convincing in explaining the source of violence against the Other than the
transmodern positing of 'basic narcissism' as the source. Next, he contrasts the transmodern
perception of liberal democracy with Marxist analyses of democratic socialism. After this, he
challenges transmodernism's conception of Marxism as an imposed and utopian philosophy
locked within modernism. He concludes with a consideration of the political and economic
choices open to us, and, with respect to these choices, the implications of both
transmodernism and Marxism for sustaining resistance to neo-liberal capitalism and US
imperialism within teacher education.
Introduction
Transmodernism, Modernism and Postmodernism
Transmodern ideas are relatively new to academia in the North. Indeed, it is still relatively difficult
to get copies in English of the publications of its leading advocate, Enrique Dussel. For me,
transmodernism's defining features are:
• not so much a way of thinking as a new way of living in relation to Others;
• anti-Eurocentrism;
• anti-(US)imperialism;
• analogic reasoning: reasoning from outside the system of global domination;
• analectic interaction: listening to the voices of 'suffering Others' and interacting democratically
with suffering Others;
• reverence for (indigenous and ancient) traditions of religion, culture, philosophy and morality;
• rejection of totalising synthesis.
A number of these features are addressed by David Geoffrey Smith (Smith, 2003). Given
transmodernism's 'newness' in the North, and the acclaim given to Smith's paper (it won the
Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies award for 'The Most Outstanding Publication in
Curriculum Studies in Canada in 2003'), it is particularly important that transmodernism and
Smith's interpretation of it receive careful scrutiny.
Smith's analysis needs to be understood in relation to transmodernism's critique of both
modernism and postmodernism. With respect to the former, the argument is that modernism is
'inexorably Eurocentric' (Smith, 2003, p. 497). Smith gives three reasons for this. First, modernism
is not located in an understanding of the way in which the North is complicit in the underdevelopment of the South; second, modernism does not acknowledge the utter violence –
indeed genocide – of the Euro-American contribution to the present global order; third, modernists
do not engage in conversation with the South. While these accusations are valid when directed at
many 'modernists', they certainly do not apply to Marxism, particularly current Marxist analyses,
which do engage with such issues. Top priorities for modern-day Marxists include the way in
which the economic situation in the South is a direct result of decisions made in the North,
particularly with respect to impoverishment as a result of debt burdens; the violence and genocide
practised as a result of the economic and political trajectory of neo-liberal capitalism and
imperialism; and the connections to be made and the lessons to be learned with respect to political
and economic developments in countries such as Cuba, and in Central and South America.
Following Dussel, Smith argues here for a new kind of logic, an 'analogic' – a manner of reasoning
from 'outside' the system of global domination (Smith, 2003, p. 497). While I would acknowledge
that we can learn from the indigenous voice (e.g. Cole, 1986, 1988, 2004a, p. 640), for Marxists, this
assertion by Smith is particularly problematic. This is because a central tenet of Marxist analysis is
that exploitation (the extraction of surplus value) occurs within the system of global domination
and must also be resisted within that system. In particular, with respect to the Marxist position on
class struggle, the transition for the working class to a class for itself (acknowledging its exploitation
and willing to challenge the capitalist system), in addition to being a class in itself (an objective fact
because of workers' shared exploitation, explained by the Labour Theory of Value) (Marx, 1976)
[1852] [1] must by definition occur inside the system of global domination.
As far as postmodernism is concerned, Smith argues that it is essentially inward-looking. As he
puts it, its 'celebration of particularity has rendered a collapse of concern for anything beyond what
individual experience can express, whether in the name of autobiography, story, nation, tribe,
personal therapy, or phenomenology' (Smith, 2003, p. 497).
Like Dussel, Smith sees the modernist and postmodernist agendas 'as trapped within a mutually
self-serving antagonism, and hence helpless to address the massive violence against human wellbeing
perpetrated in the name of a parochial truth claim' (Smith, 2003, p. 497). Elsewhere, Smith
(2004, p. 644) refers to the 'myth of sacrifice' (the underside of 'the myth of emancipative reason'),
whereby killing is justified 'as an act of love'. Both capitalism and Marxism, Smith suggests, 'are
underwritten by this common myth because of their European origins. Hence oceans of blood on
both sides in the name of emancipation' (Smith, 2004, pp. 644-645).
He goes on to suggest that this entrapment can be easily observed in the Western academy in
the tension between the universalistic logic of the modernists and the particularity of the
postmodernists (Smith, 2003, p. 497). In Cole (2004a), I argued against the notion that Marxism
represents a 'universal logic' (p. 636) and against the idea that Marxism cannot address the massive
violence perpetuated in the name of that distorted 'truth claim' that is represented by Stalinism
(pp. 636-637).[2]
Having rejected both modernism and postmodernism, Smith makes the case for Dusselian
transmodernism.
Transmodernism, Postmodernism and Marxism
In Cole (2004a), I critically analysed Smith's (2003) interpretation of transmodernism, and assessed
its contribution to the analysis of current US imperialism. I argued that transmodernism, in
common with postmodernism, 'rejects all forms of totalising synthesis' (Dallmayr, 2004, p. 10) and
eschews metanarratives. Marxism is thus ruled out, as is the naming of democratic socialism, as a
viable future. This rejection, I concluded, is based on a reified conception of Marxism, whereas
Marxism should rather be seen as a living philosophy which can adapt to changing circumstances.
The problem with the transmodern rejection of all metanarratives is that the very real
metanarrative of capitalism is aided in the retention of its hegemony. I argued, however (Cole,
2004a, p. 637), that transmodernism is theoretically and practically more progressive than
postmodernism. For example, unlike postmodernsim, transmodernism does not favour
multivocality, but instead privileges some voices over others. As I suggested, following Smith
(2003, p. 499), transmodernism goes beyond postmodern deconstruction, and actively seeks out not
just Others, 'but ... suffering Others'. Marxists have always privileged those suffering under class oppression: the working class. Modern-day Marxists also show awareness of and commitment to
combating the oppression of those oppressed on other grounds. In addition, transmodernism can
provide useful insights into the nature of neo-liberal US imperialism (as in its genesis and
genealogy, as discussed below) (for an extended analysis, see Cole, 2004a, pp. 635-636). As Fred
Dallmayr has put it, referring to transmodernism's founder: 'Dussell is a thinker from the
"periphery" vigorously opposed to Bush's design of world domination. As such he can be a
valuable ally for all right-minded people' (his comments on this article).[3] Marxism is also a
valuable ally. In fact, Lenin (1916) substantially predates transmodernism in his analysis of
imperialism – for him the highest stage of capitalism and 'the eve of socialist revolution'. Before
and since Lenin's major work, a number of other Marxists have analysed imperialism (e.g.
Luxemburg, 1913; Bukharin, 1917; Brewer, 1980; Hardt & Negri, 2000).
Transmodernism and the Legacy of the European Invasions
The major strength of transmodernism, I would argue, lies in its argument that European
philosophers still are not facing the historical responsibilities of their legacies (Smith, 2004, p. 644).
For Dussell the birth date of 'modernity' was 1492, the European 'discovery' and ensuing conquest
of the Americas (Smith, 2003, p. 494), which marked a shift of the centre of global power from
Islamic Central Asia to Europe with the rest of the world henceforward marked as periphery
(Smith, 2003, p. 494).
As I argued in Cole (2004a, p. 268), while Dussel acknowledges the foreshadowing by some
tendencies of the later Middle Ages, he writes, modernity
came to birth in Europe's confrontation with the Other. By controlling, conquering and
violating the Other, Europe defined itself as discoverer, conquistador, and colonizer of an
alterity likewise constitutive of modernity. Europe never discovered ... this Other as Other
but covered over ... the Other as part of the Same: i.e. Europe. Modernity dawned in 1492
and with it the myth of a special kind of sacrificial violence which eventually eclipsed
whatever was non-European. (Dussel, 1995, p. 12)
Basic narcissism, according to Dussel, is the source of Western violence, 'because under the
assumption of its inherent superiority, the myth of emancipative reason is actually incapable of
registering the experience of those falling outside of its own operating paradigm, and most
especially those suffering under it' (1995, p. 495). Accordingly, the myth of sacrifice means that any
refusal of the myth of emancipative reason, or even ignorance of it, is a cause for subjugation, or, in
its starkest terms, a just cause for genocide (1995, p. 495).
Transmodernism makes an important contribution to an understanding of this legacy of the
European invasion of the Americas, because it reveals how the imperialism in which contemporary
US foreign policy is currently engaged has a specific and long-standing genealogy. However, I have
problems with vague notions of 'narcissism' ('excessive ... interest in oneself and one's physical
appearance' [Pearsall, 2001, pp. 947-948), in explaining the source of Western violence directed
against the Other. Not only might narcissism be applicable to a number of other varied 'cultures',
its psycho-social nature renders it, for me, less convincing than the materialist concept of
racialisation.
Racialisation
Robert Miles (1987) has defined racialisation as a process that accompanies the appropriation of
labour power, where people are categorised (falsely) into distinct 'races'. As Miles puts it, the
processes are not explained by the fact of capitalist development (a functionalist position). However,
'the process of racialisation cannot be adequately understood without a conception of, and
explanation for the complex interplay of different modes of production and, in particular, of the
social relations necessarily established in the course of material production' (1987, p. 7). It is this
interconnection which makes the concept of racialisation inherently Marxist.
For Marxists, any discourse is a product of the society in which it is formulated. In other words,
'our thoughts are the reflection of political, social and economic conflicts and racist discourses are no exception' (Camara, 2002, p. 88). Dominant discourses (e.g. those of the government, of big
business, of large sections of the media, of the hierarchy of some trade unions) tend to directly
reflect the interests of the ruling class, rather than 'the general public'. The way in which
racialisation connects with popular consciousness, however, is via 'common sense'. 'Common
sense' is generally used to denote a down-to-earth 'good sense' and is thought to represent the
distilled truths of centuries of practical experience, so that to say that an idea or practice is 'only
common sense' is to claim precedence over the arguments of left intellectuals and, in effect, to
foreclose discussion (Lawrence, 1982, p. 48). In fact, common sense:
is not a single unique conception, identical in time and space. It is the 'folklore' of
philosophy, and, like folklore, it takes countless different forms. Its most fundamental
characteristic is that it is ... fragmentary, incoherent and inconsequential. (Gramsci, 1978,
p. 419)
The rhetoric of the purveyors of dominant discourses aims to shape 'common sense discourse' into
formats which serve their interests. I have argued recently (Cole, forthcoming, 2006a) how 'the
eclipse of the non-European' following the European invasion of 1492, consolidated by subsequent
invasions and conquests, unleashed racialised capitalism, often gendered, on a grand scale. The
expansion of capital entailed, on the one hand, the attempted enslavement, the massacre, and the
seizing of the land of indigenous peoples, both local and adjacent; and, on the other, the beginnings
of the transatlantic slave trade. Its legacy today includes a very high and disproportionate suicide
rate for Native Americans in general, and continuing attacks on the reproductive rights of Native
American women; the 'prison industrial complex' – a legacy of slavery – where people of color are
disproportionately represented; human rights abuse at US borders; and continuing segregation in
US cities. Its legacy is also, of course, the horrors of US imperialism, which involves similar
genocide and other human rights abuse. Once groups have become racialised via 'common sense',
for example, as 'savages' in the case of indigenous peoples, or sub-human and genetically inferior,
as in the case of African slaves, genocide becomes less problematic (Cole, forthcoming, 2006a; see
also McLaren, 1997), as do torture and other human rights abuses, to which Guantanamo Bay and
Abu Graib bear witness (Cole, 2004d, p. 533; Cole, 2005a, p. 58; McLaren, 2005).
Rethought Liberal Democracy or Democratic Socialism?
Bourgeois democracy is in crisis, given what is happening in the USA with respect to the
manipulation of numbers, the death of truth and media distortion. Smith (2003, p. 488) has dealt
with these issues at length. As I pointed out in Cole (2004a, p. 640), Smith argues that special
circumstances, such as 'the condition of contemporary North American culture', require the
creation of new language and new terminology. He coins the phrase, 'enfraudening the public
sphere' to describe 'not just simple or single acts of deception, cheating or misrepresentation'
(which may be described as 'defrauding'), but rather 'a more generalized active conditioning of the
public sphere through systemized lying, deception and misrepresentation' (Smith, 2003,
pp. 488-489).
Citing Weatherford (1990), Smith's solution to this enfraudening process is a rethinking of
liberal democracy (Smith, 2003, p. 499) and a 'return to the theory of democracy Thomas Paine
learned, not from the Greeks or the French, but from the Iroquois on the banks of the Delaware
river' (2003, p. 500). This theory of democracy, Smith continues, relates to 'consensus making
[which] ... arises from "sitting together" until that truth is found which can be held in common'
(2003, p. 500). I would argue that this is a utopian vision in the context of current anti-democratic
US imperialism and global neo-liberal capitalism, a context critically explored by Smith in his paper.
Democratic socialism, based on Marxist principles is, I will suggest, the only viable benevolent
future for humankind.[4]
Thomas Paine's rejection of heredity and of a 'House of Commons' which is honest and
truthful and serves the best interests of ordinary men and women was, in its time, certainly
revolutionary. However, I would argue that the time has passed for the existence of a transparent,
open, genuine and truthful form of bourgeois democracy. Paine's wish that parliaments should
truly represent the interests of the people seems strangely anachronistic.
Rather than 'a search for truth', elections are often characterised by distortions and slurs,
pandering to people's baser feelings. This is apparent in Britain in the right-wing popular press,
which has a major influence on the outcome of British elections (e.g. MacArthur, 2005). During the
run-up to the 2005 general election, for example, opposition leader Michael Howard 'played the
"race" card' by announcing further immigration restriction for asylum seekers and refugees. Eager
to legitimise the racialisation of these groups, the right-wing press featured a large number of
references to 'common sense'. For example, political editor of Britain's most popular tabloid,
Trevor Kavanagh, wrote an article with huge headlines declaring: 'This isn't racism. It's
COMMON SENSE' (The Sun, 25 January 2005, pp. 8-9), while, in the same edition, in order to
foreclose any consideration of a liberal, let alone left perspective, columnist Richard Littlejohn used
the phrases 'the Fascist left' and 'the Labour/Liberal/BBC/Guardianistas axis' and informed
readers that 'the Left always, always tell lies' (The Sun, 25 January 2005, p. 11) (for an extended
analysis, see Cole & Virdee, forthcoming, 2006; see also Cole, 2004e).
Littlejohn was not warning his readers about New Labour, who quickly followed up Howard's
intervention by announcing similar racist policy decisions. During the same pre-election period,
New Labour was rebuked for publishing two anti-Semitic cartoons on its website: the first
portrayed both the leader of the Opposition, Michael Howard, and the Shadow Home Secretary,
Oliver Letwin (both Jewish) as 'flying pigs'; the other, Howard as Fagin (Rees-Mogg, 2005).
There was little in this election campaign that Thomas Paine would recognise as liberal
democracy, as anything remotely connected with 'sitting together until that truth is found which
can be held in common'. More recently, Smith (2004, p. 644) has appealed to a vision of 'vitalized
senses of social democracy as necessary for the future'. Social democracy is epitomised by the
British Labour Party in government 1945-51, 1964-70 and 1974-76 [5] (Benn & Chitty, 1996; Hillcole
Group, 1997; Hill, 2001a). Following Heffernan (1997), Hill (2001a, p. 14) identifies one of the
essential features of social democracy as 'a mixed pseudo-Keynesian economy (an economic mix of
public sector and private sector control and provision, together with government reflation during
recessions)'.
While Marxists, of course, acknowledge and abhor the recent state of US excesses, and current
British political and media manipulations centred on racialisation, their argument is that bourgeois
democracy is always a numbers game, always distorts the truth, and always involves manipulation
by politicians and by the media. Democratic socialism is a totally different concept to Smith's
concept of liberal democracy and his more recent advocacy of social democracy. Unlike consensusbased
liberal democracy and social democracy, democratic socialism is not a political bedfellow of
the capitalist economy.
Democratic socialism is, by definition, a post-capitalist form of politics. It arises out of the
transcendence of class struggle, and thus is a product of conflict rather than consensus. Democratic
socialism is a much more profoundly democratic phenomenon than anything possible under
capitalism. It amounts to nothing less than a new realm of human freedom. As Tom Hickey
(forthcoming, 2006) puts it with great eloquence and passion:
Class struggle is treated in Marx's model as endemic to the capitalist system. It is ineradicable
and perpetual, though it does not always, or even typically, take the form of open conflict or
expressed hostility. It arises ineluctably from the tension generated by the zero-sum game
between wage income and profits to capital. The objective interests of the bourgeoisie and
the proletariat are incompatible, and therefore generate not a tendency to permanent
hostility and open warfare but a permanent tendency toward them. The system is thus
prone to economic class conflict, and, given the cyclical instability of its economy, subject to
periodic political and economic crises. It is at these moments that the possibility exists for
social revolution. Crises provide the opportunity for transition from the oppressive and
exploitative, competitive and alienating conditions of the order of capital to a realm of
human freedom in which humanity as a whole, through a radically democratic structure,
engages collectively in satisfying its needs, ordering its priorities, and constructing new needs
and aspirations to strive for, and challenges to overcome.
Thus, I would question Smith's recourse to rethought liberal democracy, or to 'vitalized senses of
social democracy'. For similar reasons, I would also reject the arguments of those on the left, who
believe in the parliamentary road to democratic socialism, since, in capitalist society, the interest of
capitalists and workers are diametrically opposed.
Marxism and Social Change
I have three points to make with respect to Marxism and social change: the first relates specifically
to Smith's notion that Marxism involves imposition; the second concerns Smith's use of the term
'(vulgar) Marxism'; and the third is related to Smith's conception of Marxism as a 'utopian
typification'. I will deal with each in turn.
Imposition or Majoritarian Revolution?
Smith's conception that Marxism involves imposition is implied by his use of the phrase, a
'hammer in the hands of the self-righteous' (Smith, 2003, p. 500) and by his assertion that Marxism
is 'foist upon us' (Smith, 2004, p. 645). This accords with the 'common sense' notion that Marxism
has to be imposed because 'people don't want it'. Smith's use of the term 'self-righteous' also
implies a morally superior minority (Smith, 2003, p. 500).
Marxism is not about minority imposition. The establishment of socialism should be a
majoritarian project. As exemplified by the citation from Hickey above, Marx argued that
capitalism is subject to periodic political and economic crises. It is at these moments that the
possibility exists for social revolution. Such a revolution can only occur, however, when the
working class, in addition to being a 'class-in-itself' becomes 'a class-for-itself'. So Marxism is about
the action of the majority, not imposition from a minority, as is implied by Smith. As Marx & Engels
state (1976 [1846], p. 56) in The German Ideology: 'The proletariat can ... only exist world-historically ...
its activity can only have a "world-historical" existence' (original emphases).
As Glenn Rikowski points out, this shows that, for Marx and Engels, the struggle for socialism
must be majoritarian not just in a national sense, but in a global sense, as recognised by the
Trotskyite emphasis on permanent, global revolution, as opposed to the (Stalinist) concept of
'socialism in one country'. Socialism is a struggle of the overwhelming majority of people
throughout the globe against the forces of and personal representatives of capital. For Marx and
Engels, the termination of capitalist social relations has to be global (Rikowski's comments on this
article).
(Vulgar) Marxism
My second point relates to Smith's use of the term '(vulgar) Marxism'. In his 2004 article, he uses
this term on two occasions. First, when he equates Marxism with 'oceans of blood' (see above),
Smith actually uses the term '(vulgar) Marxism' (Smith 2004, pp. 644-645).[6]. Second, he concludes
this article by stating that we need to 'refuse what both capitalism and (vulgar) Marxism foist upon
us' (2004, p. 645). In using the term '(vulgar) Marxism' in these contexts, Smith does not seem to be
aware of the conventional meaning of the term 'vulgar Marxism'. Vulgar Marxism traditionally
refers to economic determinism, where the economic base determines what happens at the other
(superstructural) levels of society: the political system, educational system and so on. As Robert
M. Young (1998) puts it:
The defining feature of Marxist approaches to the history of science is that the history of
scientific ideas, of research priorities, of concepts of nature and of the parameters of
discoveries are all rooted in historical forces which are, in the last instance, socio-economic.
There are variations in how literally this is taken and various Marxist-inspired and Marxistrelated
positions define the interrelations among science and other historical forces more or
less loosely. There is a continuum of positions. The most orthodox provides one-to-one
correlations between the socio-economic base and the intellectual superstructure. This is
referred to as economism or vulgar Marxism.
Smith's use of '(vulgar) Marxism' does not seem to be connected to notions of the base/
superstructure relationship (a widely debated topic in Marxist theory), and, like his use of Marxism per se, seems more to do with Stalinism and 'minority imposition' than conventional
understandings of vulgar Marxism. Indeed, Smith's analysis does not show cognisance of
developments in Marxism post Stalinism/post Third International.
Utopianism and Blueprints for the Future
My third point relates to Smith's conception of Marxism as a 'utopian typification' (Smith, 2004,
p. 645). It is a common misunderstanding that Marxists believe in 'an ideal world'; in a utopia, in a
blueprint for the future. How often has one heard in response to the argument of Marxists, the
'common sense' reply: 'it sounds all right in theory, but it won't work in practice'? Utopianism is, in
fact, however, the province of utopian socialists, rather than Marxists. Utopian socialism
conventionally refers to the eighteenth/nineteenth century writings of Henri de Saint-Simon,
Charles Fourier and Robert Owen (Marx & Engels, 1977 [1847]). Marxists distinguish utopian
socialism from Marxism, in that utopian socialists believed in change for all, in the context of an
untransformed economy. Marxists, on the other hand, advocate revolutionary change. As I have
put it elsewhere:
One thing these utopian socialists all had in common was that, unlike Marxists, who are
interested in the emancipation of one class (the working class) the utopian socialists were
concerned with liberating all humanity without the revolutionary changes, envisaged by
Marxists. As Marx and Engels (1977 [1847], p. 60) point out, Saint Simon, Fourier and Owen
all recognised the class antagonisms in existing societies, but viewed the working class as 'a
class without any historical initiative'. (Cole, forthcoming, 2007)
With respect to a Marxist vision of the future, '[w]e are ... locked', as Gibson & Rikowski (2004)
point out, 'into capitalist society, and our capacity to visualise anything beyond it, such as socialist
society ... is impossible'. Furthermore, as illustrated in the citation by Hickey above, the trajectory
of socialism cannot be decided a priori , since it entails a project whereby humanity as a whole,
through a radically democratic structure, engages collectively in satisfying its needs, ordering its
priorities, and constructing new needs and aspirations to strive for, and challenges to overcome.
Rikowski (2004, pp. 559-560) gives four other (interrelated) reasons why Marxists do not have
blueprints for the future. First, Marx held that the struggle for socialism must be based on the selfactivity
of the working class: the workers themselves must make history. Thus, he was reluctant to
provide a blueprint for socialist society, since this would contradict and negate workers' practical
solutions to the movement from capitalist to socialist society. Second, the practice of lone thinkers
projecting the 'society of the future' runs against the collective, democratic and experimental and
experiential nature of the socialist project. Third, those setting themselves up as 'experts' for
generating blueprints for socialism – whether they are leaders of left political parties, academic
Marxists or Marxists writing outside of academia – would amount to establishing themselves as an
elite of people 'in the know' with respect to what socialism was and could be. Rikowski cites
Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, where Marx signals the dangers of this:
The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets
that circumstances are changed by men [sic] and that the educator must himself be educated.
This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one which is superior to society.
(Marx, 1845, p. 616, cited in Rikowski, 2004, p. 560)
For Marx, such elitism had no place in the socialist movement.
Fourth, Rikowski continues, Marx was keen to emphasise the creativity and spontaneity of the
drive towards socialism, and to chart and assess the practical experiments of workers in this
endeavour. He cites, by way of example, the Paris Commune of 1871, the course of which was
enthusiastically followed by Marx who wrote about the way workers' power was manifested in
novel and exciting ways. Any notion of a definitive model for socialism, Rikowski goes on, would
inhibit the creative, energising and exciting moments of the struggle for an alternative society.
Thus, Rikowski (2004, p. 560) concludes, Marxism is not about specifying typifications for future
societies. Moreover, there is no final destination. 'The social drive to form a truly human society is
infinite, just as capital's social drives (to create value, to enhance human labour-power) are also
infinite' (Rikowski, 2004, p. 560).

In describing Marxism as imposition, in linking it with Stalinism, and in equating it with utopia,
Smith seriously misrepresents the Marxist project.
Political and Economic Choices
So what choices do we have? One choice is, with Smith, to rethink bourgeois democracy: we can
attempt to make capitalism more humane, a project epitomised by the aforementioned social
democratic project of the British Labour Party in government from 1945 until the 1970s, and by
regulation theory. This, however, is a most unlikely option. Capital is spiralling out of control, and
unconcerned with traditional conceptions of democracy. As Rikowski (2001, pp. 4-5) has argued:
Capital moves, but not of its own accord: the mental and physical capabilities of workers
(labour-power) enable these movements through their expression in labour. Our labour
enables the movements of capital and its transformations (e.g. surplus value into various
forms of capital). The social universe of capital then is a universe of constant movement; it
incorporates and generates a restlessness unparalleled in human history. ... It is set on a
trajectory, the 'trajectory of production' ... powered not simply by value but by the 'constant
expansion of surplus value'. [It is a movement] 'independent of human control'. ... It is a
movement out of control.
Given its rapacious and predatory nature and, in particular, given the advances made since the
1980s neo-liberal revolution, it is most unlikely that capitalism will retreat to its pre-1980s position.
My argument is not that capitalism cannot in theory be made more democratic or humane. The
point is that, in the words of Kevin Watkins of Oxfam, '[i]ndustrialised countries ... have
collectively reneged on every commitment made' (Guardian, 12 November 2001, p. 22). In fact,
organisations such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) [7], the World Bank, and the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) are constitutionally destined to fail in any attempt at addressing
the marginalisation of 'the developing world'. The WTO can only set maximum standards for
global trade, rather than the minimum standards that might restrain big corporations, while the
World Bank and the IMF, entirely controlled by the creditor nations, exist to police the poor
world's debt on their behalf. Rather than recognise these inherent defects, their backers blame the
poor countries themselves. Peter Sutherland, former head of the WTO, has asserted that it is
'indisputable that the real problem with the economies that have failed [is] their own domestic
governments', while Maria Cattui, who runs the International Chamber of Commerce, insisted
that the 'fault lies most of all at home with the countries concerned' (Monbiot, 2001, p. 17).
Any possible gain for poor and dispossessed workers in the developing countries and elsewhere
as a result of increasing global political awareness, including the current Commission for Africa
initiative (March, 2005) (www.commissionforafrica.org) by British Prime Minister Tony Blair,
Chancellor Gordon Brown, and Secretary of State for International Development, Hilary Benn, is
likely to be minimalist and short-lived.
Neo-liberal capitalism is deepening its hold on all aspects of everyday life, including taking an
increasing national and global role in the ownership and management of education, health and
social services (e.g. Cole, forthcoming, 2006b; Hatcher, forthcoming, 2005; Hill, 2004a, b, 2005,
forthcoming, 2006; Hill et al, 2005). This massive onslaught has led Ellen Meiksins Wood (1995) to
conclude that the lesson that we may be obliged to draw from our current economic and political
condition is that a humane, 'social', truly democratic and equitable capitalism is more
unrealistically utopian than socialism.
So, if I am right that a return to a more democratic and humane capitalism is not likely to
happen, the only choices available are to continue down the path of neo-liberal capitalism and
imperialism, or worse, fascism; or to challenge capitalism itself. The suggestion by Smith (2004,
p. 645) that we can harness Taoism and Buddhism to refuse capitalism and US imperialism (Smith,
2003, p. 500) seems hopelessly utopian, particularly in a country like the USA, where evangelical
theo-conservatism is hegemonic.[8]
Marxism, I would argue, presents the only viable humane alternative to capitalism. Bringing
Marxism back to the forefront, however, is not an easy task. Marxists must break through the
'bizarre ideological mechanism, [in which] every conceivable alternative to the market has been
discredited by the collapse of Stalinism' (Callinicos, 2000, p. 122), whereby the fetishisation of life makes capitalism seem natural and therefore unalterable and where the market mechanism 'has
been hypostatized into a natural force unresponsive to human wishes' (p. 125).[9] Capital presents
itself 'determining the future as surely as the laws of nature make tides rise to lift boats (McMurtry,
2000, p. 2), 'as if it has now replaced the natural environment. It announces itself through its
business leaders and politicians as coterminous with freedom, and indispensable to democracy such
that any attack on capitalism as exploitative or hypocritical becomes an attack on world freedom
and democracy itself' (McLaren, 2000, p. 32).[10]
However, the biggest impediment to social revolution is not capital's resistance, but its success
in heralding the continuation of capitalism as being the only option. As Callinicos (2000, p. 128)
puts it, despite the inevitable intense resistance from capital, the 'greatest obstacle to change is not
... the revolt it would evoke from the privileged, but the belief that it is impossible'.
Challenging this climate requires courage, imagination and willpower inspired by the
injustice that surrounds us. Beneath the surface of our supposedly contented societies, these
qualities are present in abundance. Once mobilized, they can turn the world upside down
(Callinicos, 2000, p. 129)
Teacher Education
Constraints
All attempts to mobilise resistance to neo-liberal global capitalism and imperialism can invoke
intense surveillance and persecution from the capitalist state. With respect to higher education, this
is particularly the case in the USA at the moment (Hill, 2004a, b, c; Hill et al, 2005; McLaren, 2005;
Walsh, 2005). As far as teacher education is concerned, since teacher educators can have a major
influence on future teachers, and thereby the next generation, teacher education potentially
presents a rich arena for the furtherance of progressive ideas. For this reason, along with schools
themselves, teacher education tends to be singled out for special treatment from the state.
Between 1987 and 1993, during the Thatcher and post-Thatcher Conservative governments in
Britain, for example, I, personally, was under general attack from the right-wing educational
establishment of the time (Cole, 1990). This included allegations of 'Marxist bias' in my teaching in
the School of Education at Brighton Polytechnic – now the University of Brighton. The extent to
which my work was perceived as a threat is evidenced by the fact that negative references to it are
cited in The Spectator (15 October 1988), by the then influential radical right Hillgate Group (1989,
pp. 29-35) and in the first volume of Margaret Thatcher's memoirs (Thatcher, 1993, pp. 597-598). It
also involved a libel writ from a high-ranking Conservative peer (Cole, 2004f).
For Thatcher (who believed that there was 'no such thing as society, only individuals and their
families') and Thatcherites, attacks on less powerful individuals, such as isolated academics, was par
for the course, and part of the ongoing assault on anything viewed as being not conducive to the neo-
Conservative agenda – in this case, a (perceived) radical left threat to schooling from within teacher
education.
Like Thatcher, Blair targets societal structures which impede 'modernisation' (read 'neo-liberal
capitalism') (Cole, 2005b) but he does not tend to personally attack individuals in academia. This is
no longer necessary, since teacher education and schooling has been conformed to the neo-liberal
agenda. Thatcherism achieved its main objectives in detheorising teacher education (Hill, 2001b,
2004c, forthcoming, 2006). At Brighton Polytechnic/University of Brighton, for example, core
course units validated under the 1984 Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (CATE)
Criteria, which had focused ..ual and egalitarian issues in education (set out in Hill, 1989)
were replaced in the late 1980s. Their content and concepts became, under the 1989 and then the
1992/93 CATE Criteria, less visible in the successor BA Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) courses.
Surveillance of teacher education under New Labour thus takes a different form; namely, Office for
Standards in Education (Ofsted) inspections and the enforcement, set out in its various
publications, of the Teacher Training Agency's 'national curriculum' for teacher education (Hill,
2001b, 2004a, c, forthcoming, 2006). This 'national curriculum' exists partly as a result of increased
surveillance in schools in the form of school Ofsted inspections, league tables, the literacy and
numeracy strategies, and so on.

Possibilities
What, then, should critical teacher educators, including Marxists, strive for in the future? How can
we sustain resistance to neo-liberal capitalism and imperialism? Fischman & McLaren (2005,
pp. 351-353) have suggested four ways forward. First, student teachers need to engage in an
analysis of the mechanics of capitalist production and exchange. Marxism would be an obvious
starting point. In this context, they should be introduced to theories of power, and should be
encouraged to investigate aspects of control, the process of commodification, the creation of
violence in nation states, and destructive patterns in the earth's ecosystems. To this I would add,
student teachers also need to be critically aware of systems of imperialism, past and present.
Transmodernism and Marxism, as argued above, can be important in facilitating this.
Second, student teachers need to be able to relate shifting patterns of globalization and their
effect on local communities. Again, Marxism would be a logical starting point. Student teachers
should not only be involved in struggles for a better education for all pupils, they should also
connect their professional needs with local community struggles for better jobs, working
conditions, health services, day care facilities, housing and so on.
Third, there is a need to connect with local oppressed communities. What is required is
reciprocal knowledge. This should involve moving beyond white, Anglo-Saxon, middle-class and
heterosexist educational norms, and in Fischman & McLaren's (2005, p. 352) words, we should
'explore the subjugated knowledges of women [and] minority groups'. Here, transmodernism's
prioritising of 'suffering Others' is germane, though, as argued earlier, oppression based on
identities other than class is now acknowledged in recent and current Marxist analysis and practice.
Transmodernism's 'new way of living in relation to Others' is also useful. The argument is that it is
not just a case of thinking differently about 'suffering Others', but also about interacting with
reciprocity and mutuality. Finally, the Marxist concept of racialisation is most pertinent in
connecting with oppressed communities, since it helps understand how and why certain groups are
oppressed. A move beyond traditional educational norms would, by necessity, involve teachers and
teacher educators in a number of struggles. Local struggles would, of course, relate to national and
international struggles. It would be important to make interconnections between them.
Fourth, teacher education programmes need to emphasise a media literacy curriculum, in order
to acquire the multiple literacies required to engage critically with hegemonic discourses.
Understanding such discourses can be facilitated by the transmodern concept of enfraudening
(Smith, 2003), outlined above. Student teachers need to be able to find ways of breaking through
these processes. Smith's current teaching concentrates on the specifically religious and spiritual
roots of capitalist theory, on the basis that he does not think much progress will be made in
critiques of capitalism until it is 'desacralized' (personal correspondence). This connects to the
transmodern reverence for pre-capitalist religion, culture, philosophy and morality. As Smith
argues, this is much like the necessity for the World Council of Churches to declare apartheid a
heresy in order to desacralise and hence delegitimise it. Certainly, in the North American context,
he goes on, God and Mammon have conflated, and this has a whole genealogy that can be traced.
Given the entrenchment of theo-conservatism, noted above, this is a major, but most worthwhile
counter-hegemonic task. However, unlike Marxism, it does not, in itself, provide any solutions.
I would like to add a fifth suggestion for ways forward for teacher education programmes. I
would like to suggest that, at the heart of teacher education, space is created for a consideration,
both historic and contemporaneous, of the varying understandings of society, provided by
postmodernism/post-structuralism, transmodernism and Marxism.[11] This would not only
stimulate debate about the nature of our world, it might encourage student teachers to transcend
'common sense' and to move towards a critical understanding of all that envelops them. It might
also engender a belief that a different world is possible, that 'history is always in the making'
(Fischman & McLaren, 2005, p. 356). We are talking about empowerment. As Antonia Darder
(2002, p. 110) has put it, with respect to school pupils/students, but equally prescient to student
teachers:
empowerment ... entails participation in pedagogical relationships in which ... [student
teachers] experience the freedom to break through the imposed myths and illusions that
stifle [them] and the space to take individual and collective actions that can ... transform their
lives.

And, of course, the lives of others.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank John Clay, Fred Dallmayr, Dave Hill, Brian Matthews, Peter McLaren and
Glenn Rikowski for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article, and Dave Hill and
Glenn Rikowski for further comments on a later version. As always, any inadequacies remain mine.
Notes
[1] For a discussion of the Labour Theory of Value, see Cole, 2003, pp. 494-495.
[2] In the same paper (Cole, 2004a, p. 630) I argued that postmodernism has a high profile in educational
theory, and in many ways, along with post-structuralism, it may be viewed as the dominant
paradigm in this field in the United Kingdom (e.g. Atkinson, 2002, 2004) and in the USA (e.g. Lather,
1991, 2001). Postmodernism and post-structuralism, however, I pointed out, have been subject to
sustained critique in recent years from Marxist educators (e.g. Green, 1994; Cole & Hill, 2002; Cole et
al, 1997, 2001; Hill et al, 2002; McLaren & Farahmandpur, 2002a, b; Cole, 2003, 2004b, 2004c). I went
on to argue (Cole, 2004a, p. 637) that the Marxist critique of postmodernism and post-structuralism
relates to their joint rejection of any notion of (the possibility of) order and coherence in society and
of an ordered socialist world; the refusal of the metanarrative, that is to say of an overarching theory
about society, such as Marxism; their rejection of duality, thus failing to acknowledge the existence of
class struggle; their plural view of truth, such that all accounts have equal worth, rather than
privileging some accounts over others (related to this is the concept of multivocality [multiple voices]
where everyone's opinion has equal worth); their stress on deconstruction alone, rather than
deconstruction and reconstruction; and their concentration of the local at the expense of the national
and the global, thus rendering major structural change non-viable. For a discussion of the differences
between postmodernism and post-structuralism, see Cole, 2003, pp. 496-497.
[3] My aim in this article is not confrontation. As in Cole (2004a, p. 633), it is rather the continuation of
comradely discussion. The joint aim of transmodernism and Marxism is to disrupt the trajectory of
(neo-liberal) capitalism and imperialism. Some have gone so far as to compare this trajectory with
Nazi fascism (see, for example, McLaren, 2005). On Holocaust Memorial Day I was sent the
following attachment by a colleague:
The danger is real, the pace quickens. What lessons should we learn from Auschwitz? Learn that
there is a certain road. It starts with an atrocity which (it is alleged by those in power, the real
perpetrators) was engineered by a mysterious enemy (burning of the Reichstag 1933, 9/11 2001).
This is used to fill the populace with a feeling of terror, of being under attack, and it is used to reduce
the freedoms of those who might disagree with those in power. A certain 'alien' group is portrayed as
untrustworthy (Jews 1930s, Moslems 2000s); everyone is forced to have identity cards, and detention
without trial on the diktat of politicians is allowed. Other nations are portrayed as threats and must
be invaded (1930s Austria, Czecho-slovakia, Poland; 2000s Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran?)This is the
beginning of the road; Auschwitz and Belsen lie at the end. Once a nation starts down that road,
which is a downward path of steadily increasing gradient, it becomes increasingly difficult to change
direction. WE HAVEN'T LEARNT, HAVE WE?
I have always been wary of equating US neo-liberal imperialism with fascism. This is because I
believe that the distinguishing features of the latter, epitomised by the Nazi era, must not lose their
unique and terrible significance. I was, nevertheless, struck in this email by the parallels between
Nazi anti-Semitism and present-day Islamophobia.
[4] Unlike Marxism, which is based on notions of 'conflict' and class struggle, Smith's analysis is based on
'consensus', and, as such, is essentially theoretically liberal pluralist.
[5] It should be noted that Labour was actually in power until 1979, but, as Hill (2001a, p. 14) points out,
'after Callaghan's Ruskin College speech, it changed its education policies'. In fact, in signalling the
need to align schooling closely to the needs of industry, Callaghan's intervention went beyond the
sphere of education and sowed the seeds of 'New Labour', with its essentially neo-liberal agenda.

[6] Smith's use of brackets here indicates that he thinks the points he makes could also apply to Marxism
per se.
[7] The WTO is one of the most untransparent and undemocratic global institutions (Sardar & Davies,
2002, p. 72, cited in Beckmann & Cooper, 2004, p. 2), largely due to the tendency for decisions to be
made in mini-ministerial gatherings of a select group of rich OECD (Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development) member countries, which are dominated by the USA and the
European Union (Rady, 2002, cited in Beckmann & Cooper, 2004, p. 2; see also Cole, forthcoming,
2006b).
[8] It is nonetheless crucial for Marxists to engage in productive dialogue with transmodernists. Those
who accept transmodern arguments are also likely to be amenable to Marxist ones.
[9] Here, we have an ironic twist: the capitalist class and their representatives, who used to deride
Marxists for what they (wrongly) perceived was a belief in the inevitability of social revolution, are
the ones who now champion the inevitability of global neo-liberalism and the accompanying 'worldwide
market revolution' (McMurtry, 2000).
[10] At the same time, globalisation, in reality in existence since the beginnings of capitalism, is hailed as a
new and unchallengeable phenomenon, and its omnipresence used ideologically to further fuel
arguments about capitalism's inevitability (Cole, 1998, 2003, 2004c, 2005b).
[11] Currently, counter-hegemonic work in UK departments of education usually takes place in non-QTS
degrees (although many students on these degrees do eventually undertake QTS qualifications).
What follows, here, by way of example, is the content of three modules currently taught to non-QTS
students at the University of Brighton. Readers will notice a degree of congruence between this
content and the five suggested ways forward.
Module 1:
– An introduction to Marxism and postmodernism and their relationship to education
– The concepts of social class, 'race' and racism, gender, sexuality, disability and special needs and
their relationship to education
– A consideration of some current debates on educational policy
Module 2:
– Introduction to theories of capitalism and globalisation: is globalisation a new phenomenon, or as
old as capitalism itself?
– Introduction to global trends in education, including the General Agreement on Trade in Services
(GATS) and the issue of privatisation and commodification
Module 3:
– The development of Marxist theory
– The development of postmodernist theory
– Marxist and postmodernist theory in a sociological context
– Marxism and postmodernism in educational theory
– Marxism and postmodernism in educational practice
– The relationship between postmodernism, Marxism and the future of education
Full module outlines for all three modules are available on request (mike.cole2@ntlworld.com).
Other examples of critical undergraduate and Master's degree modules are those run at
University College Northampton by Dave Hill and Glenn Rikowski. These are online at the Institute
for Education Policy Studies website at: www.ieps.org.uk. The undergraduate modules are listed
under 'Modules in Critical Education', and the Master's degree modules are under 'MA/Med and
PhDs with Dave Hill and Glenn Rikowski'.
A counter-hegemonic Marxist teacher education course, a four-year B.Ed. full-time course,
developed and led by Dave Hill 1990-95 until it was terminated, is described and analysed in detail in
Hill, forthcoming, 2006 and referred to in Hill, 2001b, 2004c.
Some counter-hegemonic space in teacher education in the UK may be facilitated by up-andcoming
equalities legislation which requires all public institutions to be proactive in promoting
equality and equal opportunities (for an analysis, see Cole, 2005c, forthcoming 2006c). While the UK
government's primary intention may well be a more inclusive and flexible workforce rather than the
promotion of equality, Marxists support all such progressive reforms in capitalist societies, whatever the intentions of their innovators. This, however, is with a view to a longer term project of
transformation to democratic socialism. For similar reasons, Marxists support the left-leaning
governments of South America.
References
Atkinson, E. (2002) The Responsible Anarchist: postmodernism and social change, British Journal of Sociology
of Education, 23(1), pp. 73-87.
Atkinson, E. (2004) Education, Postmodernism and the Organisation of Consent, in J. Satterthwaite,
E. Atkinson & K. Gale (Eds) Discourse, Power, Resistance: challenging the rhetoric of contemporary education.
Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
Beckmann, A. & Cooper, C. (2004) 'Globalisation', the New Managerialism and Education: rethinking the
purpose of education in Britain, Journal of Critical Education Policy Studies, 2(1). Available at:
http://www.jceps.com/print.php?articleID=31
Benn, C. & Chitty, C. (1996) Thirty Years On: is comprehensive education alive and well or struggling to survive?
London: David Fulton.
Brewer, A. (1980) Marxist Theories of Imperialism: a critical survey. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bukharin, N. (1917) Imperialism and World Economy. London: Lawrence.
Callinicos, A. (2000) Equality. Oxford: Polity Press.
Camara, B. (2002) Ideologies of Race and Racism, in P. Zarembka (Ed.) Confronting 9-11, Ideologies of Race, and
Eminent Economists. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Cole, M. (1986) The Aboriginal Struggle: an interview with Helen Boyle, Race and Class, XXVII(4), pp. 21-33.
Cole, M. (1988) As Long as the Sun Rises, Interlink, 5 (February/March), p. 9.
Cole, M. (1990) The Radical Right and Academic Freedom: a personal testimony, paper presented at the
annual conference of the Anti-Racist Teacher Education Network, Birmingham.
Cole, M. (1998) Globalisation, Modernisation and Competitiveness: a critique of the New Labour project in
education, International Studies in Sociology of Education, 8(3), pp. 315-332.
Cole, M. (2003) Might It Be in the Practice that It Fails to Succeed? A Marxist Critique of Claims for
Postmodernism and Poststructuralism as Forces for Social Change and Social Justice, British Journal of
Sociology of Education, 24(4), pp. 487-500.
Cole, M. (2004a) US Imperialism, Transmodernism and Education: a Marxist Critique, Policy Futures in
Education, 2(3 & 4), pp. 633-643.
Cole, M. (2004b) Fun, Amusing, Full of Insights, but Ultimately a Reflection of Anxious Times: a critique of
postmodernism as a force for resistance, social change and social justice, in E. Atkinson, W. Martin &
J. Satterthwaite (Eds) Educational Counter-cultures: confrontations, images, vision. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham
Books.
Cole, M. (2004c) The 'Ordeal of the Undecidable' vs. the 'Inevitability of Globalized Capital': a Marxist
critique, in M. Pruyn & L. Huerta-Charles (Eds) Peter McLaren: paths of dissent. New York: Peter Lang.
Cole, M. (2004d) 'Rule Britannia' and the New American Empire: a Marxist analysis of the teaching of
imperialism, actual and potential, in the British school curriculum, Policy Futures in Education, 2(3 & 4),
pp. 523-538.
Cole, M. (2004e) F*** You – Human Sewage: contemporary global capitalism and the xeno-racialization of
asylum seekers, Contemporary Politics, 10(2), pp. 159-165.
Cole, M. (2004f) Rethinking the Future: the commodification of knowledge and the grammar of resistance, in
M. Benn & C. Chitty (Eds) For Caroline Benn: essays in education and democracy. London: Continuum.
Cole, M. (2005a) Empires Old and New: a Marxist analysis of the teaching of imperialism, actual and
potential, in the British school curriculum', in J. Satterthwaite & E. Atkinson (Eds) Discourses of Education
in the New Imperialism. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
Cole, M. (2005b) New Labour, Globalization, and Social Justice: the role of education, in G. Fischman,
P. McLaren & H. Sünker (Eds) Critical Theories, Radical Pedagogies and Global Conflicts. Lanham: Rowman
& Littlefield.
Cole, M. (2005c) Introductory Chapter: Education and Equality – some conceptual and practical issues, in
M. Cole (Ed.) Professional Values and Practice: meeting the standards, 3rd edn. London: David Fulton.
Cole, M. (forthcoming, 2006a) The Eclipse of the Non-European: historical and current manifestations of
racialization in the US, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29(1).

Cole, M. (forthcoming, 2006b) Neo-liberalism and Education: the case of New Labour, in A. Green &
G. Rikowski (Eds) Renewing Dialogues in Marxism and Education: Volume 1 – Openings. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Cole, M. (forthcoming, 2006c) Introduction, in M. Cole (Ed.) Education, Equality and Human Rights: issues of
gender, 'race', sexuality, disability and social class, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.
Cole, M. (forthcoming, 2007) Marxism, Postmodernism and Education: pasts, presents and futures. London:
Routledge.
Cole, M. & Hill, D. (2002) Resistance Postmodernism: progressive politics or rhetorical left posturing? in
D. Hill, P. McLaren, M. Cole & G. Rikowski (Eds) Marxism against Postmodernism in Educational Theory,
pp. 89-107. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Cole, M. & Virdee, S. (forthcoming, 2006) Racism and Resistance: from empire to New Labour, in M. Cole
(Ed.) Education, Equality and Human Rights: issues of gender, 'race', sexuality, disability and social class, 2nd
edn. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Cole, M., Hill, D. & Rikowski, G. (1997) Between Postmodernism and Nowhere: the p