Más allá del orientalismo: Leer a Marx entre Chakrabarty y Aricó

Abstract

Beyond the differences between the intellectual and political practices of Dipesh Chakrabarty and José Aricó, the work of both authors represent a common way of intervening in the discussion about Marx’s Orientalism. Simultaneously with Said’s work and the debates generated by it, the Indian historian and the Argentine intellectual developed a reading of Marx focused on the ambivalences of the German thinker regarding non-European societies. Differentiated from the hypothesis of a necessary Eurocentrism in the configuration of Marxist theory, the two authors endeavored to demonstrate the need for Marxist concepts to account for peripheral realities. In the case of Chakrabarty, rescuing the narrative of capital but opening the Marxist corpus to the problem of historical difference. In the case of Aricó, destabilizing the Marxist tradition through the recovery of a Marx interested in the specificities of non-European societies. Through these operations, Chakrabarty and Aricó developed a critical movement within Marxism that involved maintaining a materialistic position but also opening up to national and regional singularities.

Além das diferenças entre as práticas intelectuais e políticas de Dipesh Chakrabarty e José Aricó, o trabalho de ambos os autores representa uma maneira comum de intervir na discussão sobre o orientalismo de Marx. Simultaneamente ao trabalho de Said e aos debates gerados por ele, o historiador indiano e o intelectual argentino desenvolveram uma leitura de Marx focada nas ambivalências do pensador alemão em relação às sociedades não europeias. Diferenciados da hipótese de um eurocentrismo necessário na configuração da teoria marxista, os dois autores fizeram um esforço para demonstrar a necessidade de ter conceitos marxistas para dar conta das realidades periféricas. No caso de Chakrabarty, resgatando a narrativa do capital, mas abrindo o corpus marxista ao problema da diferença histórica. No caso de Aricó, desestabilizando a tradição marxista através da recuperação de um Marx interessado nas especificidades das sociedades não europeias. Através dessas operações, Chakrabarty e Aricó desenvolveram um movimento crítico dentro do marxismo que envolveu a manutenção de uma posição materialista, mas também a abertura a singularidades nacionais e regionais. Palavras-chave: Dipesh Chakrabarty, José Aricó, Marxismo, Orientalismo.

Beyond the differences between the intellectual and political practices of Dipesh Chakrabarty and José Aricó, the work of both authors represent a common way of intervening in the discussion about Marx’s Orientalism. Simultaneously with Said’s work and the debates generated by it, the Indian historian and the Argentine intellectual developed a reading of Marx focused on the ambivalences of the German thinker regarding non-European societies. Differentiated from the hypothesis of a necessary Eurocentrism in the configuration of Marxist theory, the two authors endeavored to demonstrate the need for Marxist concepts to account for peripheral realities. In the case of Chakrabarty, rescuing the narrative of capital but opening the Marxist corpus to the problem of historical difference. In the case of Aricó, destabilizing the Marxist tradition through the recovery of a Marx interested in the specificities of non-European societies. Through these operations, Chakrabarty and Aricó developed a critical movement within Marxism that involved maintaining a materialistic position but also opening up to national and regional singularities.