Alex J. Wood
This article traces the political evolution of Michael Burawoy’s self-declared Marxism; doing so leads to the discovery of two distinctive Michael Burawoys. The first advocated for a Marxism with microfoundations in which the workplace acts as the source of micro-institutions and lived experiences that shape class identities and actions and thus mediates the relationship between relations of production and class formation. This Michael Burawoy defended the centrality of class to Marxism while rejecting ‘messianic Marxism’ and ‘naïve workerism’. However, this Burawoy was bitterly disappointed by the failure of democratic socialism to emerge from the collapse of state socialism. From the ashes of state socialism, a second Michael Burawoy emerged advocating for ‘sociological Marxism’ and rejecting the theoretical importance of exploitation and the working class. Civil society was held up instead as the key agency resisting marketization, initially in the form of ‘real utopias’ and later via ‘public sociology’. However, in relying on the volunteerism of academics, Burawoy ironically slipped into a Marxism without microfoundations. This article concludes by restating the case for a Marxism with microfoundations and a ‘politics of production’ that enables the exploration of the relationship between work and class formation.