Acceso usuarios
Este trabajo presenta algunas de las líneas principales del pensamiento de Manuel Sacristán Luzón (1925-1985), el filósofo marxista español más destacado del siglo XX, con el objetivo de visibilizar la utilidad de su aportación teórica y política para los enfoques críticos de las Relaciones Internacionales. El materialismo inspirado por Marx y Engels ha quedado relegado en cierta medida a un segundo plano del debate en nuestra disciplina, debido a la consolidación de las teorías reflectivistas como principal alternativa al racionalismo positivista. Sin embargo, Sacristán supo combinar el estudio riguroso de los clásicos con los nuevos conceptos elaborados por Gramsci, de quien fue el principal introductor en España. Asimismo, su formación en epistemología y Filosofía de la Ciencia le lleva a tratar de reconciliar las aspiraciones emancipadoras y éticas de la tradición marxista con el conocimiento obtenido de las ciencias positivas. Su práctica como intelectual y militante comunista durante la Guerra Fría mantuvo una actitud crítica y de denuncia, tanto del imperialismo estadounidense como del despotismo de los dirigentes soviéticos. En la etapa final de su vida, su pensamiento se aproxima a movimientos sociales como el pacifismo, el ecologismo y el feminismo, estableciendo un fructífero diálogo que supera las limitaciones del marxismo más tradicional. Así, el artículo se divide en cuatro apartados. El primero se centra en las reflexiones de este autor sobre epistemología y Filosofía de las ciencias sociales, buscando hacer compatible el valor ético y el potencial emancipador de la tradición marxista con el conocimiento científico empírico; una cuestión que enlaza plenamente con los debates entre positivismo y postpositivismo. El segundo apartado se detiene en la influencia de Gramsci en su pensamiento, que fue muy intensa, pese al encaje más o menos problemático del autor italiano con el materialismo y el positivismo de Sacristán. Los apartados tercero y cuarto pasan del plano teórico al de la praxis, analizando su crítica frente a la URSS y su evolución hacia posiciones pacifistas, aunque sin abandonar nunca el marxismo. Por último, en las conclusiones se ofrece una síntesis de sus contribuciones más relevantes hoy, en un contexto en el que algunos debates de la Guerra Fría han vuelto a cobrar plena actualidad.
For at least three decades, the reflectivist perspectives of International Relations have established themselves as the main alternative to the realist-liberal mainstream that prevailed in previous times, thus giving rise to a broad theoretical and epistemological renewal of our discipline. This rise of reflectivism has led to its identification, almost interchangeably, with the broader concept of “critical theories”; that is, understood —according to the well-known distinction of Robert Cox— as those that are not limited to maintaining the established order, but rather to questioning it and seeking to transform it. Other visions that are still equally critical, such as those inspired by the emancipatory tradition of the labour movement initiated by Marx and Engels, seem to have been relegated to the background. Neo-Marxist structuralism even appeared as the main alternative to realism and liberalism in the “interparadigmatic debate” that supposedly developed in the 1970s and 1980s. Today, instead, that space has been occupied by social constructivism and reflectivist approaches, although among them we can include a perspective inherited from the Marxist tradition: namely, neo-Gramscianism.
This paper presents some of the main directions in the political thought of Manuel Sacristán Luzón (1925-1985), whose intellectual contribution —despite dealing with some of the most debated topics in International Relations during the past decades, such as epistemology, ethics, pacifism, or anti-imperialism— has been much less studied within International Relations than in other academic fields, such as especially philosophy and political theory. Widely regarded as the foremost Spanish Marxist philosopher of the twentieth century, he developed an original theory that combined a rigorous study of Marx, Engels and other classical authors with the new concepts elaborated by Gramsci, of whom Sacristán was the most responsible for introducing into Spain. Likewise, his academic training in epistemology and the philosophy of science led him to try to reconcile the emancipatory and ethical aspirations of the Marxist tradition with the knowledge obtained from the positive sciences. His practice as a Communist intellectual and militant during the Cold War saw him maintaining a critical denunciation of both US imperialism and the despotism of the Soviet leaders. In the final stages of his life, he established a fruitful dialogue between the radical left and other social movements, which allowed him to develop his thought into tackling new problems, such as the prevention of nuclear war or the protection of the environment.
The article is divided into four sections. The first focuses on Sacristán’s reflections on epistemology and philosophy of the social sciences, seeking to reconcile the ethical value and emancipatory potential of the Marxist tradition with empirical scientific knowledge, an issue that is clearly connected with contemporary International Relations debates between positivism and postpositivism. The second section examines the Gramscian influences on his thought, which was very intense, despite the differences between Gramsci’s attention to ideology and culture, on the one hand, and Sacristán’s materialism and scientific positivism, on the other. The third and fourth sections move from the theoretical level to his practical commitment, as a Communist militant and public intellectual, focusing on his criticism of the USSR and his evolution toward a pacifist and anti-militaristic Marxism. Finally, the conclusions offer a synthesis of his contributions that are most relevant for today’s world, in a context in which some Cold War debates that seemed outdated have once again become fully topical.
Sacristán’s most original and innovative contributions, which can undoubtedly be of help to our current reflection on International Relations, can be summarized in three points. The first of these is his constant effort to apply a rigorous concept of science to the Marxist theoretical canon, differentiating those empirically proven arguments from others that, without losing their value as a political reference, did not satisfy the epistemological standards of the positive sciences. Yet this analysis, unlike the most exacerbated scientism, managed not to lose sight of the fact that the ultimate purpose of the theory was of a normative nature: the moral imperative to eradicate injustices, through the emancipation of the classes exploited by capitalism. This primacy of the commitment to the construction of a world where there would no longer be oppressors or oppressed is what, for example, allowed Sacristán to overcome his differences with the idealism and culturalism of Gramsci, preserving both the admiration for the testimony of his sacrifice, as well as the deep bitterness of empathy with his defeat. The contradictory relationship between ethics and scientific knowledge is thus resolved through a reconciliation of both in the field of practice.
The second aspect is one that refers to Sacristán’s role as a critical intellectual; a manner of critique that he knew how to extend to the Communist movement of which he was a part, once again setting an example of an ethics deeply committed to the truth, even if this caused him personal harm. Thus, at a time when the myth of the October Revolution was still fully valid among his fellow activists, he did not hesitate to denounce the atrocities of Stalinism or the repression of the Prague Spring, revealing the enormous gap that separated the propagandistic image of the USSR from the real behaviour of its leaders. This integrity was not manifested in a political environment in which it could bring him some material benefit, but rather the opposite. His life was a succession of continuous sacrifices and precariousness, without obtaining the recognition he deserved within the academic world due, precisely, to the priority he gave to his clandestine militancy against Franco’s dictatorship.
Finally, we can highlight his ability to adapt to social and historical changes, exemplified by the elaboration —in his last years— of a pacifist Marxism, incorporating the ideas of the European peace movement into his conception of the Cold War. Although his positions ended up being defeated in the Spanish referendum on NATO membership, his writings and those of his colleagues from those years remain an ethical reference against the dangers of militarism and imperialism in the nuclear age. This is a pacifism that, without denying the need or legitimacy of the use of force for defensive purposes, continues to remind us that the definitive solution to conflict must necessarily go through other types of measures if we want to preserve the long-term survival of our species and that of the rest of the planet.
