1492021, issue 2
continues Marx’s “scientic” approach to philosophy and adds that Marxism itself, along
with philosophical theory in general, will always be incomplete. Here Laurelle agrees
with Marx’s prioritization of materiality and the real, but insists that this must be applied
to Marxism itself. In other words, “non-Marxism” does not step away from Marxist
thought but rather applies it to itself to ensure that it does not succumb to the transcen-
dentalism it seeks to overcome. Kolozova agrees with Laurelle here and thus attempts to
ground her critique of capitalism’s holocaust of animals on “non-Marxist” theory.
The rst chapter of the book positions capitalism in philosophy and uses lin-
guistics to explore how non-capitalist understandings of species can form. The dyad
between the physical and the automaton, or ‘signier’ in traditional linguistics, is central
in this chapter. Following Saussure’s argument that language is both structural and
arbitrary (in that it adheres to a structure but that the words within that structure
are arbitrary), Kolozova makes the argument that linguistic theory allows thinkers
to return to the “real,” and therefore approach the world in a non-philosophical, i.e.
scientic, manner. In other words, while philosophy has prioritized the signier, or
the automaton, in its explanations of the world, a linguistic approach explores how
these signiers became meaningful by going back to the signied, or ‘real.’ The chapter
continues to position capitalism on the side of value, rather than the physical because,
as Marx explained, within capitalism, value (monetarized or fetishized) has become a
goal in and of itself. Thus, human and non-human animals are understood in terms of
value rather than their physicality within capitalist frameworks. A non-philosophical
approach prioritizes the physical over the automaton, which is required to envisage life
in non-capitalist terms. A non-philosophical approach to capitalism, therefore, also leads
to a non-Marxist approach to capitalism. Kolozova agrees with Marx that thought is
nite, and a return to the material is necessary to break away from capitalism. However,
Marx places revolt within the human classes whose labor is exploited and fetishized.
Kolozova takes this a step further and decenters the humanist perspective. She proposes
the development of “consciousness of the exploited” rather than the Marxist devel-
opment of “class consciousness” to form a more-than-human inclusive approach to
resistance against capitalism and exploitation. To change the treatment of the exploited
requires a new shared consciousness of the exploited “of and against the exploited
animal, body, nature, real economy, and reality in the name of projected values and
virtues” (48). In other words, non-capitalism can only exist if non-humans are included
within its framework.
Capitalism’s Holocaust of Animals’ second chapter positions its argument in
broader philosophical and linguistic theory. In this chapter, Kolozova identies sim-
ilarities between Marx’s materialist formalism and structural linguistics. Formalism’s
strength lies in its acknowledgement that it is self-reexive and will not provide denite,
all-encompassing answers. Due to these abilities, formalism allows philosophy to depart
from transcendentalism and enter the realm of the material and real, argues Kolozova.
The second part of the chapter then applies Marx’s formalization to philosophy and
argues how feminism, through this framework, is allowed to return to a universal
approach rather than one dened by dierence. Through formalization, dierence
becomes a richness rather than a reason for division.