What does the recent failure of socialism imply for the future of socialists? Or, what is the same: to what extent does Marxism survive as critique? To answer these questions, it is necessary to be clear about what is lost and what is gained in the aftermath of the “collapse of 1989.” In particular, what interpretations of Marxism can be given up and what new critical approaches have begun to emerge?

Clear answers to these questions can contribute to disrupting the equation-in the mass media, among Western intellectuals-of the failure of socialism and the failure of socialists. Even more: with the appropriate theoretical and political work, the failure of socialism may lead to greater future success of socialists. What is the alternative? If this work is not carried out, the theoretical (and, of course, political) agenda will fall to others. In the arena of political economy, this would mean giving the agenda over to the purveyors of the standard economics tradition, that is, to the neoclassicals and Keynesians. To be honest, there would be a certain justice in this: make the economists accept responsibility for the shock treatment they (and their Solidarity and Catholic Church allies and supporters) have administered to Poland. Let Harvard’s golden-boy economist justify the reincarnation of Per6n in Eastern Europe. Let Jeffrey Sachs and the others take responsibility for Russia’s winter of discontent. Just deserts, some would say. However gratifying in an immediate sense, this is no alternative-at least if we want to explore the future of socialism and socialists, not only in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union but also in the United States and elsewhere in the capitalist