About the Journal

PROKLA - Journal of Critical Social Science is a German peer-reviewed journal that has been working on topics from the fields of political economy, political science, social history and sociology since 1971. The focus is on social power relations, polarizations in the international system and the social relations with nature. The issues are put together according to thematic focuses.

PROKLA – or: What are the conditions for critical social science today?

Michael Heinrich*, translated and slightly revised by Etienne Schneider**

Probably only our elder readers still remember that PROKLA was originally an acronym for “problems of class struggle” (Probleme des Klassenkampfes). Founded in Berlin in 1971 as “Problems of Class Struggle. Journal for Political Economy and Socialist Politics” (Probleme des Klassenkampfs. Zeitschrift für politische Ökonomie und sozialistische Politik), PROKLA was an offspring of the movement of 1968 in several respects: Not only the thematic orientation reflected in the emphatic title of the journal, but also the circumstances which lead to its foundation were quite typical for those times.

Until 1970, different factions of the so-called “New Left” had still been working together in the Journal Sozialistische Politik(SoPo) (socialist politics). However, this became more and more difficult as one faction pushed for a stronger ‘party affiliation’ towards the Socialist Unity Party of West Berlin (SEW) and the German Communist Party (DKP). By founding an independent GmbH (company with limited liabilities), this faction took hold of the name and the distribution of the SoPo, which then ceased to exist just a few years later.

The majority of the editorial board, which did not approve of this new editorial policy, was left with the option to found a new journal – PROKLA. PROKLA always maintained a clear distance to various party initiatives (besides the DKP there also existed a variety of Maoist and Marxist-Leninist circles) and their prefigurations, be it the Soviet Union, China or Albania. Nonetheless, the commitment to Marx’ Critique of Political Economy and revolutionary movements – which, after experiencing the students’ movement and spontaneous strike, many people assumed to exist in West Germany, too – remained strong.

Along these lines, the mission stated in the first editorial of PROKLA was to publish analyses, which would help to develop “elements of tactics for a revolutionary struggle in the present”. Left intellectuals should provide – on the basis of Marxian theory – the answers to theoretical problems relevant in the processes of class struggle. In this way, the revolutionary movements should be supported by a specific contribution to class struggle. Although this endeavour faced a variety of theoretical problems, first and foremost to liberate and reconstruct Marxism from its dogmatisation and distortion and to analyse the movements of capital and its consequences, the political goal – socialism – and the popular basis of social change – the working class – were never called into question. Indeed, PROKLA had a very broad readership, not only among students, but also among trade unionists, teachers and social workers. In the 1970s, several issues had to be reprinted and a print run of 10,000 or more was not rare at all.

In terms of organisation, PROKLA was supported – also financially – by an association, which continues to exist today. Most members of the association participated in thematically oriented editorial collectives and were directly involved in the production of the journal. In this sense, PROKLA was not only a journal forsocial movements; in the beginning of the 1970s it was also a productof these movements and collective discussions. Already by the mid-1970s, however, the social and political circumstances, but also the expectations and hopes of the Left had radically changed. Few political groups still believed that a revolutionary dynamic was around the corner. A revolutionary working class movement was – at least in the capitalist core countries – out of sight. Instead, new social movements – especially the women’s movement and the environmental movement – emerged. Shattered hopes and the dissolution of political circles lead many former Leftists not only to resign, but also to abandon Marxism and its theoretical efforts altogether. Although PROKLA did not follow this trajectory and maintained the emancipatory aspirations of critical social science, this situation had a profound impact on the journal project, too.

On the one hand, this manifested itself in the outward appearance: Already the front cover of issue 22 (1976) was published only with the acronym “PROKLA” but with the subtitle “Journal for Political Economy and Socialist Politics”. The emphatic vigor of the original title seemed already anachronistic. On the other hand, PROKLA’s personnel started to change. Although many readers remained close to PROKLA, the editorial collectives ceased to work, and the core editorial board increasingly shaped the content of the journal on its own. The broad foundation actively contributing to the production of the journal began to dissolve. Despite this, the range of subjects covered in PROKLA constantly expanded. Although questions of political economy continued to be central, other areas such as ecology (issue 34, 1979) were also discussed. However, broadening the thematic range of the journal was not merely a fashionable adaptation to the intellectual spirit of the time. Marxian theory remained the key reference for new topics and perspectives the journal explored. Yet, Marxian theory was no longer considered simply a guideline for analysis but was subjected to critical discussion (for instance issue 36, 1979, “Crisis of Marxism”). The times of intellectual certainties were definitely over. These tendencies of the late 1970s continued in the 1980s and the range of subjects kept expanding. Besides working on ‘classic’ themes like the world market, trade unions and the state, PROKLA also produced issues on topics such as intellectuals (Nr. 70, 1988), the power of knowledge (Nr. 78, 1990) and chaos and self-organisation (Nr. 88, 1992). Also, key concepts of Marxist theory such as class, crisis, state or the value and money theory were critically examined (for instance in the issues 50, 1983; 57, 1984; 58, 1985; 63, 1986; 72,1988).

At the same time, the editorial board operated largely without any contact to political movements. PROKLA therefore transformed itself from a political project with scientific ambitions into a scientific journal with political ambitions. Today, PROKLA continues to be released by the “Association for the Critique of Political Economy” (Vereinigung zur Förderung der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie), a registered association with approximately 50 members, most of whom were active members of the editorial board at some point. In large part, the members’ contributions are the financial basis of our editorial work as the journal does not receive any further financial assistance besides refunds from the publisher. Thus, the members’ contributions are essential for the journal. At the same time, these contributions ensure the independence of PROKLA: As we neither receive public funding nor contributions from parties, organisations or a patron, there is no exertion of influence or other considerations whatsoever, however subtle.

According to the statute of the association, editors of PROKLA are elected by the members of the association in the annual general assembly. The members of the editorial board are primarily academics working at different universities, mostly in economics, sociology and political science. The editorial board conceptualises thematic issues and invites submissions through regular Calls for Papers, which outline key questions and subjects to be discussed in the upcoming issues.  

With the transformation of PROKLA from a political project with scientific ambitionsinto a scientific journal with political ambitions, the underlying understanding of what ‘political ambition’ actually meant changed, too. Clearly, it did not revolve around “tactics of the revolutionary struggle” any more. The more the lines of a clearly demarcated audience became blurred and the political goal lost its (also hitherto only seeming) unambiguousness, the more it became impossible to provide ready-made answers in the context of a clearly defined political strategy. Today, the editorial board  itself is also far from politically homogenous – which it should not be, in any case.

That neither the editorial board nor the journal itself pursues a specific political line does not mean, however, that the political stance has become entirely arbitrary. Until today, the defining feature of PROKLA is its ambition to provide critical analyses of capitalism and of its social and ecological ‘costs’ for the majority of humans living on this planet - in the form of poor living conditions, health hazards and political repression. But it is as impossible to reduce these critical analyses to abstract ‘capital relations’ which do not take into account the complexity of modern capitalist societies, as it is impossible to identify a historically privileged subject of social change, which is just not yet aware of the historical role it is supposed to be playing.

The fact that social relations are much more complex than many of PROKLA’s founders might have thought in the early 1970s does not mean, however, that we have to stop short with the observation that social relations are simply complex. Rather, PROKLA’s publication strategy aims at asking questions and intervening or initiating debates which are relevant to individuals and social movements contesting various forms of domination, exploitation and repression that continue to exist until today, however complex the underlying social relations may be. Even so, there are no clearly defined criteria for the publication of articles in this respect. Although contributions to PROKLA should be interesting for a left, progressive audience (in a broad sense), they do not have to pursue any specific political ‘line’ or be based on a “Marxist” approach. 

Statements and the general thrust of articles published in the journal do not have to be shared by every member of the editorial board. Needless to say, while we want to cover a broad range of topics from different analytical perspectives, we do not publish articles that take any reactionary or nationalist stance. We evaluate articles based on the quality of their arguments rather than their political orientation. Articles published in PROKLA should provide profound analyses and not just political creeds, opinions or comments, however likeable such a position might be. We therefore expect positions taken in the articles published in PROKLA to be based on and developed from the analysis of the subject of inquiry. Also, analyses should not just recapitulate what is already well understood, even though we are aware that the general state of knowledge in specific areas might sometimes be difficult to determine.

The gradual transformation of PROKLA since its funding phase into a journal which is predominantly scientific in its orientation (but certainly not apolitical) has also reflected itself – even though quite late – in a new subtitle: Since issue 86 (1992), PROKLA is called “Journal of Critical Social Science” instead of “Journal for Political Economy and Socialist Politics”. The fact that we do not refer to emancipatory practices – to which PROKLA as a project is still dedicated – as socialist politics is not simply a reflection of the demise of ‘real existing socialism’. Precisely this model of socialism and the equation of socialism in general with the ‘real existing socialism’ in the GDR or the Soviet Union have been subjects of critical discussion in PROKLA from its very beginning.

Removing “socialist politics” from the title does also not imply a general repudiation of socialism as such; at most maybe of the idea that we can already know today how a socialist society would precisely look like tomorrow. Rather, and most importantly, abandoning the old subtitle reflects our understanding of emancipation efforts which also encompass sexism, racism and society-nature relations and cannot be comprehended as “class struggle” and “socialist politics” alone. In short, with its new subtitle, PROKLA as a project does not dismiss its past but seeks to redeem the mission by which it was motivated from its inception: to critically analyse social relations at the current state of the art in order to contribute to their transformation.

Originally published in German in: Hans Günther Thien (Ed.), Bücher nichts als Bücher, Münster, Verlag Westfälisches Dampfboot, 1994.

*Michael Heinrich was a member of the editorial board from 1987 to 2016 and the managing editor of PROKLA from 1994 to 2014.

**Etienne Schneider has been a member of the editorial board since 2013