When all that is theory melts into (hot) air: Contrasts and parallels between actor network theory, autonomist Marxism, and open Marxism ∗

This article compares Autonomous Marxism, Open Marxism and Actor Network Theory (ANT) through examining how they treat the sticking point of contingency. These schools of thought share a common enemy in perspectives stressing structural factors. The first two stress the subjective standpoint of class struggle, whereas ANT emphasises agency. The Open Marxists and the ANT scholars typically make their case by arguing against dichotomous modes of thinking in other strands of Marxism or sociology. However, the former draws upon Hegelian philosophy and its attempt to transcend the subject-object polarity, while the latter builds on post-structuralism and espouses an immanent ontology. Here, ANT share a common ground with parts of Autonomous Marxism. Despite these different points of departure, critics of respective theory have reached similar conclusions. If an awareness of objective causes and/or structures is removed from the analysis, the risk of voluntarism or quietism looms large. Although we share this critique, we would like to heed the warning against reified categories and dichotomous thinking raised by the three traditions above. Our argument is that resources for solving this dilemma between contingency and stability can be found in a more historicist way of thinking which all three have failed to utilise.