This dissertation analyzes the position of literature and the literary in post-Marxist theory and in doing so also problematizes existing views on the concept of post-Marxism. Even though studies which define post-Marxist theory as a distinctive theoretical corpus have failed to address issues pertaining to literary theory, a thorough investigation of this corpus cannot preclude it. Not only does the phenomenon of literature as a research object appear in the work of nearly all of the theoreticians associated with post-Marxism, it is also inextricably linked to the factors crucial for that definition and often assigned a privileged status within the theories themselves. The answer to the question how literature/the literary is conceptualized in post-Marxist theory is therefore not a mere attempt at filling an ephemeral gap in previous research, but much rather a way of threading the path to a more systematic understanding of the features, genesis and scope of that theoretical corpus. Therefore, the main hypothesis of the dissertation is that the characteristic interweaving of the domain of literary theory with that of political theory, or even a complete subversion of the border between the two, is the distinctive trait shared by scholars associated with and discussed within the context of post-Marxism. That interweaving is primarily manifested in what the dissertation refers to as the discursive or literary conceptualization of the politic on the one hand, and by the conceptualization of literature as an inherently political discourse on the other – a chiastic feature endowing postMarxism with potential for heuristic applicability. The dissertation is based on a theoretical research which approaches its object primarily from the perspective of literary theory. However, since it deals with the points of intersection between literary and political theory, as well as with occasional inputs from other disciplines in humanities, this study is characterized by a degree of interdisciplinarity that is long-familiar and expected in the contemporary literary theory. Methodologically, it relies on a close critical reading of representative theoretical texts (both primary and secondary), their comparative analysis, genealogical study of the explored theoretical currents and concepts, and a synthesis of the examined matter. Apart from the introduction and conclusion, the thesis consists of three main parts, each divided into smaller chapters. The first part is dedicated to a critical overview of previous studies about the post-Marxist theory (seven books published between 1998 and 2013), together with certain studies that intersect with post-Marxist issues in various ways, albeit not using or discussing the post-Marxist label itself. Although the main goal of this part is to provide an insight into the state of the examined field, this part also lays the foundation for questioning of post-Marxism as a concept as well. The second part of the dissertation is divided into six chapters, dedicated to specific research questions regarding the oeuvres of six representative authors, connected to postMarxist context in various ways: Laclau, Rancière, Deleuze, Derrida, Foucault and Macherey. The common thread running through the respective chapters is the tripartite structure of analysis shaped around three key points: ambivalent stance towards Marxism, literariness of politics, and politics of literature. The first chapter, dedicated to Laclau’s work, offers a parallax view of his oeuvre: a view primarily structured around the importance attributed to the questions of literature/literariness in this dissertation. Although in earlier studies of post-Marxism Laclau is almost unexceptionally the privileged reference point, this study differs from them in that it favors the perspective developed in his last published work, The Rhetorical Foundations of Society, and applies it to his entire oeuvre. In other words, the chapter shows that politics was from the very beginning of Laclau’s theory of hegemony conceptualized as a tropological articulation and that such a perspective developed under the significant influence of contemporary literary theory. Moreover, this chapter not only re-writes the line of development in Laclau’s theory in terms of its final point, but also establishes certain elements of his theoretical apparatus as analytical tools for the rest of the dissertation. Motivated by the specific chiastic bind between literature and politic, already outlined in Laclau’s analyises, the second chapter focuses on certain aspects of Rancière’s oeuvre. Since Rancière was almost completely ignored in earlier studies of post-Marxism, this chapter provides an innovative inclusion of this author into the examination of post-Marxism. However, bringing Rancière into focus is not simply one of many similar variations of the scholars usually examined in previous studies with no lasting impact on the structure of the research field. On the contrary, it is a change that significantly influences the direction of further analysis. The chapter both emphasizes a largely overlooked fascinating similarity of Rancière’s and Laclau’s political theories, along with the relationship towards the Marxist tradition, as well as supplements the lack of direct interest for politics of literature in Laclau’s work, thus closing the mentioned chiasm and preparing it for application in the following chapters. Due to the influence he exerted on Rancière and also polemical remarks directed at him by Rancière and Laclau, the third chapter logically focuses on the works of Gilles Deleuze. The chosen perspective, with literariness as its focal point, enables formring analogies between Deleuze’s writings on politics and literature regarding the issue of his radical immanentism, i.e. the conclusions questioning the consistency of that very immanentism. The analyzed issue, along with his extremely unorthodox stance on Marx, is what brings Deleuze in relationship with other examined authors and the main hypothesis of the dissertation. In the fourth chapter, the same perspective is of use in order to grasp the highly important connection between literariness and politics in Derrida’s works, which exceeds the mere conclusions that literature is a privileged political/emancipatory discourse and points to its essential connection with issues that Derrida finds crucial for politics, such as those of democracy, friendship, law and justice. Moreover, by broadening the scope of the analysis beyond Derrida’s Spectres of Marx, which is his only work examined by previous studies of post-Marxism, the chapter disproves the notion that Specters, as well as Derrida’s engagement with Marxism in general, are merely marginal detours in his oeuvre.. The fifth chapter offers an even less typical approach to the scholar it deals with than the previous one. By turning to Michel Foucault, it offers an image of him that is noticeably different not only from the one dominating in earlier studies on post-Marxism but also from the one prevailing in general. The attribute of the theorist of control is here supplemented, or even partially contested by the one of transgression, as the chapter deals with one of the least emblematic and thus rather neglected segments of Foucault’s oeuvre: the one dedicated to literature. Nevertheless, this specific perspective also reveals moments within Foucault’s most famous studies that testify to the important function of literariness within them, as well as to the sometimes overlooked influence of Marxist tradition, consequently modifying their usual reception. Finally, the second part of the dissertation is concluded by an analysis of Macherey’s works on literary theory, which goes against the grain of various reductive readings that either depict Macherey as an Althusserian Marxist (relying solely on his earlier works) or sharply oppose his alleged Marxist and post-Marxist phase. In contrast to such reductions, the chapter demonstrates that the lines of development of Macherey’s theoretical positions testify to much less discrete borders and more heterogeneous state, which becomes even more interesting for this dissertation if we consider the fact that they intersect with quita a few of the authors from other chapters, either by direct or indirect mutual influence. Moreover, the examination of Macherey’s oeuvre clearly shows what other chapters already outlined on their margins: that the borders between literature as an instrument of ideological subjection, a reflection of society and an emancipatory agent are not so clear-cut and self-explanatory as the binary approaches that link them to either the Marxist or post-Marxist paradigm would suggest. The recognition of the permeability of borders of what is considered as typically Marxist or post-Marxist, as well as of the impossibility to put that distinction in a simple perspective of linear development; a recognition which shapes itself at the beginning of every chapter in order to be explicitly stated in the sixth chapter, introduces the last part of the dissertation. Consisting of three chapters, the last part turns to the past, i. e. to the other side of what is usually considered as the temporal and doctrinal border between two theoretical corpora. It is there that the same analytical structure is applied to three different theoretical nodes in different historical and geographical contexts (Russian Formalism and the Bakhtin Circle, Bloch and Bataille), which are all positioned within the Marxist corpus or in its immediate neighbourhood, and at the time regarded as an alternative to more traditional Marxist approaches to literature. Conclusions of all three chapters confirm the possibility to draw clear analogies between these scholars and the authors brought in connection with postMarxism, establishing direct or indirect anticipation where one is supposed to find firm borders and breaking points, thus seriously bringing into question various and often contradictory implications of the prefix post-. In conclusion, the tripartite analytical model of this dissertation, derived from the perspective that examines the position of literature and literary theory within the post-Marxist theory, proves itself as a model enabling a far more coherent approach to the issue of postMarxism than previous studies do, thereby confirming the importance of a previously neglected component of literary theory, and providing new insights not only into the problem of post-Marxism but also into general literary and political theory questions framed in a new context. However, at the same time, this model results in a much stronger problematization of the post-Marxist concept itself, by bringing into question its simple and self-explanatory nature and at the same time pointing to the contradictions that should be taken into account.