Good point, Spencer!  (I wrote in a somewhat similar
vein, but elliptically, about Britain et al., to the
Platypus group.)

--- Spencer Austin Leonard <saleonar@...>
wrote:

> I just had two quick responses to this on purely
> "empirical" grounds: 1) Contributing to the
> building of an absolutist monarchy really is in no
> way "progressive", because it is meant
> fundamentally to counter and obstruct the
> revolutionary bourgoisie and 2) early 17th century
> in,
> say, England or Holland is certainly not
> "pre-capitalist" in any fundamental sense.  Note
> that in
> these countries protestant radicalism has already by
> the 17th century recognized in the
> absolutist monarchies, like France, the great danger
> to commercial/manufacturing society.  This
> becomes more or less crystallized in 1688 when
> radical bourgeois, protestant Europe aligns itself
> resolutely against the sort of quasi-feudal Catholic
> monarchies, like France and Spain.  All you
> have to do is take a look at the pamphlet and
> periodical publication taking place in London and
> Amsterdam at this time and compare it to Paris to
> realize that there really is no bourgeois
> transformation in "Western Europe" at all.  The
> transformation to capitalism is revolutionary, not
> absolutist.
>
>
> ---- Original message ----
> >Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:30:44 -0400
> >From: rer137@...
> >Subject: modernity and subjectivity?
> >To: platypus1917@yahoogroups.com
> >Cc: schwartzweiss@..., saleonar@...
> >
> >Chris,
> >
> >Not trying to be provocative--well, OK  a bit
> provocative--but here is
> >something I do not quite understand. I have been
> reading two
> >books--standard "empirical" history. One "Europe In
> Crisis 1598-1648"
> >by Geoffrey Parker  and the other "Europe Reshaped
> 1848-1878" by J.A.S.
> >Grenville. Reading them, I ask myself what does
> Chris really mean by
> >his contention that the pre-Modern--does the early
> 17th century count
> >as pre-modern?--is somehow wholly "other"? I will
> readily grant you
> >that there were many differences between Europeans
> in the mid-19th
> >century and their ancestors in the early 17th. I
> will also grant you
> >that the development of capitalism is decisive in
> generating these
> >differences. Obviously political possibilities
> existed in the mid-19th
> >century that could not exist  in the early 17th. So
> I can understand
> >saying , for example, that Richelieu was
> "progressive" and Bismarck
> >"reactionary", because in the time of Bismarck
> there was an
> >alternative:namely  Karl Marx! But Richelieu is
> "progressive" because
> >by building up the absolutist monarchy and the
> rationalizing
> >bureaucratic state against the remnants of
> "feudalism" he was laying
> >the ground for the bourgeoisie's rise to power. But
> as human types--as
> >"subjects"--are they really so radically different?
> Or is the
> >difference not one of types of "subjectivity" but
> rather the objective
> >social and economic conditions they both
> encountered? Of course, to
> >even raise the question this way will raise your
> hackles. But is my
> >asking the question this way not related to our
> "dispute" about whether
> >or not the Soviet Union was "capitalist"? Isn't it
> about how one
> >conceptualizes "capitalism"? Am I missing
> something?
> >
> >Richard
> >
> >
>
>________________________________________________________________________
> >Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of
> storage and
> >industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
> >
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

The example I brought up was meant to raise a philosophical question
about how we should regard the past and the "objective"? difference
between a period when a modern Socialist movement existed and one where
it did not. The contrast between Richelieu and Bismarck was suggested
to me purely by the fortuitous circumstance that a portrait of each man
was on the cover of each book as symbolizing the period in question. In
fact both portraits are reproductions of paintings Phillippe de
Champaigne in the case of Richelieu and Franz von Lenbach of Bismarck.
But the picture of Bismarck could have been based on a photograph too.
One might ask if this is merely a technical question or does it raise a
philosophical one about how we can imagine /represent the past? That we
   might "see" the Franco-Prussian War in photographs but episodes from
the Revolt of the Netherlands in Rubens paintings is clearly not the
same. Isn't that closer to what Chris meant?

With regards to the purely "empirical" question. 1) I think the view of
Richelieu as "progressive" in the sense I outlined is actually the
"conventional" Marxist view. 2) I think the characterization of early
17th century England and Holland as "capitalist" raises a lot of
problems 3) I think the Spencer's emphasizing 1688 is "Anglocentric"
and the characterization of  the wars of Louis XIV as being between
"radical bourgeois protestant" and "quasi-feudal Catholic" regimes is
simply wrong. In any case, which was the "progressive" side in say the
Thirty Years War?


-----Original Message-----
From: saleonar@...
To: rer137@...; platypus1917@yahoogroups.com
Cc: schwartzweiss@...
Sent: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: modernity and subjectivity?

     I just had two quick responses to this on purely "empirical"
grounds: 1)
Contributing to the
building of an absolutist monarchy really is in no way "progressive",
because it
is meant
fundamentally to counter and obstruct the revolutionary bourgoisie and
2) early
17th century in,
say, England or Holland is certainly not "pre-capitalist" in any
fundamental
sense.  Note that in
these countries protestant radicalism has already by the 17th century
recognized
in the
absolutist monarchies, like France, the great danger to
commercial/manufacturing
society.  This
becomes more or less crystallized in 1688 when radical bourgeois,
protestant
Europe aligns itself
resolutely against the sort of quasi-feudal Catholic monarchies, like
France and
Spain.  All you
have to do is take a look at the pamphlet and periodical publication
taking
place in London and
Amsterdam at this time and compare it to Paris to realize that there
really is
no bourgeois
transformation in "Western Europe" at all.  The transformation to
capitalism is
revolutionary, not
absolutist.


---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:30:44 -0400
>From: rer137@...
>Subject: modernity and subjectivity?
>To: platypus1917@yahoogroups.com
>Cc: schwartzweiss@..., saleonar@...
>
>Chris,
>
>Not trying to be provocative--well, OK  a bit provocative--but here is
>something I do not quite understand. I have been reading two
>books--standard "empirical" history. One "Europe In Crisis 1598-1648"
>by Geoffrey Parker  and the other "Europe Reshaped 1848-1878" by
J.A.S.
>Grenville. Reading them, I ask myself what does Chris really mean by
>his contention that the pre-Modern--does the early 17th century count
>as pre-modern?--is somehow wholly "other"? I will readily grant you
>that there were many differences between Europeans in the mid-19th
>century and their ancestors in the early 17th. I will also grant you
>that the development of capitalism is decisive in generating these
>differences. Obviously political possibilities existed in the mid-19th
>century that could not exist  in the early 17th. So I can understand
>saying , for example, that Richelieu was "progressive" and Bismarck
>"reactionary", because in the time of Bismarck there was an
>alternative:namely  Karl Marx! But Richelieu is "progressive" because
>by building up the absolutist monarchy and the rationalizing
>bureaucratic state against the remnants of "feudalism" he was laying
>the ground for the bourgeoisie's rise to power. But as human types--as
>"subjects"--are they really so radically different? Or is the
>difference not one of types of "subjectivity" but rather the objective
>social and economic conditions they both encountered? Of course, to
>even raise the question this way will raise your hackles. But is my
>asking the question this way not related to our "dispute" about
whether
>or not the Soviet Union was "capitalist"? Isn't it about how one
>conceptualizes "capitalism"? Am I missing something?
>
>Richard
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________

>Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
>industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
>


________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

Just to clarify Richard's point in posting this: we are sympathetic to
Carl Davidson's disputing of any 9-11 US govt. conspiracies (although
he himself engaged in JFK-assassination conspiracy mongering).

"It's loony ("pathetic") that so many on the "Left" give credence to
the idea that the US govt. staged the 9-11 attacks -- as if al-Qaeda
isn't a real actor in the world!

--- In platypus1917@yahoogroups.com, rer137@... wrote:
>
>   Common sense against the Will to Believe. Carl Davidson was a major
> figure in the New Left, by the way.
>
>
> Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracy challengedÂ
> Â
>  Â  Sigh....once again.Â
>  Â Â
>   Â One of the guys promoting this stuff asked in one of the
workshops in
> Milwaukee if anyone believed the government on this. Of course, no one
> raised their hand simply because no one completely believes the
> government on anything, either that cigarettes are harmful to your
> health or that the US landed men on the moon. So I raised my hand, a
> minority of one, and declared that I believed bin Laden and his guys
> did it, as they claimed that they had done.Â
>  Â Â
>  There are five ways of looking at this.Â
>  Â Â
>   Â First, there is no scientific case for the WTC events other than
what
> actually happened, two hijacked airliners rammed into them and they
> collapsed as a result of that interaction and its complex consequences.
> There has been one experiment, the one organized by al-Quaeda, and it
> worked. All the other claims are technobabble conjecture, whether by
> theologians, firemen or engineers. No one has tried a reasonable
> facsimile of another experiment to show that it can't be done.Â
>  Â Â
>   Â Second, the goalposts keep changing. We hear a plane really didn't
> hit the Pentagon. We get film 'clips' to 'prove' it. Then when we
> contact and poll grieving families, who know their loved ones are gone,
> then they are either in on the plot, intimidated in lying,  both more
> than far-fetched, so then we're asked to shift gears and talk about
> something else. And so on...Â
>  Â Â
>   Â Third, it is highly unlikely that a Bush plot will ever be
proven, if
> there was one, unless someone cracks. All the 9/11 buff stories would
> require hundreds, if not thousands, to be in on the plot, and yet no
> one has cracked nor are there dead bodies strew about, as in the JFK
> case. They can't keep a rape and murder by five GIs under wraps for
> long, yet this one is solid as a rock?  Thanks, but no thanks...Â
>  Â Â
>   Â Fourth, the buffs always talk about our supposed 'great' defense
> system, but ignored that it was the military that coined the term
> 'SNAFU,' ie, situation normal, all fucked up.Â
>  Â Â
>   Â Fifth, there's a racist subtext, ie, bin Laden and his guys could
> never be smart enough to figure out weaknesses like these and exploit
> them with intelligence and audacity, as they say they have done. The
> buff response?  The real bin Laden didn't claim this, a clone double
> did.  Please...Â
>  Â Â
>   Â I'll repeat again, I am not adverse to all these things. I wrote
the
> screenscript for a documentary on the JFK assassination, and can offer
> some plausible hypotheses on who did it and why Oswald was what he said
> he was, the 'patsy.'Â
>  Â Â
>   Â But here's what I suggest. There are some real conspiracies that
need
> unmasking that would really help us.  Like who supplied Saddam with
the
> chemicals used against Iran and the Kurds. Not just educated guesses
> that it was Rumsfield, but really nail it down.Â
>  Â Â
>   Â But this is not likely, since the 9/11 'Truth' has emerged as a
> diverting and self-sustaining cottage industry, and is likely to keep
> on for a while no matter what.Â
>  Â Â
>  Â Â
>  Carl DavidsonÂ
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
> industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
>

I just had two quick responses to this on purely "empirical" grounds: 1)
Contributing to the
building of an absolutist monarchy really is in no way "progressive", because it
is meant
fundamentally to counter and obstruct the revolutionary bourgoisie and 2) early
17th century in,
say, England or Holland is certainly not "pre-capitalist" in any fundamental
sense.  Note that in
these countries protestant radicalism has already by the 17th century recognized
in the
absolutist monarchies, like France, the great danger to commercial/manufacturing
society.  This
becomes more or less crystallized in 1688 when radical bourgeois, protestant
Europe aligns itself
resolutely against the sort of quasi-feudal Catholic monarchies, like France and
Spain.  All you
have to do is take a look at the pamphlet and periodical publication taking
place in London and
Amsterdam at this time and compare it to Paris to realize that there really is
no bourgeois
transformation in "Western Europe" at all.  The transformation to capitalism is
revolutionary, not
absolutist.


---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:30:44 -0400
>From: rer137@...
>Subject: modernity and subjectivity?
>To: platypus1917@yahoogroups.com
>Cc: schwartzweiss@..., saleonar@...
>
>Chris,
>
>Not trying to be provocative--well, OK  a bit provocative--but here is
>something I do not quite understand. I have been reading two
>books--standard "empirical" history. One "Europe In Crisis 1598-1648"
>by Geoffrey Parker  and the other "Europe Reshaped 1848-1878" by J.A.S.
>Grenville. Reading them, I ask myself what does Chris really mean by
>his contention that the pre-Modern--does the early 17th century count
>as pre-modern?--is somehow wholly "other"? I will readily grant you
>that there were many differences between Europeans in the mid-19th
>century and their ancestors in the early 17th. I will also grant you
>that the development of capitalism is decisive in generating these
>differences. Obviously political possibilities existed in the mid-19th
>century that could not exist  in the early 17th. So I can understand
>saying , for example, that Richelieu was "progressive" and Bismarck
>"reactionary", because in the time of Bismarck there was an
>alternative:namely  Karl Marx! But Richelieu is "progressive" because
>by building up the absolutist monarchy and the rationalizing
>bureaucratic state against the remnants of "feudalism" he was laying
>the ground for the bourgeoisie's rise to power. But as human types--as
>"subjects"--are they really so radically different? Or is the
>difference not one of types of "subjectivity" but rather the objective
>social and economic conditions they both encountered? Of course, to
>even raise the question this way will raise your hackles. But is my
>asking the question this way not related to our "dispute" about whether
>or not the Soviet Union was "capitalist"? Isn't it about how one
>conceptualizes "capitalism"? Am I missing something?
>
>Richard
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
>industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
>

I'm not sure I understand the emoticon: ;-(

A sad face winking?

Let us hope that Leftism is more than sophisticated entertainment!

(I think Kafka's observation doesn't really apply.)

--- In platypus1917@yahoogroups.com, rer137@... wrote:
>
> But I think Kafka had it right ;-(
>
>
> <<The Truth about Sancho Panza
>
>   Without making any boast of it Sancho Panza succeeded in the
course of
> years, by feeding him a great number of romances of chivalry and
> adventure in the evening and night hours, in so diverting from himself
> his demon, whom he later called Don Quixote, that this demon thereupon
> set out, uninhibited, on the maddest exploits, which, however, for the
> lack of a preordained object, which should have been Sancho Panza
> himself, harmed nobody. A free man, Sancho Panza philosophically
> followed Don Quixote on his crusades, perhaps out of a sense of
> responsibility, and had of them a great and edifying entertainment to
> the end of his days.>>
>
>
> Translated by Willa and Edwin Muir
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
> industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
>

Richard,

I think that the issue is not the (superficial) similarity between a
Cardinal Richelieu and a Chancellor Bismarck.

I would not define subjectivity, in the sense I mean, in terms of
outward personality types and motivations.

In fact, I do think that context matters a great deal for
understanding agency and, hence, motivations.  Context would appear to
determine significance and meaning.

When you say that Richelieu was "progressive" then this makes my
point: from a humanitarian standpoint I don't think the establishment
of absolute monarchy was particularly a good thing; when seen from the
vantage of developing capitalism, however, this does raise certain
issues: were Richelieu's policies indeed necessary and progressive as
regards capital?  A case could be made that capitalism proceeded very
well in the absence of such things (Italian city-states, Hanseatic
League, Great Britain).

The point is that pre-modernity, issues of "progress" make little
sense in their own times: they only make sense retrospectively. But
this is not how politics can be determined!

The Soviet Union sffered tremendously from the breakdown of the old
system and adjustment to gloabl capitalism.  This raises interesting
questions about the nature of that system.  There are problems with
the "state capitalism" thesis on socio-economic as well as political
grounds; however I think that the Societ Union exhibited enough of the
kinds of social problems regarding democracy and human emancipation
that it seems justified to say that the Soviet Union was more
symptomatic of the failure to get beyond the most fundamental problems
of capitalism than it was indicative of an emancipated future.

-- Chris

--- In platypus1917@yahoogroups.com, rer137@... wrote:
>
> Chris,
>
> Not trying to be provocative--well, OK  a bit provocative--but here is
> something I do not quite understand. I have been reading two
> books--standard "empirical" history. One "Europe In Crisis 1598-1648"
> by Geoffrey Parker  and the other "Europe Reshaped 1848-1878" by J.A.S.
> Grenville. Reading them, I ask myself what does Chris really mean by
> his contention that the pre-Modern--does the early 17th century count
> as pre-modern?--is somehow wholly "other"? I will readily grant you
> that there were many differences between Europeans in the mid-19th
> century and their ancestors in the early 17th. I will also grant you
> that the development of capitalism is decisive in generating these
> differences. Obviously political possibilities existed in the mid-19th
> century that could not exist  in the early 17th. So I can understand
> saying , for example, that Richelieu was "progressive" and Bismarck
> "reactionary", because in the time of Bismarck there was an
> alternative:namely  Karl Marx! But Richelieu is "progressive" because
> by building up the absolutist monarchy and the rationalizing
> bureaucratic state against the remnants of "feudalism" he was laying
> the ground for the bourgeoisie's rise to power. But as human types--as
> "subjects"--are they really so radically different? Or is the
> difference not one of types of "subjectivity" but rather the objective
> social and economic conditions they both encountered? Of course, to
> even raise the question this way will raise your hackles. But is my
> asking the question this way not related to our "dispute" about whether
> or not the Soviet Union was "capitalist"? Isn't it about how one
> conceptualizes "capitalism"? Am I missing something?
>
> Richard
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
> industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
>

But I think Kafka had it right ;-(


<<The Truth about Sancho Panza

   Without making any boast of it Sancho Panza succeeded in the course of
years, by feeding him a great number of romances of chivalry and
adventure in the evening and night hours, in so diverting from himself
his demon, whom he later called Don Quixote, that this demon thereupon
set out, uninhibited, on the maddest exploits, which, however, for the
lack of a preordained object, which should have been Sancho Panza
himself, harmed nobody. A free man, Sancho Panza philosophically
followed Don Quixote on his crusades, perhaps out of a sense of
responsibility, and had of them a great and edifying entertainment to
the end of his days.>>


Translated by Willa and Edwin Muir
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

Chris,

Not trying to be provocative--well, OK  a bit provocative--but here is
something I do not quite understand. I have been reading two
books--standard "empirical" history. One "Europe In Crisis 1598-1648"
by Geoffrey Parker  and the other "Europe Reshaped 1848-1878" by J.A.S.
Grenville. Reading them, I ask myself what does Chris really mean by
his contention that the pre-Modern--does the early 17th century count
as pre-modern?--is somehow wholly "other"? I will readily grant you
that there were many differences between Europeans in the mid-19th
century and their ancestors in the early 17th. I will also grant you
that the development of capitalism is decisive in generating these
differences. Obviously political possibilities existed in the mid-19th
century that could not exist  in the early 17th. So I can understand
saying , for example, that Richelieu was "progressive" and Bismarck
"reactionary", because in the time of Bismarck there was an
alternative:namely  Karl Marx! But Richelieu is "progressive" because
by building up the absolutist monarchy and the rationalizing
bureaucratic state against the remnants of "feudalism" he was laying
the ground for the bourgeoisie's rise to power. But as human types--as
"subjects"--are they really so radically different? Or is the
difference not one of types of "subjectivity" but rather the objective
social and economic conditions they both encountered? Of course, to
even raise the question this way will raise your hackles. But is my
asking the question this way not related to our "dispute" about whether
or not the Soviet Union was "capitalist"? Isn't it about how one
conceptualizes "capitalism"? Am I missing something?

Richard


________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

Following our meeting yesterday, in which we discussed Althusser
(specifically his essay on "Contradiction and Overdetermination"), and
at the prompt of Paige, a member of our group, I have (re-)read
Althusser's essay on "Marxism and Humanism" (1965): I wanted to share
me reflections on it with you.

Althusser's essay is in his book For Marx, but it is also available on
the web at:

http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/FM65ii.html#s7

I find Althusser's essay interesting and pertinent to our discussion
of the "philosophical"/esoteric content of Marxist politics.

Especially, I find Althusser's essay to be very well answered by
Korsch's essay on "Marxism and Philosophy" (1923) [which we read in
the group earlier, for our May 26 meeting], with which I find greater
agreement:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/korsch/1923/marxism-philosophy.htm

I think that, at the descriptive-analytic "Marxological" level,
Althusser is right, but that this leaves him only "half"-right. What's
missing is the approach to Marx's thought, in Korsch's terms, as a
philosophy of social revolution (specifically of the revolution to get
beyond capitalism).

The reason Adorno, for one, would never put it quite the same way that
Althusser does is because he would dispute Althusser's (basis for)
confidence about Marxism as "science." (Adorno would have Kant's and
Hegel's "idealist" notion of science [Wissenschaft], that is,
knowledge that is aware of its own conditions of possibility.)

For Adorno, the "scientific" aspect of Marx's thought is precisely its
critical dimension; Marxian critical theory's "knowledge"
(recognition) of its own basis is the recognition of the *problem* of
reason and freedom in *capital*, rather than its *answer* as a
"science of history;" its "scientific" character is inseparable from
its revolutionary social-political intent.

What Althusser lacks is a sense of the historically-specific character
of Marxian thought itself: that the revolution will render its
("dialectical-materialist") conception of history obsolete, for it is
specific to history subject to capital.

Best,
Chris

Common sense against the Will to Believe. Carl Davidson was a major
figure in the New Left, by the way.


Subject: Re: 9/11 conspiracy challenged 
 
    Sigh....once again. 
    
    One of the guys promoting this stuff asked in one of the workshops in
Milwaukee if anyone believed the government on this. Of course, no one
raised their hand simply because no one completely believes the
government on anything, either that cigarettes are harmful to your
health or that the US landed men on the moon. So I raised my hand, a
minority of one, and declared that I believed bin Laden and his guys
did it, as they claimed that they had done. 
    
  There are five ways of looking at this. 
    
    First, there is no scientific case for the WTC events other than what
actually happened, two hijacked airliners rammed into them and they
collapsed as a result of that interaction and its complex consequences.
There has been one experiment, the one organized by al-Quaeda, and it
worked. All the other claims are technobabble conjecture, whether by
theologians, firemen or engineers. No one has tried a reasonable
facsimile of another experiment to show that it can't be done. 
    
    Second, the goalposts keep changing. We hear a plane really didn't
hit the Pentagon. We get film 'clips' to 'prove' it. Then when we
contact and poll grieving families, who know their loved ones are gone,
then they are either in on the plot, intimidated in lying,  both more
than far-fetched, so then we're asked to shift gears and talk about
something else. And so on... 
    
    Third, it is highly unlikely that a Bush plot will ever be proven, if
there was one, unless someone cracks. All the 9/11 buff stories would
require hundreds, if not thousands, to be in on the plot, and yet no
one has cracked nor are there dead bodies strew about, as in the JFK
case. They can't keep a rape and murder by five GIs under wraps for
long, yet this one is solid as a rock?  Thanks, but no thanks... 
    
    Fourth, the buffs always talk about our supposed 'great' defense
system, but ignored that it was the military that coined the term
'SNAFU,' ie, situation normal, all fucked up. 
    
    Fifth, there's a racist subtext, ie, bin Laden and his guys could
never be smart enough to figure out weaknesses like these and exploit
them with intelligence and audacity, as they say they have done. The
buff response?  The real bin Laden didn't claim this, a clone double
did.  Please... 
    
    I'll repeat again, I am not adverse to all these things. I wrote the
screenscript for a documentary on the JFK assassination, and can offer
some plausible hypotheses on who did it and why Oswald was what he said
he was, the 'patsy.' 
    
    But here's what I suggest. There are some real conspiracies that need
unmasking that would really help us.  Like who supplied Saddam with the
chemicals used against Iran and the Kurds. Not just educated guesses
that it was Rumsfield, but really nail it down. 
    
    But this is not likely, since the 9/11 'Truth' has emerged as a
diverting and self-sustaining cottage industry, and is likely to keep
on for a while no matter what. 
    
    
  Carl Davidson 
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

of interest...

--- In anticapdiscuss@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Myers" <rtmyers@...>
wrote:

     "We're not asking permission to stop this war. We're not asking
permission to fight for our freedom. We're not asking for those in
power to do their job right. They are doing their job wrong and we
will do what is necessary to stop them."
     We are not a "protest organization," we are a "resistance
organization."


   If you know a student, if you are a student, if you have ever been a
student, please read this.

   And,  forward.

     --richard myers





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


July10, 2006

The New SDS
Towards a Radical Youth Movement
By RON JACOBS

From August 4th through the 7th, a new incarnation of Students for a
Democratic Society (SDS) will hold its first national convention. This
organization will have been around for almost a year when it meets in
Chicago. Obviously taking its inspiration from the famed US student
organization of the 1960s, the new SDS is part an extension and
expansion on the hopes and dreams of the group and also something
quite new. Although by assuming that group's name the new SDS is
taking a risk in a number of ways, the enthusiasm of the new members
that I have met; and their understanding of the mistakes and successes
of their predecessor indicates that this SDS is not a nostalgia buff's
toy, but the genuine article--a left and democratic youth organization
dedicated to effecting radical social change. I was recently at
another conference in New York City and met up with one of the
convention organizers Patrick Korte. We agreed to have an email
conversation discussing the new organization. The transcript follows.

Ron: What are the founding organizers hopes for the new SDS?

Pat: Our founding hopes are to build a multi-issue,
multi-generational, radical coalition that can educate, fight, and
build. Rather than build an organization around a particular political
ideology (anarcho-syndicalism, libertarian communism, Marxism, etc.)
we can build around the need for unity within the Left, the need to
actively combat the oppression in the modern world (US imperialism in
the Middle East, racism in our communities, poor public education,
etc.) while building new institutions that counter the inadequate
existing ones. Through our experiences in tearing down the old,
undemocratic society and building up a new, truly democratic society
we can develop an original ideology that we can call our own.

Ron: Who can join SDS?

Pat: SDS is open to people of all ages, regardless of their enrollment
status. The reason for this is that we are all students of the human
experience, actively learning from one another. For the older members
of SDS, a post-graduate division has been created, the Movement for a
Democratic Society (MDS).

Ron : What is your role in the new SDS?

Pat: Currently I am working on both the local and national level.
Locally, I am working in the Connecticut and New York area, focusing
on the issues of US military intervention in the Middle East and South
America, immigrant rights, student rights, and political
prisoners/prisoners of war. On thenational level I have been doing
alot of office work (answering phone calls, responding to e-mails) and
helping to coordinate the national convention which will be held from
August 5-7 at the University of Chicago.

Ron: In terms of the current organizing group, what is the gender
balance? The racial/ethnic mix?

Pat: It's hard to say since we have grown to be fairly large in a
short amount of time and we don't keep track of that information, but
at the events I have attended there has been a diverse racial/ethnic
mix and I would estimate that the gender balance on the national level
is around 50-50. Unlike the original SDS, the issues of racism and
sexism are already being actively addressed and overcome within the
organization.

Ron: Are you hoping to recruit students of all skin tones and
ethnicities? What about non-students? You probably know from history
that the attempt to recruit non-students and the debate on how to do
so was problematic in 1968 and 1969. How have things changed since then?

Pat: I believe it is critical for SDS's success to build a
multi-racial coalition, and we have already begun to do so. Regarding
non-students, we understood from the beginning that radical change
could not be brought about in the US (or the world) by students alone,
but it is critical that youth and students lead their own struggles
without bowing at the feet of veteran activists this is why we chose
to create a sister organization (MDS) within SDS.

Ron: Are there certain political expectations that people interested
in joining the organization should have? Do the organizers have
certain political expectations of those that they hope do join?

Pat: There is one political expectation for people interested in
joining SDS, and that is a commitment to participatory democracy
(active participation in the decision making process). Most organizers
hope that new members fall along the libertarian side of the Left (as
opposed to the authoritarian), but for many, SDS is their first
experience with political activism and it is expected that ones
ideology will change through their experiences organizing in the
community and in the streets.

Ron: What are SDS' founding principles?

Pat: SDS was founded on the principles of participatory democracy,
community education, and a commitment to action rather than rhetoric.
We seek for both young and old people to participate in a movement
that will tear down the pillars of the old society and build a new
world that is democratic and free of poverty, ignorance, war,
exploitation, racism, and sexism. The Port Huron Statement, although
outdated, is still relevant to this question in many ways. SDS was
also founded as a resistance organization as opposed to a protest
organization. We are no longer going to plead with the people in
power, begging them to serve in the greater interest of the people -
they serve corporate interests and we will do what is necessary to
stop them and build a society that puts people before profits.

Ron: Why SDS and not some other name?

Pat: Over the years, many students have been shafted in the American
Left, and we believe it is necessary for students to lead their own
organization and to determine the direction of their own movement
without isolating themselves from the non-student Left. There is also
a need for a radical, democratic alternative to the authoritarian and
undemocratic organizations dominating the Left and an organization
that is issue based and an inclusive one that allows the participants
to develop their own ideology through their experiences within the
organization. The reason we chose to keep the name SDS is because it
accurately describes us (we are students for a democratic society),
the ideas expressed in the Port Huron Statement, the focus on
participatory democracy, and the militancy and radicalism that defined
the original SDS are much needed in the 21st century.

Ron: Who funds your organization? If it is an outside group, do you
think that that connection will affect SDS' independence? (As you
know, the original SDS was originally funded by the League for
Industrial Democracy--an anti-communist leftist group. Despite this,
they struck out on their own )

Pat: SDS received no outside funding with the exception of donations
we have received from individuals. The majority of funding comes from
our own pocket. In the spirit of the original SDS, we have continued
the tradition of having a shoestring budget.

Ron: What do you see as the biggest task facing you in the group's
early stages?

Pat: Our biggest task is to create a national and local structure that
allows maximum participation of all members of the organization
without jeopardizing the need for action.

Ron: As you know, many folks believe that one of the primary reasons
the original SDS disintegrated was because its membership policies and
structure allowed groups with relatively small memberships to control
the organization's agenda. What are your thoughts on that historical
take and does the new SDS anticipate such a situation occurring this
time around?

Pat: We want to remain inclusive and we believe that the best way to
combat sectarian takeovers of the organization is to create a
structure that on a local level allows chapters to function
autonomously and on a national level allows maximum participation of
the organizations membership in the decision making process, rather
than a select few individuals making decisions on behalf of the
membership.

Ron: If so, how do you think it will be handled?

Pat: It is likely that individuals advocating totalitarian principles
will infiltrate SDS and attempt to push the organization in a specific
direction, but if the membership is actively involved in national and
local decisions, then it would be difficult for individuals to take
over SDS.

Ron: There are other organizations out there in the US that are
organizing around some of the same issues that SDS is organizing
around--the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, immigration, civil
liberties--how is SDS different from these groups? And, how are they
similar?

Pat: SDS is different because we are focused on student-worker power,
we are multi-issue, and we are offering the opportunity for
individuals to shape, build, and define an organization. We are
similar in that we are against a common enemy (imperialism) and for
the Left to successfully fight the Right, we must unite with these
other organizations. Unity is critical, SDS is not asking individuals
to leave their organizations because we offer a better platform or
theory we exist for the purpose of offering a democratic alternative
to authoritarianism without asking individuals to commit to a
particular political ideology or party line.

Ron: Do you see the group calling national demonstrations in the future?

Pat: Currently all demonstrations are called for on a local or
regional level. I would like to see SDS create a national structure
that allows for the majority of the membership to participate in
calling for national mobilizations. If we can't create a democratic
process to call for national mobilizations, then we'll stick to local
actions - many which have already proven to be more effective than
many of the mass anti-war demonstrations called for by the big
organizations in the Left. If we could call for national mobilizations
that had the potential to shut down entire cities and cause the war
machine to stop functioning on the military, political, and economic
level, then national mobilizations would be worth the effort. We need
to break away from the stereotypical anti-war mobilization where
thousands of people go to Washington, DC or NYC, listen to a long list
of speakers touch upon issues most of the audience is already aware
of, march around for an hour, then go home - all of this being done
after the organization has begged for permission to do so from the
very power they are opposed to. We're not asking permission to stop
this war. We're not asking permission to fight for our freedom. We're
not asking for those in power to do their job right. They are doing
their job wrong and we will do what is necessary to stop them. We
don't want to rock the boat, we want to sink the motherfucker!

Ron: Tell me about the convention. How many people have registered
already?

Pat: Currently we have only 120 people registered but we expect many
more to be attending, especially since many SDSers plan on bringing
friends.

Ron: What's the agenda? Etc.

Pat: The convention will be a mass gathering of SDSers collaborating
in workshops to discuss issues of structure, local organizing,
national organizing, and the issues that affect us today (US
involvement in the Middle East/US imperialism, immigrant rights,
student rights and power, the prison-industrial complex, racism,
sexism, homophobia, poverty, AIDS, etc.). We want it to be a
participatory convention where those in attendance will play an active
role in the discussion, rather than a seminar where only a select
group of individuals have the floor. We want much of the focus to be
on how to effectively combat the problems we are up against (such as
how we can sever ties between the military and the education system).
The agenda will be available here.

Ron: Are there any plans beyond the convention?

Pat: Yes - in New York we are planning "Iraq Week", an event focused
on the US war in the Middle East. The event will be a mass teach-in
followed by a resistance campaign throughout the city. On a national
level, we hope to put our goals and values into words and begin
developing a national structure. I don't foresee SDS calling for a
national action in the immediate future, but expect teach-ins,
sit-ins, takeovers, and acts of resistance on high school and college
campuses across the country starting this fall. We also hope to build
an international solidarity network so that SDS can begin fighting US
imperialism on a global scale.

Ron: I see SDS as part of a broader movement. Although history will
certainly decide the answer to this next question I would be
interested in your thoughts before history takes over.. Do you see the
group as part of a united front or as an organization that works
parallel to other left-leaning organizations?

Pat: I believe SDS is part of a united front against exploitation and
empire; part of a broad coalition of radicals that understand change
cannot be achieved by working within the imperialist system. Although
we have differences regarding internal structure and have varying
definitions of democracy, we are all in the same struggle against an
enemy that is far to the right of even Nixon.

(For those interested in attending the national conference, a
registration form can be found on the SDS website.)

Ron Jacobs is author of The Way the Wind Blew: a history of the
Weather Underground, which is just republished by Verso. Jacobs' essay
on Big Bill Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch's new collection on
music, art and sex, Serpents in the Garden. He can be reached at:
rjacobs3625@...


http://counterpunch.org/jacobs07102006.html

http://studentsforademocraticsociety.org/

--- End forwarded message ---

Note that this text is rather incomplete has been edited, however. One
can find the rest in "Feminism: The Essential Historical Writings"
copyright 1972 by Miriam Schneir.



    Clara Zetkin on Lenin:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/zetkin/1920/lenin/zetkin1.htm



________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

http://home.comcast.net/~platypus1917/platypus_chicagoreadings2006.htm#9july2006

The Sunday 7/9/06 meeting of the Platypus Marxist reading group in
Chicago was focused on the question of "second-wave"
(post-suffrage/formal legal-political equality) feminism, the
emergence of women's liberation movements, and the '60s New Left.


Overview

We read Juliet Mitchell's seminal essay on "Women: the Longest
Revolution" (1966) and Mitchell's debate with Quintin Hoare about the
revolutionary social content of gender, familial, sexual, and
reproductive rights demands for equality and freedom, the relationship
of such demands to liberal-capitalist and socialist-reformist
politics, and how such demands for reforms might point beyond the
framework of capitalism.

As background reading, we engaged a short anecdotal account of the
emergence of women's liberation in the late-'60s British New left by
the former Pakistani-British Trotskyist Tariq Ali, from his book
Street-Fighting Years: an autobiography of the '60s (1987/2005).

We also read two short lectures given by Herbert Marcuse on "Marxism
and Feminism" (1974) and "The Failure of the New Left?" (1975), and a
recent review essay on Juliet Mitchell's work from a feminist
perspective by Lynne Segal, "Psychoanalysis and Politics: Juliet
Mitchell then and now" (2000).

The point of our discussion of Mitchell's work, as exemplary of
emergent "socialist feminism" in the New Left, was to engage the role
of feminism in the disintegration of the socialist Left after the 1960s.


Post-'60s feminism and the failure of the New Left

One framework raised in our discussion, for considering the
relationship of feminism to socialist politics, was the trajectory of
feminism from the 1960s to the present.  What began in three distinct
political traditions for addressing issues of gender and sexual
equality and freedom, liberal feminism, radical feminism, and
socialist feminism, has become, since the 1960s, the pervasive
common-sense/PC feminism (a spectrum of social-political ideology that
combines liberal and radical feminisms) that might represent the
simultaneous, combined apparent "satisfaction" of the
liberal-reformist demands of post-60s feminism (e.g., Mitchell's 4
demands, including availability of contraception and decriminalization
of homosexuality, etc.) with the evacuation and disappearance of
*socialist* politics, with the ambiguous outcome of simultaneous
progress and regress in the  consciousness of emancipatory
possibilities to the present.

Likewise, the question was raised of the nature of the apparent
*necessity* of the turn to feminist approaches to social problems of
gender and sexual inequalities and oppression.

Did feminism address a *deficit* that existed in socialist politics
prior to the 1960s?  Or, had the broad and open-ended emancipatory
social content of revolutionary Marxian politics, including
possibilities for gender and sexual equality and freedom as part of
the struggle for social transformation, become obscured by the
vulgarized (narrowly understood) "class-based" Marxism of the mid-20th
Century, provoking the "identity politics" response in the attempt to
"supplement" a (traditional) Marxist approach to social transformation?


Foucault's response to failed emancipation in the 1970s?

As a corollary to this discussion of feminism and inadequate
understandings of the content of struggles for social emancipation,
Foucault's work on sexuality and his dispute of the Freudian
"repressive hypothesis" (from his History of Sexuality vol. 1, 1976,
where the liberation of sexuality was understood as being inevitably
tied to its "production" as disciplinary "knowledge" in relations of
"power"), was raised as possibly filling a "gap" that existed not only
in liberal and traditional Marxist politics, but also in (e.g., Juliet
Mitchell's) socialist feminism.

However, Foucault's skepticism towards the question of sexual
liberation was taken to indicate the larger retreat from the politics
of social emancipation after the '60s.

One critique of Foucault raised in the discussion was that, in his
theory, he had no way of accounting for the possibility of his
critical perspective, which thus lacked self-reflexivity and hence a
proper account of the kinds of ambivalent, emancipatory possibilities
of social forms that a Marxian approach such as Mitchell's might
provide (e.g., her discussion of the ambivalent character --
simultaneously emancipatory and repressive -- of romantic love-based
monogamous marriage, and the family form around which bourgeois
society came to be ostensibly organized).


A Marxian critique of feminism?

The critique of feminism offered in our discussion tried to
demonstrate how feminism arose from problems in the self-understanding
of the emancipatory content of the revolutionary politics of the
socialist Left, which were evinced by Mitchell's debate with Quintin
Hoare, and in her critical engagement with Marcuse.

If problems of gender and sexual equality and freedom cannot be
"reduced" to questions of socio-economic "class," then what is the
purchase of a Marxian critique and social-emancipatory vision for such
problems?

The conceptualization of capitalism as a form of social totality that
is elaborated and reproduced through the subjectivity of the commodity
form (as in the work of Adorno and Postone) might offer an alternative
way of approaching how to understand capitalism as a repressive
context for these kinds of problems of social emancipation:  How does
capitalism reconstitute "traditional" gender oppression on a new and
different basis?  How does capitalism make possible and motivate the
reproduction of forms of gender and sexual oppression, while
simultaneously producing emancipatory possibilities that produce and
motivate forms of social discontent that are expressed, however
ideologically, by such forms of consciousness as feminism?

* * *


Next meeting, Sunday 7/16/06:  Althusser and the crisis of the Old
Left: is revolution justified by history?

Our next meeting will be held in the same location, 14th floor of the
112 S. Michigan Ave. building of the School of the Art Institute of
Chicago, 12-4PM on next Sunday, July 16.

The topic will be two essays from Carl Oglesby, ed., New Left Reader
(1969): Oglesby's "Introduction: the Idea of the New Left" (1969), and
the primary reading for our consideration, by Louis Althusser,
"Contradiction and Overdetermination" (1962), which attempts to
introduce the Lacanian-Freudian psychoanalytic idea of
"overdetermination" in order to complicate the Marxist theory of
social contradiction, beyond the orthodox notion of the "simple"
essential contradiction of Labor vs. Capital (which Althusser takes to
be a deleterious holdover from Hegelian-Idealist conceptions of
history), in attempting to understand the possibilities for social
transformation.  (Althusser's concept of overdetermined social
contradiction was very influential for the 60s Left, for instance, for
Juliet Mitchell's work on women, capitalism and revolution.)

The readings for next Sunday's (7/16) meeting can be accessed at:

http://home.comcast.net/~platypus1917/platypus_chicagoreadings2006.htm#16july200\
6


Volunteers for presenting on the Althusser and Oglesby essays would be
greatly appreciated.

Best,
Chris

The Caliber is avertised before Daily Show internet clips so
I have seen their ads many times. It is a very ugly car that
has a distinct resemblence of a yugo (or perhaps a yugo
after a trip to BALCO). Perhaps its ugliness is why one
never gets a clear view, due to rapidly changing and partial
camera angles and a primordial mist that veils the car. I
find the theme music of the ad more interesting though. It
is this funny combination of electronic and primitive. The
drums, electronically produced, combined with the primal
scream that sound track the ad are meant to create a sense
of deep existential protest, somewhat like Korn or other
bands that appeal to shopping mall rebels and body builders.
The car, interestingly, is promoted as a critique of modern,
consumerist society, even as it is promoting consumption.
However, that critique is from the (dominant) standpoint of
a more virile, rooted, and authentic consumer a la Spengler.
I think the below mentioned attack on "Fairies" is
important, but to focus only on the homophobic aspects of
this campaign is to miss the way that this ad is part of a
larger societal celebration of virility, authenticity,
agressiveness, anti-intellectuality, and muscularity.

Parker

---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 11:07:12 -0400
>From: rer137@...
>Subject: [platypus1917] "Silly little fairy"
>To: platypus1917@yahoogroups.com
>
> There are several things about this I find fascinating,
> but I am not sure that I can articulate all of them. The
>      first is perhaps simply the idea of reviewing
>  advertisements as though they were works of art, i.e.
>  theatrical spectacles?! The second is the way in which
>    homosexuality has been both "normalized" and not.
>Pseudo-normalized? Finally, how odd--grotesque?--all this
>  would have seemed to a time when traditional masculine
> images used to sell products simply assumed themselves.
>    Nowadays I suppose the Marlboro Man would suggest
>   Brokeback Mountain to a lot of people, so everything
>becomes a "symptom" a la Zizek--and the purpose of it all
>, "forgotten" in all the PC indignation is to SELL THINGS.
>
>   What a strange world we live in!
>
> Is This Dodge 'Fairy' Commercial Actually Hate Speech in
>                        Disguise?
>
>  Bod Garfield's Ad Review: Watch the Video
>
>   By Bob Garfield
>   Published: April 17, 2006
>   Faggot. Queer. Fairy. These are synonyms, epithets
>   one and all disparaging gays -- or, more often,
>   heterosexual men deemed insufficiently masculine.
>   Let's call that Fact No. 1.
>   The 'Fairy' spot was created for Dodge by BBDO,
>   Detroit. ALSO: Comment on this review in the 'Your
>   Opinion' section below.
>
>   Macho brand
>   Fact No. 2: Dodge is marketing its new Caliber
>   subcompact as a tough little car, as opposed to
>   sissy little Civics, Corollas and the like. This
>   comports with Dodge's long-cultivated macho image,
>   as exemplified by the grunting, Aerosmith
>   heavy-metal music tag punctuating every spot.
>
>   Fact No. 3 is that one of the introductory
>   commercials from BBDO, Detroit, features the
>   juxtaposition of a burly tough guy and his Doberman
>   with a sweater-draped girlie man who is walking four
>   little lap dogs. Fact No. 4 is that the only line of
>   dialogue in the commercial is the burly dude
>   exclaiming, "Silly little fairy!"
>
>   And Fact No. 5 -- the genuinely astonishing fact --
>   is that Daimler Chrysler asserts that none of the
>   above is meant to invoke a sexual insult.
>
>   "Was it intentional? ! Absolutely not," says
>   spokeswoman Suraya Bliss, whose voice quavered as
>   she spoke, perhaps because she was choking on the
>   corporate line. "It's not the kind of company we
>   are."
>
>   Preposterous corporate line
>   But, of course, the corporate line is preposterous.
>   Much more likely is that someone at BBDO realized
>   they could call people fairies if their commercial
>   depicted an actual fairy. Get it! How subversive! A
>   flitty little fairy! We can imagine the hilarity in
>   the cubicle as they contrived a way to set up the
>   "Not for sissies" selling proposition based on an
>   innocent magical fantasy. The result-mean-spirited
>   but undeniably crafty -- is as follows:
>
>   A winged little pixie, fluttering along an urban
>   skyline, waves her magic wand and -- in a puff of
>   magical dust -- turns a skyscraper into a
>   gingerbread house. Next she turns a commuter train
>   into a colorful toy choo-choo. Then she spies a new
>   Dodge Caliber, which she waves at with her wand.
>
>   But noth! ing happens. Three times she tries her
>   magic, to no avail. For all her efforts, the shiny
>   black Caliber remains a tough, rugged subcompact.
>   Meanwhile, her momentum sends her flying-splat! --
>   into a building.
>
>   'Silly little fairy'
>   A passing brute (he's also all in macho black as he
>   walks his Doberman) is very amused by this scene.
>   "Silly little fairy," he laughs.
>
>   So she wands him -- turning his Neanderthal getup
>   into a wimpy tennis outfit, and his Doberman into
>   four Pomeranians. "Oohhh!" he simpers.
>
>   Then the voice-over: "Introducing the all-new Dodge
>   Caliber. It's anything but cute."
>
>   Oh, is it now?
>
>   Look, there's nothing wrong with positioning an
>   economy car as a car with truck values. In fact,
>   "the manly subcompact" is a very good idea. You can
>   even suggest that everything else in the category
>   looks effeminate. Though political correctness is
>   out of control in this society, you're still allowed
>   to choose your own sexual demeanor.
>
>   But what no advertiser has any business doing is
>   calling pe! ople fairies, because it is cheap,
>   because it is gratuitous, because it is hateful.
>
>   Gay and lesbian consumers
>   Also self-destructive, undermining Daimler Chrysler
>   corporate entreaties to gay and lesbian consumers --
>   not to mention the much larger
>   sick-of-sexual-bullying population. But never mind
>   the business consequences.
>
>   There is simply no room in advertising for hate
>   speech. Period.
>
>   For the record, Daimler Chrysler and BBDO protest
>   that this spot is obviously not homophobic because
>   the guy with the lap dogs is a preppy type-as
>   opposed to some flamboyant queen. Of course, the
>   same people swear they were totally unaware of the
>   "fairy" double-entendre.
>
>   They say we're seeing things. We say they're living
>   in a fantasy world, and it's anything but cute.
>
>   Review: Zero stars
>   Ad: Dodge
>   Agency: BBDO
>   Location: Detroit ay and lesbian consumers
>   Also self-destructive, undermining Daimler Chr!
>   ysler corporate entreaties to gay and lesbian
>   consumers -- not to ment ion the much larger
>   sick-of-sexual-bullying population. But never mind
>   the business consequences.
>
>   There is simply no room in advertising for hate
>   speech. Period.
>
>   For the record, Daimler Chrysler and BBDO protest
>   that this spot is obviously not homophobic because
>   the guy with the lap dogs is a preppy type-as
>   opposed to some flamboyant queen. Of course, the
>   same people swear they were totally unaware of the
>   "fairy" double-entendre.
>
>   They say we're seeing things. We say they're living
>   in a fantasy world, and it's anything but cute.
>
>   Review: Zero stars
>   Ad: Dodge
>   Agency: BBDO
>   Location: Detroit
>
>   Garfield's Ad Review RSS Feed
>
>     ------------------------------------------------
>
>   Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of
>   storage and industry-leading spam and email virus
>   protection.
>
>

A consensus has developed to dedicate the next meeting of the Platypus
Marxist reading group, on this coming Sunday, July 9, to the topic of
women and revolution.

We will meet to discuss Juliet Mitchell's essay "Women: the Longest
Revolution" (1966), the critical response to Mitchell by Quintin
Hoare, and Mitchell's reply to Hoare.

As background reading, we will consider a short excerpt from Tariq
Ali's political memoir of the '60s, Street-Fighting Years (1987), and
two lectures by Herbert Marcuse on "Marxism and Feminism" (1974), and
"The Failure of the New Left?" (1975).  --  In her essay, Mitchell
makes an important critique of Marcuse's approach expressed in these
lectures.

All these articles are posted at:

http://home.comcast.net/~platypus1917/platypus_chicagoreadings2006.htm#9july2006

(Please see, below, the full list of readings for this Sunday's
meeting.)

We will meet 12 noon-4PM at the 112 S. Michigan Ave. building of the
School of the Art Institute of Chicago, in the 14th floor café (take
elevator to 12th floor and walk up the stairs in the café, or take
elevator directly to 14th floor).  Those who are not Art
Institute-affiliated should contact me (so I can leave your names with
the security desk to gain admittance) and/or plan to meet outside a
few minutes early so that I can escort you past security into the
building.

We will meet on the following two Sundays, July 16 and July 23, at the
same time and location.

On Sunday, July 16, we will meet to discuss the crisis of the Old Left
that gave rise to the New Left, reading Louis Althusser's influential
essay on "Contradiction and Overdetermination" (1962) -- which
inspired, for example, Juliet Mitchell's essay on women and revolution
-- and Carl Oglesby's "Introduction: The Idea of the New Left," from
The New Left Reader [Oglesby, ed., Grove Press, 1969, ISBN 8345615368]
(and from which much of our readings in subsequent meetings will be
taken).

On Sunday, July 23, we will meet to discuss the ambivalent legacy of
Trotskyism for -- and potential dissidence from -- the New Left.

Looking forward to seeing all of you on Sunday.

Best,
Chris

* * *

July 9, 2006

Reading the New Left -- Excursus I
Women and revolution

- Juliet Mitchell, "Women: the Longest Revolution" (1966)

- Quintin Hoare, "On Mitchell's 'Women: The longest revolution' " (1967)

- Mitchell, reply to Quintin Hoare (1967)

[recommended background reading:]

- Tariq Ali, from "Much Maligned Movements 1969-75"
[Chapter 10 of Street-Fighting Years: An Autobiography of the '60s
(1987)]

- Herbert Marcuse, "Marxism and Feminism" (1974), and

- Marcuse, "The Failure of the New Left?" (1975)

"The call to abandon their illusions about their conditions is a call
to abandon a condition which requires illusions."
(Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right 1843, quoted by
Tariq Ali 1987)

"I'm gonna ask you comrade and brother
How do you treat your own woman back home
She got to be herself
So she can free herself."
(John Lennon, "Power to the People" 1968, quoted by Ali 1987)

"The situation of women is different from that of any other social
group. This is because they are not one of a number of isolable units,
but half a totality: the human species. . . . They are fundamental to
the human condition, yet in their economic, social and political
roles, they are marginal. It is precisely this combination --
fundamental and marginal at one and the same time -- that has been
fatal to them." (Mitchell 1966)

* * *

I thought this would be of interest for understanding both
the New Left and the present.
Parker

H. Marcuse, "Failure of the New Left," New German Critique,
18 (Fall 1979): 3-11.

I thought this article would be of interest:

Herbert Marcuse, "Marxism and Feminism," Women's Studies, 2,
no. 3 (1974): 279-288.



as would this engagement with Chicago Surrealism

http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/70spubs/73surreal/arsenal
index.htm

Part of the problem that I have set myself is the task of explaining
the crisis of the Left today in terms of the long legacy of the
(failures of the) 60s New Left, and I am trying to place those is the
most fundamental terms: what is the Marxian critique of capitalism
about, and how are the problems of Marxism to be understood and overcome?

I consider 1968 to be the high water mark of the 60s (New) Left.  For
me, it is all downhill after that.  This especially poses problems for
the "new social movements" that emerged in the late-60s-70s, including
"second-wave" feminism (after WWI, but especially the 1960s, which is
thus distinguished from the suffragette movements of the early 20th
Century), because it really emerges in earnest after 1968/69.  (This
is the reason, for example, that there are no texts on it in the
Oglesby New Left Reader -- and also why, when Oglesby does let slip a
couple of comments on women's oppression in his editorial intros to
the texts in the book -- for example in his intro to the Fanon article
-- he hits such false notes!)

So, we remain victims of the same problem that women Leftists would
have been facing in 1968!

Now, the problem, for me, is *how* women's oppression was addressed --
back then, and to the present.  I do not think it was addressed very
well back then, and I think the failures back then have informed the
(poverty of the) discussion of women's oppression to this day.

I will admit that, personally, I think there is a real dearth of good
writing on the problems of women's oppression, and I would distinguish
this kind of approach from the approach to gender per se.  --  This is
similar to my highly critical approach to questions of social problems
of racial identity: I prefer to discuss *racism* rather than *race* --
which I consider to be a reification!

Hence, I must say that I am unsympathetic to feminism.  I tend to
think of feminism in terms of the identity politics that followed in
the wake of the 60s and which, to me, demonstrate the manifest
bankruptcy of the politics of that era and that bankruptcy's long,
insidious effects to the present.  To put it simply, I regard feminism
as a reactionary ideology that had a strong role in the liquidation of
the Left after the 60s.

To specify, feminism as an ideology played a role in convincing
radicalized women that a Marxian critical theory had little to say to
their oppression as women, thus losing a generation of women who might
have joined the revolutionary Left to feminism and its insular focus
on the subjective condition of "being a woman," which is quite a
paltry alternative to pursuing questions of what the possibilities
might exist for what one, and those who follow, might *become* in
struggling for an emancipated society.

While there are different tendencies in feminism that make it
difficult to talk about feminism per se, comprehensively, I think that
there is enough common ground to talk about feminism as an ideological
phenomenon.  "Socialist" feminism was one such tendency that emerged
in the 70s, but I think this is a misnomer, an attempt to say that
socialists, too, have something to say about women's oppression, which
already concedes too much to the (reified) category of gender.

As part of my ongoing research for the Platypus reading group, I was
reading the Pakistani-British Leftist Tariq Ali's political memoir of
the 1960s, Street Fighting Years, written in 1987 (yes, named after
the Rolling Stones song "Street Fighting Man," of which Tariq Ali had
been the first to publish the lyrics in 1968, in the pages of The
Black Dwarf, a Leftist journal Ali co-founded and edited).

Tariq Ali has a Trotskyist background, having worked for many years in
an organization in Britain that was part of the official Trotskyist
Fourth International (headed by Ernest Mandel).  So he has a
particular perspective on the 1960s, but one with which I have much in
common.

I was struck especially by a section in which Ali discusses the
emergence and problems of socialist feminism after 1968.  I have
scanned those few pages and made them available at:

http://home.comcast.net/~platypus1917/alitariq_streetfightingyears_pp230-237.pdf

Ali begins the chapter with a quotation from Marx from his Critique of
Hegel's Philosophy of Right (1843) that states:

"The call to abandon their illusions about their conditions is a call
to abandon a condition which requires illusions."

This epigraph that Ali has chosen, for a chapter titled "Much Maligned
Movements, 1969-75," seems to me to acknowledge that there were
*serious* problems with the kinds of "new social movements" that
emerged in and after the 1960s. However, with the Marx quotation, Ali
seems to be saying that, as problematic and illusory as those
movements had been in their self-understanding, the real problems were
not in the movements themselves but in the society they sought to
address.

So, feminism becomes *symptomatic* of a problem that was not
adequately addressed, and has not yet been overcome.  The problem with
post-60s feminism takes women's oppression only within the categories
of gender and thus cannot address deeper issues informing the
oppression of women.  But this is *not* to say that those roots are
simply to be found in the economic substructure!

Following the Marxian critiques of capitalism as comprehensive context
for social modernity (by Adorno, Postone, et al.), one might begin to
see the critique of capitalism as being not merely a socio-economic
critique of modern society, but a critique of a form of subjectivity,
and a recognition of its emancipatory possibilities, that point beyond
social conditions in which something like the continuation of the
oppression of women is still yet possible and reproducible.

But I think that gender and sexual oppression are *outrages* that
should not be naturalized by being cast as "fundamental" to our
society and its actual possibilities for emancipatory transformation.

An example of the way of thinking that feminism feeds into: elsewhere
in his memoir of the 60s, Tariq Ali quotes John Lennon's song "Power
to the People"

"I'm gonna ask you comrade and brother,
How do you treat your own woman back home,
She got to be herself,
So she can free herself."

What is key for me here is that the focus is on the freedom of women
being about figuring out what they *are* (for a woman to be able to
*be* herself -- an impoverished notion of freedom!), where I think the
focus should have been/be on *emancipation* -- to address what the
possibilities are for *becoming* and *overcoming*, beyond the present
social categories.

Rather than the singular focus on gender as being "irreducible," I
think the question needs to be posed as follows: what are the
conditions, in the subjectivity of the commodity form, broadly
defined, and to which all are subject, that find expression in
categories of, for example, gender and sexual identity?  Capitalism is
the context for the specifically *modern* problem of women's
oppression.  But then the question is: what is capitalism?  (Hence the
focus I have taken in the reading group.)

At the same time, clearly economic violence, for example, the
decreased standard of living as the context for women's massive
(re-)entry into the workforce during and after the 1960s is clearly a
factor in making matters of gender meaner and more intractable to the
present.  Also, while gendered oppression cannot be reduced to
economic imperatives, clearly socio-economic factors can exacerbate --
and ameliorate! -- the social condition of women and their (obstacles
to) possibilities for freedom -- for overcoming social existence in
terms of gender.

The 1960s, by comparison, might have been a time for greater
opportunity in making some gains against the oppression of women, at
least in some senses.  But, like much else, I think this opportunity
was largely squandered.  There was an opening, and this was expressed
but also *closed* through the emergent ideology of feminism.

On the marxists.org archive I found a text by Juliet Mitchell, "Women:
the Longest Revolution" (1966/71), that I think is very good,
especially as a document of the late-60s era on which we will be
focusing, in laying out some basic themes and categories:

http://www.marxists.org/subject/women/authors/mitchell-juliet/longest-revolution\
.htm

The original New Left Review version of Mitchell's essay, and the
discussion of it that followed, can be found at:

Mitchell's essay:

http://home.comcast.net/~platypus1917/mitchelljuliet_womenlongestrevolution_nlr4\
0.pdf

Quintin Hoare's discussion of Mitchell's essay:

http://home.comcast.net/~platypus1917/hoarequintin_mitchelljulietwomenrev_nlr41.\
pdf

Mitchell's reply to Hoare:

http://home.comcast.net/~platypus1917/mitchelljuliet_womenrevreply_nlr41.pdf

Best,
Chris

In response to a question raised during the last meeting of the
Platypus Marxist reading group in Chicago, I went ahead to try to find
some articles by the Marxist political economist Samir Amin, and this,
in turn, led me back in some other directions, with direct relevance
for any discussion we might have of, for example, Negri and Hardt on
Empire.

I found the following 2004 Monthly Review article on the role of US
imperialism in the present state of global politics that I take to be
typical of Amin's approach:

http://www.monthlyreview.org/1104amin.htm

The recent (2006) article by Moishe Postone, which I have included as
the principal "preliminary reading" for the Platypus group, provides a
very good counterpoint to Amin's kind of analysis, and a strong caveat
about its kind of "bi-polar" politics (the reduction of politics on
the Left to anti- vs. pro-US positions).  The Postone article is
available here:

http://home.comcast.net/~platypus1917/postonemoishe_historyhelplessness.pdf

Another important article, which follows from political intentions
similar to those of Amin, is by Habermas and Derrida (2003), and calls
for a specifically "European" opposition to US policies:

http://www.faz.net/s/Rub117C535CDF414415BB243B181B8B60AE/Doc~ECBE3F8FCE2D049AE80\
8A3C8DBD3B2763~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html

(The link above is to excerpts from the original German publication.)

The English translation can be found here:

http://home.comcast.net/~platypus1917/habermasderrida_europe.pdf

I, for one, would oppose a different framework for anaylsis as well as
a very different politics from those shared by Amin, Habermas, and
Derrida.  They take much of the present organization of the world for
granted in ways that I would say are more open to fundamental change.
  And so I would characterize their shared perspective as a
*conservative* response to US policies.  For example, I do not think
that European opposition to the US is from the "Left."  --  As Amin
puts it in the conclusion of his article, "Europe will of the left, or
it will not be at all."

Such an attempt to give Left credentials to nationalism (as in the
cases of Russia, China, India, et al.), or even other great power
politics (France, Germany, et al.), is highly problematic, to say the
least.  It amounts to the liquidation of Leftist politics into the
dominant ("bourgeois") politics of capitalism.  --  Amin explicitly
couches his policy recommendations in terms of alternative
*capitalist* strategies.  Anti-US becomes the singular touchstone for
this politics.  But this is hardly sufficient for -- and indeed leads
quite far away from -- imagining an emancipated world.

An interesting analysis of this kind of politics that has
anti-Americanism as its principal character is provided by Russell
Berman in his book Anti-Americanism in Europe: A Cultural Problem
(2004).  A key excerpt from this book, a chapter on the relationship
of anti-Amercanism to the politics of antiglobalization (and which
includes some discussion of the relevance of Adorno's critique of
European anti-Americanism) can be found on-line at:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/fulltext/antiamer/115.pdf

Russell Berman has been an ostensible Marxist, but has become a kind
of right-Liberal as of late (so there are some problems with his
approach as well).

Finally, and perhaps ultimately, I am unable to resist including a
critique, published recently (in 2006) by my former comrades of the
Trotskyist Spartacist League, of the works by Hardt/Negri/Holloway
mentioned at our last meeting: Empire, Multitude, Change the World
Without Taking Power, et al.

http://www.icl-fi.org/print/english/esp/59/empire.html

While I have developed some serious theoretical and also
practical-political disagreements with the Spartacist League, I think
that their critique of the post-New Left politics with which we are
living bears out, and it certainly has been very influential for my
own thinking.  (My apologies ahead of time for the shrillness of their
writing; but it doesn't in any way invalidate their points!)

Best,
Chris

I thought this book and this review would be of interest to
these lists:

H-NET BOOK REVIEW
Published by H-German@... (June 2006)

Christine Lattek. _Revolutionary Refugees: German Socialism
in Britain,
1840-1860_. London and New York: Routledge, 2006. xiv + 358
pp.
Notes, bibliography, index. $135.00 (cloth), ISBN 0-714-
65100-1.

Reviewed for H-German by Gary Roth, Rutgers University at
Newark

Waiting for the Revolution

Christine Lattek's _Revolutionary Refugees_ is a study of
the political
refugees who fled Germany in the 1840s, some of whom had
been
forced into exile even before the defeat of the continental
uprisings of
1848-49. A large cluster of individuals settled in London,
and over the
next decade they helped define the political landscape for
both the
Left and the Center--not only of the various socialisms but
also of the
conflicting notions of democracy and liberalism that
characterized
German politics for a significant portion of the century.

_Revolutionary Refugees_ covers much ground, including
general
descriptions of the German exile community in London. The
radical
community of socialists and democrats was quite vibrant and
numbered
perhaps a thousand or so within the wider German emigrant
population
of some tens of thousands. Lattek's analysis centers on the
German
Workers' Educational Association (renamed the
Communistischer
Arbeiter-Bildungsverein) within which and over which many
debates and
much political lobbying took place. In order to explain this
organization,
however, she must also map out the schisms and tensions that
prompted the collapse of several other important
organizations: the
League of the Just and the Communist League, where Marx was
so
influential, as well as a host of lesser-known groups. She
also highlights
the key competitors within the politicized exile community,
including
Wilhelm Weitling, Karl Schapper, Arnold Ruge, Gottfried
Kinkel, August
Willich and Karl Vogt.

Of particular interest to Lattek are the schisms within the
socialist
camp over revolutionary expectations and coalitions with
democratic
groups, as well as the variety of stances taken by the
democratic exiles
about whether or not to collaborate with the socialists.
There was intense
jockeying between the different political tendencies and
orientations, all
of which was greatly exacerbated by personality conflicts.
The democrats
dominated exile politics, but there were also other groups,
like the
Blanquists in France and the Chartists in Great Britain,
with whom the
German groups triangulated. One of the themes followed by
Lattek is the
evolving notion of internationalism that resulted from these
many-sided
contacts.

Virtually everyone expected a new revolutionary period would
soon
follow the events of 1848-49; hence the intense seriousness
with which
the refugees viewed their own positions and influence. Marx
and Engels
were some of the first to realize that a period of social
and economic
stability had set in. Added tensions among the exiled
centered on the
long- and short-term expectations for a renewed period of
upheaval.
Lattek traces the ever-changing status of Marx within the
socialist
camp, as he was not always its most influential member, and
she
provides us with a nuanced picture of the world which shaped
Marx's
day-to-day activities and political intriguing.

Even though Marx looms large in these pages, he never quite
emerges
as fully intelligible, in part because of the complex nature
of émigré
politics and because of his own many-sided attempts to both
situate
and differentiate his analyses from so many others. Lattek
follows his
political evolution, but the complexity of the history
becomes a barrier
to full comprehension. She provides Marx with only his share
of the
history, which has the advantage of allowing her to more
closely mirror
the actual history and concentrate on individuals not
normally given
much attention. But since Marx is the most recognizable of
all the
main participants, additional focus on him might have
provided an
easier-to-follow narrative thread.

This is a fine study that remains immersed in the detailed
unfolding
of debates, intra- and inter-organizational feuds, and
fierce polemical
conflicts. The center-of-gravity, in terms of individuals
and organizations,
keeps shifting. There are many important individuals, just
as there are
many important organizations within which these individuals
functioned.
Each of them had their own ideas, some rooted in
comprehensive
ideologies, others as an outgrowth of immediate concerns and
topical
issues. Lattek has conducted an exhaustive review of
letters,
newspapers, pamphlets, memoirs, and other published and
archival
materials. That her account is laden with detail adds to the
difficulty
of following the story she so painstakingly rediscovered.
The sense of
overview and perspective, which Lattek provides quite
admirably, gets
overwhelmed by the finely-grained rendition of this complex
history.
That the 230 pages of text are accompanied by over 90 pages
of
notes (over 1,300 individual notes, many of which include
multiple
citations), gives an indication of the thickness of her
description.

Nonetheless, Lattek's rendition of the revolutionary
socialists and
democrats offers extensive information about this formative
period.



           Copyright (c) 2006 by H-Net, all rights reserved.
H-Net permits
         the redistribution and reprinting of this work for
nonprofit,
         educational purposes, with full and accurate
attribution to the
         author, web location, date of publication,
originating list,
         and H-Net: Humanities & Social Sciences Online. For
other uses
         contact the Reviews editorial staff: hbooks@...-
net.msu.edu.

David Roediger recently spoke in Chicago at the Newberry Library.  One
of our members, John, attended Roediger's talk, so he might have more
to say specifically in this regard.

I find this article *extremely problematic* for understanding racism
and its possible overcoming in an American (U.S.) context.  I think it
is indicative of the problem with these authors' approach that
recourse must be made to Austrailia (!) for a model of understanding!

I fully endorse Adolph Reed's position on the role of race in politics
today (the "appendix" image) that is cited in this article.

I think that anti-black racism in the U.S., which has been a central
feature of the historical structure of American society and a clear
obstacle to proletarian politics, is *sui generis* and must not be
confused with other forms of racism, no matter how pernicious and
destructive they might be.

In the U.S., issues of racism are deeply confused with those of class,
but this is primarily so in the case of anti-black racism, and not
necessarily so for other forms of racism (for example, the post 9/11
flaring of anti-Arab/Muslim racism).

Racism must be addressed as an issue on the Left, but it is a
different *kind* of issue than, although it becomes part of, the
problem of capitalism.

Hence, I don't think that in the case of racism (unlike capitalism),
that the "only way out (of racism) is through (race)!"  --  Again, the
problem of generalizing from a model like South Africa is apparent.

To be anti-racist does not mean having to take "race" (or
"race-relations") seriously (in a political sense)!

It is difficult to characterize 80% of the population ("whites") as
being "privileged" -- this undermines any sense to the word
"privilieged"!  Non-whites are oppressed by racism, but that does not
mean that "whiteness" can become a coherent object of critique!

Rather, *racism* is the issue, and, as Frantz Fanon pointed out in his
brilliant analysis and critique of the subjectivity of racism over 50
years ago in Black Skin, White Masks, even for black people (and even
still today), blackness is inherently and inevitably a socially
deprecatory category: a "nigger" is always *someone else* who's worthy
of contempt.  As Fanon observed, it is *capitalism* that creates the
larger context of dehumanization that makes such (ambivalent,
narcissistic) categories of "identity politics" in social life
possible, both historically and today.

-- Chris

--- In platypus1917@yahoogroups.com, rer137@... wrote:
>
> I thought this piece might start an interesting discussion...
>
>
> Non-racialism through race (and class)
> By Betsy Esch and David Roediger
>
> http://newsocialist.org/newsite/index.php?id=848
>
> [Note: New Socialist is published by New Socialist
> Group in Canada]
>
> Shortly before the end of the apartheid regime in South
> Africa, amidst wonderfully frantic activity by newly
> legalized and relaunched organizations of struggle, one
> of the many keywords being debated was "non-racialism."
>
> Since building a "non-racial" nation was a longstanding
> African National Congress goal, the word gave shape to
> discussions about how to address racial inequality
> amidst other social transformations in a Free South
> Africa, especially during considerations of affirmative
> action in the draft constitution. Both liberals and
> some Marxists argued against stressing the "racial" in
> the sophisticated analyses of racial capitalism that
> held purchase in that time and place. The former could
> claim that capitalism without apartheid would settle
> racial inequalities through growth. The latter could
> emphasize that ending capitalism was the key, and
> perhaps the prerequisite, to a non-racial future. In
> this context, a certain phrase used by other militants
> struck home as particularly brave, precise and worth
> thinking about as a starting place for any discussion
> of race and racism: "The way to non-racialism is
> through race."
>
> As defenders of this approach we wish to challenge
> readers of New Socialist to go beyond considerations of
> race and class which begin from - and therefore can't
> transcend - an either-or stance. If the 20th century
> drove home any point to revolutionaries it is that
> oppressions are multiple and cannot be explained
> entirely through class relations. Even as we criticize
> some Marxists for economic reductionist analyses of
> racism, or for failing to see the critical place of
> anti-racism in building resistance to capitalism, we
> see ourselves as part of the struggle to define a
> political economy of racism from within the Marxist
> tradition.
>
> Marxist Tools of Analysis
>
> Marxism has produced the best tools for understanding
> race and racism. The idea that race is constructed by
> society has been best and most articulately explored by
> Marxists, and the tradition of the critical study of
> whiteness has been led by materialists as pluralistic
> in their approaches as James Baldwin, W.E.B. Du Bois,
> Oliver Cox, Karen Brodkin, Michael Rogin, Theodore
> Allen and Noel Ignatiev.
>
> So, too, was the fundamental refusal to accept race as
> scientifically real and measurable a contribution of
> Marxism. It is no surprise that the leading de-bunkers
> of racist science, most notably the late Stephen Gould,
> would be influenced by historical materialism. Among
> other brilliant contributions, Gould's analysis of how
> race was assumed as it was measured in order to prove
> its existence gave us one of the most trenchant
> historical materialist arguments against racial
> difference as biologically measurable and thus real,
> long before the human genome arrived with its "new"
> evidence.
>
> These tools have never been more needed than they are
> now. Much of the world continues to throw up clear
> lessons regarding the continuing significance of race
> to the structuring of oppression, to the shaping of
> strategies of rule under capitalism and to some of the
> contours of resistance.
>
> In Venezuela, opposition to Hugo Chavez and to his
> social base includes anti-indigenous and anti-African
> characterizations so broad and so racist that the
> veteran left-wing journalist Tariq Ali regards the
> elite there as the world's most self-consciously white
> reactionary force; in Brazil affirmative action has
> just begun, while in the US it has grown ever more
> clear that powerful right-wing forces promote a
> "colorblind conservatism" that seeks to end not only
> affirmative action but also the very gathering of
> statistical evidence on racial inequality.
>
> In the last presidential election a Bush vote was
> equally well-predicted by making over $200 000 a year
> and by being a white male. Recently, a top French
> politician suffered criticism for his racist attacks on
> Muslim youth rebelling against police violence in and
> around Paris. His response was to quickly plan a trip
> to Martinique designed to emphasize how little colour
> matters in the French colonial world. He was so
> thoroughly unwelcomed by Martinique's great poet and
> theorist of liberation Aime Cesaire and others that the
> publicity stunt had to be cancelled.
>
> Class Without Race?
>
> Surprisingly, amidst such realities, we are now
> witnessing an attempt by sections of the Left and of
> liberalism to distance race from class analysis in a
> way that leaves no doubt as to the overwhelmingly
> greater import of the latter and indeed calls into
> question the very use of race and racism as categories
> of analysis.
>
> The late activist sociologist Pierre Bourdieu and his
> co-thinker Loic Wacquant, for example, have attempted
> to portray aspects of the analysis of the racial axis
> of power in the world, and particularly the rise of
> affirmative action in Brazil, as the terrible result of
> the heavily funded export of "cunning" and
> "imperialist" US ideas. Antonia Darder and Rodolfo
> Torres hold that the "problem of the twenty-first
> century" is the use of concepts like "race" and
> "whiteness," echoing US socialist Eugene V. Debs's
> claim a century ago that (assumedly white) socialists
> properly had "nothing special" to offer African
> Americans except a place in the class struggle.
>
> To these people, concerns about the racialization of
> power or structural analyses of whiteness allegedly,
> and even by design, provide a "smokescreen" to
> "successfully obscure and disguise class interests."
> While Darder and Torres allow that "racism" is still a
> problem worth addressing, the recent writings of the
> radical political scientist Adolph Reed, Jr. are done
> even with all that. "Exposing racism," he argues, is
> for activists "the political equivalent of an appendix:
> a useless vestige of an earlier evolutionary moment
> that's usually innocuous but can flare up and become
> harmful." Echoing Debs, Reed maintains that class is
> the "real divide."
>
> This kind of one-sidedness and dismissiveness arises
> out of the fact that class and race are different kinds
> of categories, out of the distressing continuing
> popular associations of race with biology in the face
> of decisive scientific evidence to the contrary, out of
> the tacit acceptance of ethnic cleansing as a tool of
> warfare, out of the decades of defeat for anti-racist
> movements in some nations and out of the difficulties
> in bringing the worldwide struggles against what
> participants call "racism" closer together. But this
> context does not provide an excuse.
>
> In this article we argue that the way to both non-
> racialism and to anti-capitalism is still through race
> and class analysis as well as anti-racist action. The
> editors of New Socialist have given us not just the
> task of explaining our method but of offering some
> thoughts on the nature of racism today. In doing that
> we hope to touch on several aspects that we think are
> particularly vital to an anti-racism that is
> sophisticated without being jargonistic, and militant
> while realizing that the slogan "Black and White Unite
> and Fight" is, as the Trinidadian-born revolutionary
> socialist CLR James once said, "unimpeachable in
> principle ...But... often misleading and sometimes even
> offensive in the face of the infinitely varied,
> tumultuous, passionate and often murderous reality of
> race relations."
>
> There is an overriding Marxian tendency to reduce the
> cause of racism to labour market competition among
> workers for jobs. Yet the idea that racism is produced
> always as a result of labour market competition cruelly
> disregards the possibility that racist acts are
> sometimes or maybe often acts of racial empowerment,
> rather than of class disempowerment. The existence of
> all-white schools and neighbourhoods originates now
> less than ever in patterns of job discrimination, as
> workplaces and residences are geographically separated
> sometimes by great distances. And if we acknowledge
> that some of the most white places in society are
> untouched by multi-racial labour market competition
> then we have to grapple with the idea that race and
> racism grow and develop beyond the specific relations
> of production or reproduction.
>
> Drawing inspiration from Lenin's understanding that
> ideology is real and Du Bois's that race gives white
> workers a psychological wage, we understand that race '
> like gender ' organizes relations of power in multiple
> ways. Understanding racism necessitates a separate and
> distinct perspective on power relations beyond the
> terms of class. The history of death row in the US
> makes it clear that killing a white person is
> considered a more harshly punishable crime than killing
> a Black person in US society, highlighting the need to
> understand the state's role in not just overseeing but
> creating social rules based on race.
>
> Learning from Australia
>
> A brief account of the recent travails of the Left and
> labour in Australia shows why it is so urgent to raise
> the call for continued focus on race as well as class
> relations of power. In early December 2005, the right-
> wing Liberal Party government rammed through, largely
> without debate, a harrowing series of laws that put
> that nation in the front ranks of reaction worldwide.
> John Howard's government passed a draconian new labour
> code squarely in the tradition of Thatcherism and an
> anti-terrorism act that rivals the US Patriot Act.
>
> The centerpiece of the triumph of neoliberalism, and
> the focus of the most successful left and labour
> opposition, lies in the dramatic reverses in labour
> law. The massive and euphemistically named
> "WorkChoices" bill abolishes unfair termination appeals
> in all businesses with less than 100 workers and in all
> of the sure-to-be-many cases where the employer claims
> that layoffs reflect "operational requirements." It
> guts overtime premium pay and enables forced overtime
> work in a way that will be the envy of Bush
> administration anti-labour strategists. It severely
> restricts union access to workplaces while sharply
> limiting and increasingly criminalizing the right to
> strike. The bill allows for unilateral termination of
> expired agreements by management. Minimum wage
> settlements are put in the hands of a commission
> mandated to make economic competitiveness - not the
> living and fair wage ideas so prominent in white
> Australian industrial history - the benchmark in
> setting standards. In the run-up to the bill's passage
> its opponents mobilized hundreds of thousands of
> demonstrators in what were, with the anti-Iraq War
> protests of 2003, the biggest in the nation's history.
>
> The anti-terrorism bill, passed without similar mass
> protest after gag orders to curb reporting on its
> contents, authorizes detentions without evidence of
> criminal involvement and without disclosure of
> incarceration. Even the disclosure of facts regarding
> these irregular seizures and interrogations of persons
> is itself made a crime both for journalists and others.
> The bill grants "shoot to kill" immunities in pursuits
> of possible detainees. It opens the way - in a manner
> chilling to aboriginal activists who necessarily build
> their campaigns for land rights and "stolen wages" on
> searching and vocal criticism of government policy - to
> prosecutions on charges of "urging disaffection" with
> the state.
>
> The great South African novelist JM Coetzee, now living
> in Australia, put the new law's inhumanity squarely in
> human terms. He offered a scenario in which "someone
> called a reporter and said 'Tell the world - some men
> came last night, took my husband, my son, my father
> away, I don't know who they were, they didn't give
> names, they had guns.'" And he spelled out the results:
> "the next thing that would happen would be that you and
> the reporter in question would be brought into custody
> for furthering the aims of a terrorist [and]
> endangering the security of the state." Coetzee
> continued, "All of this [was done] during apartheid in
> South Africa in the name of the fight against terror. .
> . I used to think that the people who created [South
> African] law that effectively suspended the rule of law
> were moral barbarians. Now I know that they were just
> pioneers ahead of their times."
>
> While elements of the Labour Party fought relatively
> hard on the trade union legislation, its historically
> racialized perspective on labour allowed it to define
> class interests separate from what it believed to be
> its security interest. Thus Labour voted with the
> Howard government on the anti-terror bill, even as the
> United Nations warned of the possibility that the
> legislation would ratify anti-immigrant racist hysteria
> and victimize asylum-seekers. In an angry post-mortem
> when the law passed, the Law Council of Australia held,
> "Unlike the Labour Party, we've put up a good fight."
>
> Within a week of the legislation's passage, many
> Australians mobilized in a militant demonstration in
> the Sydney area, though not of the kind for which we
> would hope. At the time of these historic legislative
> defeats for the working class and the Left, what in
> Australia is called "talkback radio" became saturated
> with political exchanges and calls to action. The
> popular populist radio host Alan Jones strongly urged
> the need for "a rally, a street march, call it what you
> will. A community show of force." Radical groups joined
> in building the protest. When thousands gathered at the
> week's end the policing was so hesitant as to suggest
> broad sympathy with the demonstrators. Nonetheless the
> crowd of between five and ten thousand embraced
> extralegal tactics, and violence lasted for many hours.
> The early December actions absolutely galvanized press
> attention with giant headlines clearly distilling the
> crowd's message.
>
> But, as the blaring headlines showed, that message did
> not include a murmur of protest against the week's
> legislative barbarisms. Instead it urged "RACE HATE"
> (Herald Sun) and threatened to begin "RACE WAR" (The
> Australian). Jones, the talkback radio riot organizer,
> was a racist populist of the variety so familiar on US
> airwaves. The radical groups building the mob were
> white supremacist ones. The victims of the extremely
> bloody and well-photographed militancy were the few
> Arab youths on beaches that organizers and the mob had
> declared off limits. Arab swimmers suffered taunts and
> attacks as potential bombers, as threats to Australian
> women, and as puritans opposed to bikinis, nudity and
> beer on the beaches. On Cronulla Beach, the white crowd
> could see itself as the beleaguered combative essence
> of the Australian nation. "And the mob," as one
> newspaper put it, gesturing towards The Pogues' great
> antiwar anthem, "sang 'Waltzing Matilda.'"
>
> After parliamentary defeats and the beach riots, for
> many on the Left the tasks seem to be to build
> resistance in single-issue campaigns that so
> effectively focus on the "real" and "unifying" issues
> of class and capitalism as to draw energies away from
> the irrationalities that fuelled the Cronulla mob and
> to identify and champion alternative national
> traditions and values in Australia that could lead to
> deep opposition to attacks on both workers and on
> immigrants. Yet to follow this seemingly non-racialized
> course is to ignore the very real, and distinct,
> problem of racism. That the full and excellent website
> of the main Australian trade union federation did not
> mention the riots underscores this point.
>
> Such a response continues patterns firmly established
> in the campaigns against repressive labour legislation.
> In the former campaign, the labour federation argued
> for the existing laws because "for more than a hundred
> years, Australia has had an industrial relations system
> that has given working people a share of the benefits
> of economic prosperity when times are good and ensured
> that there are decent protections... when times get
> tough." The left-wing journalist John Pilger worries
> that the new labour code has "put paid to Australia's
> tenuous self-regard as the 'land of fair go.'" He
> recites a litany of firsts that gave reason for such a
> self-image: women's suffrage, the minimum wage, Labour
> Party government, the eight-hour day, the Australian
> ballot. "In the 1960s," Pilger concludes, "with the
> exception of the Aboriginal people... Australians could
> boast of the most equitable spread of national income
> in the world." Such appeals ignore, or in Pilger's case
> literally bracket, the decimation of aboriginal people,
> land seizures, stolen wages, stolen children and
> exclusion from the very social goods for which the
> nation is extolled. Similarly disappeared is the
> unambiguous grounding of Australian social democracy
> and women's suffrage in white supremacy and Asian and
> Pacific Islander exclusion.
>
> Right-wing victories are not explicable without
> understanding the dynamics of white supremacy exposed
> by the beach riots. While the Howard government does
> not generally more than flirt with openly vulgar racism
> - the prime minister's response to the riots was that
> Australia is a colorblind society - its attacks on
> indigenous land rights, stalling of the reconciliation
> process without even a symbolic apology for settler
> colonialism and setting up of offshore compounds in
> which asylum seekers are indefinitely detained as a
> precondition of entry speak powerfully. As radio talk
> shows turned the conversation away from class, labour
> law and civil liberties to beaches and Arabs, the
> Howard government announced a study of the alleged
> pathology and waste of small aboriginal settlements,
> with a view to the withdrawal of government services
> and support from them. The Labour Party's feeble
> colorblind response was to suggest that small white
> settlements also be investigated.
>
> Such sidestepping cannot work. In Australia, right-wing
> politics has successfully won votes by uniting
> nationalism and an individualism leavened by male-
> bonding around the image of the "battler," the hard-
> working man struggling indomitably in a hostile and
> changed world. Made up of elements of frontier
> mythology, imperial sport and "mateship," the battler
> is distinctly white. The important indigenous
> Australian scholar of whiteness Aileen Moreton-Robinson
> has recently written that "representations of mateship,
> egalitarianism, individualism and citizenship" are
> presented as if they have no "connection to whiteness,"
> but that in fact at every turn they do connect with it,
> and with right-wing political success.
>
> The literal wrapping of those in the beachfront mob in
> flags and flag headbands, the avowals of defense of
> Australian womanhood and the claiming of the high-
> ground of talkback radio commonsense before the show of
> force all tie Cronulla to everyday politics of race and
> gender. Editorial cartoons in the wake of the bloodshed
> were far more acute than written editorials. The best
> of them, in The Australian, showed in extreme closeup a
> gaggle of flabbily fierce white men, brandishing
> weapons and sporting t-shirts that read "Muslims Out!!"
> "Bash Lebs!" and "Kill Wogs!" The caption read
> "Howard's Battlers."
>
> Potent in its linking of racial violence to the
> policies of the Howard regime, the cartoon accomplishes
> what the Left should. With racist demonstrators
> themselves rationalizing their attacks on immigrants
> and non-white Australian citizens as a direct response
> to Howard's legislative victories, leftists need to
> think about the timing of such events. That the most
> militant expression of rage to follow the passage of
> the WorkChoices legislation as well as the anti-terror
> bill was a demonstration of white power - notably aimed
> at recruiting working-class youths, but not led by them
> - should inspire leftists to creative and innovative
> thinking about the explanatory power of race in
> people's lives today.
>
> Three Issues for Activists
>
> This kind of thinking requires us to accept the complex
> but plain notion that race has been created
> historically and changes over time. Of course, this
> statement is more true at the level of the state than
> the individual, but we have to acknowledge that race
> and racism, while structurally organized, are created
> and reproduced in everyday life. Indeed, this dimension
> of race, in which it is created while class is
> supposedly "real," is one of the crutches the Left has
> leaned on in order to think less hard about how to
> combat racism.
>
> Toward the end of creating both anti-racist theory and
> practice we want to speak to three issues we think
> activists must confront in the process of multi-racial
> movement building.
>
> 1. Rights and Privileges
>
> In a world in which rights are constructed as
> privileges, it is logical to speak of racism in terms
> of white skin privilege. But precisely because some of
> what exist as privileges are in fact rights it is
> imperative that activists understand the difference
> between what we are fighting for and what we are
> fighting against.
>
> As anti-racist activist and scholar George Lipsitz has
> beautifully articulated, "opposing whiteness is not the
> same as opposing white people...one way of becoming a
> [white] insider is by participating in the exclusion of
> others. White people always have the option of becoming
> anti-racist...we do not choose our colour, but we do
> choose our commitments. Yet we do not make these
> decisions in a vacuum; they occur within a social
> structure that gives value to whiteness and offers
> rewards for racism." If opposing racism means opposing
> social exclusion and expanding opportunity and
> possibility for those historically and still excluded,
> it is critical that we strive to understand the
> difference between rights and privileges.
>
> What is it that white people must give up? For example,
> white privilege shields white people from much
> repressive everyday policing. So, after white
> supremacist Timothy McVeigh's bombing of the federal
> building in Oklahoma City, should anti-racists have
> demanded that young, white men with short hair be
> randomly questioned, stopped and detained? Of course
> not! But today when terrorism comes up and people think
> they are only talking about security and not at all
> about race it's worth pointing out that young white men
> weren't singled out after McVeigh's bombing in the way
> that young men of colour have been since Sept. 11,
> 2001. Should we argue for more policing of white youth
> because immigrant and Black youths are more harshly
> policed? No, though we should creatively and with
> conviction develop language to talk about how skin
> privilege does shape life experiences without urging
> personal guilt as a solution.
>
> Knowing the difference between rights that should be
> expanded and privileges which should not be taken for
> granted is essential in building genuine multiracial
> organizations and societies.
>
> 2. Understanding Racism
>
> Theoretically-informed writing, even when the language
> is tough-sledding, can help inform our practice. Thus
> when Lisa Lowe writes in Immigrant Acts that capital
> often profits "not through rendering labour 'abstract'
> but by... creating, preserving, and reproducing the
> specifically racialized and gendered character of
> labour power" she speaks to what happened in
> Australia's labour law and on its beaches. She shows us
> that race is no "fixed essence" but a convergence of
> contradictions. She models how Marxist insights can be
> both deployed and extended. Developing as it does out
> of so many different kinds of intersections, so many
> different kinds of state actions regarding citizenship,
> and so many different degrees of unfreedom, race must
> constantly be specifically situated, which means that
> racism must also be. One task of activists should be to
> continue developing new language for understanding the
> myriad actions and ideas that fall under the heading
> "racism." As the freedom movement in South Africa gave
> us the concept of non-racialism, as the Civil Rights
> and Black Power movements each expanded our
> understanding of the difference between legal and
> extra-legal discrimination along with the importance of
> understanding and taking on both, and as women of
> colour feminists challenged and fundamentally
> transformed national liberation movements with regard
> to gender roles, so, too, do today's activists need to
> understand the systems of oppression we confront and
> need to shift. If the UN Conference on Racism proved
> one thing it is that there are multiple racisms in the
> world and thus there must be multiple strategies for
> resistance.
>
> 3. What Should We Do?
>
> We must support every small effort, including
> especially demands for reparations for people oppressed
> by racism that potentially educate white people about
> the ways in which capitalism, settler colonialism,
> slavery and racism developed together in the past and
> about how serious anti-racist actions can benefit all
> of us today. We must expand participation, resist
> complacency and demand reform while opposing top-down
> reformism. We must insist that quiet desperation is the
> best we can expect without direct action for
> transformation.
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
>

http://home.comcast.net/~platypus1917/platypus_chicagoreadings2006.htm#25june200\
6

The Sunday 6/25 meeting of the Platypus Marxist reading group was
focused on 2 texts, Martin Nicolaus on the unknown dimensions of Marx
that are revealed by the Grundrisse (1968), and Moishe Postone on the
continued purchase of a Marxian critical theory of capitalism after
the collapse of the Soviet Union (1995).

The point of the discussion was to consider the path that was
decidedly *not* taken by the 60s New Left in the reconsideration of
Marx: alternatively, Marxism was considered obsolete, or, when Marxism
was taken up in earnest, it was in the form of Marxism-Leninism
(Maoism, or left-Stalinism).

So what was the relationship between the supposedly neglected aspects
of Marxian critical theory and historical Marxist politics?

What concerned both Nicolaus, in 1968, and Postone, in retrospect on
the period 1969-89, which had been opened by the 60s New Left and
culminated in the destruction of the Soviet Union and the ushering in
of a new era of globalized capitalism, was the possibility of
deepening and thus increasing the possiblity of success of Marxian
critical theory based politics in the attempt to get beyond capitalism.

What was most salient in our discussion of both these texts was the
insistence that capitalism be taken seriously beyond a pejorative
category.  In the Postone essay, this involved regarding capitalism as
being based on a form of (social dimension of) labor that becomes the
form of social bond (or mediation) in modern society, rather than
capitalism being understood merely as an abstract superimposition on
(proletarian) concrete labor.

According to this understanding of Marxian critical theory, the
critique and attempt to get beyond the commodity form is *not* about
the terms of exchange or even about the commodification of labor, but
rather about the specific commodity that structures the dynamic and
trajectory of modern society, namely labor-power, measured as a
function of time.  The social exchange of labor power that allows for
capitalization on that labor is different from the exchange of
commodities per se.  Hence, the critique of this form of labor that
results in capital must regard it as being both a social structure
*and* a form of social agency. According to Postone, such an approach
to the implication of proltarian labor in capital allows the principal
constraint on democratic politics -- and the reorganization of society
beyond capitalism -- to come into view as the critical object of a
socialist (and truly democratic and egalitarian) politics.  Getting
beyond capitalism is thus not merely about the emancipation of labor
but about getting beyond a society organized by (proletarian) labor.

In their discussions of Marx, Nicolaus and Postone shared a focus on
the issue of the nature of the social compulsion under capitalism to
produce *surplus value*, and this social imperative's difference from
and greater importance than the mere profit-motive of the capitalists.
  For Postone, this insight by Marx reveals the ultimate inadequacy of
a socialist politics that is focused (merely) on overcoming the market
and private property (as in the Soviet model).

Also, and importantly, Nicolaus and Postone shared the perspective
that perhaps capitalism had not been actually ripe for overcoming
before the 1960s -- importantly, Postone regarded the Soviet Union as
a form of state capitalism, and his skepticism towards the possibility
of overcoming capitalism before the 1960s informed this view.

We discussed the problems such an approach raises when regarding the
history of the Left -- especially the nature and (whether there had
been any unfulfilled) possibilities of the Russian Revolution, and the
historical reality that the Left, and thus the prospects for
overcoming capitalism, had not been revitalized on a new and better
basis after 1968, nor has this happened since the collapse of the
Soviet Union, rather, the Left has declined and become increasingly
confused after the 1960s, and especially after 1989-92, leading to the
present state of the world.  This brought us back to the importance of
the problems that must be tackled by any attempt to return to a
Marxian politics today.

While Nicolaus stated boldly that by 1968 the most important Marxian
political manifesto remained to be written, it was observed that the
Postone article was decidedly *not* an attempt to meet that challenge.
  -- So the problem of figuring out what an adequate Marxian politics
might mean today (and in the future) remains on our agenda!

* * *

Looking ahead, suggestions were raised about addressing in future
meetings the Italian New Left (which exhibited a greater working class
dimension than its corollaries elsewhere).

Another suggestion was that we address the books by Negri and Hardt,
Empire and Multitude -- the book by John Holloway, Change the World
without Taking Power was also mentioned as a potential subject.

Also, the question was raised of how to address the issue/role of
tactics/strategies of violence in Leftist politics.

Our next meeting has been scheduled for Sunday July 9, 12-4PM,
location TBA.  (The most likely location is the SAIC 112 S. Michigan
Ave. building, for which we will have to solve the problem of access!
-- At least one attendee was turned away by SAIC security, despite our
having informed them to admit people for our meeting!)

Leo Strauss's professor Martin Heidegger is curiously abscent from this review.
As is Strauss's penpal Carl Schmitt.
PDE

---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 10:44:18 -0400
>From: rer137@...
>Subject: [platypus1917] 'Reading Leo Strauss' : A Review
>To: platypus1917@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>
> 'Reading Leo Strauss,' by Steven B. Smith
> Neocon or Not?
>
> Review by ROBERT ALTER
> Published: June 25, 2006
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/books/review/25alter.html?
_r=1&8bu&emc=bu&oref=slogin
>
> FOR a scholar who addressed what the general public
> would regard as abstruse topics in a dry academic
> fashion, Leo Strauss has become a name that
> reverberates widely -- and, for many, ominously. He is
> seen as the seminal thinker behind neoconservatism, its
> intellectual father.
>
> READING LEO STRAUSS
> Politics, Philosophy, Judaism.
> By Steven B. Smith.
> 256 pp. The University of Chicago Press. $32.50.
>
>
> Born into an Orthodox Jewish home in a small German
> town in 1899, Strauss was trained in the rigorous
> discipline of Geistesgeschichte, intellectual history.
> He began his career in the 1920's in an innovative
> adult Jewish learning institute. His first book was on
> Spinoza, and he subsequently devoted scrupulous, often
> maverick, studies to major figures of political
> philosophy from Plato and Maimonides to Machiavelli,
> Hobbes and the framers of the American Constitution. He
> left Germany in 1932, went to England via Paris, and in
> 1938 came to the United States. He taught for a decade
> at the New School in New York and then from 1949 to
> 1968 at the University of Chicago, where he exerted his
> greatest influence. He died in 1973.
>
> Strauss was very much caught up in an extraordinary
> intellectual ferment among German Jews who came of age
> around the time of World War I. He was friends with
> Gershom Scholem, the great historian of Jewish
> mysticism, in the early 1920's. He worked with Franz
> Rosenzweig, the bold architect of a Jewish
> existentialist theology. He was admired by Scholem's
> friend Walter Benjamin, the eminent literary critic and
> cultural theorist. Like all these thinkers, he was
> concerned with the tensions between tradition, founded
> on revelation, and modernity, operating with unaided
> reason.
>
> How, then, has Strauss come to be viewed as a sinister
> presence in contemporary politics? Some of his
> students, or students of his students, went on to
> become conservative policy intellectuals in Washington.
> Perhaps the most well known of his disciples, Allan
> Bloom, remained at the University of Chicago, where he
> wrote his best-selling book, "The Closing of the
> American Mind" (1987), a scathing critique of the
> debasement of American higher education by conformist
> progressivism. In the mid-1980's, a highly critical
> article in The New York Review of Books linked Strauss
> with conservatism, and in the next few years, numerous
> pieces in other journals followed suit. It has become
> received wisdom that a direct line issues from
> Strauss's seminars on political philosophy at the
> University of Chicago to the hawkish approach to
> foreign policy by figures like Paul Wolfowitz and
> others in the Bush administration.
>
> "Reading Leo Strauss," Steven B. Smith's admirably
> lucid, meticulously argued book, persuasively sets the
> record straight on Strauss's political views and on
> what his writing is really about. The epigraph to its
> introduction, from an essay by the political scientist
> Joseph Cropsey, sounds the keynote: "Strauss was a
> towering presence . . . who neither sought nor had any
> discernible influence on what passes for the politics
> of the group."
>
> Although it is said that Strauss voted twice for Adlai
> Stevenson, he appears never to have been involved in
> any political party or movement. What is more important
> is that his intellectual enterprise, as Smith's careful
> exposition makes clear, repeatedly argued against the
> very idea of political certitude that has been embraced
> by certain neoconservatives. Strauss's somewhat
> contrarian reading of Plato's "Republic," for example,
> proposed that the dialogue was devised precisely to
> demonstrate the dangerous unfeasibility of a state
> governed by a philosopher-king.
>
> "Throughout his writings," Smith concludes, "Strauss
> remained deeply skeptical of whether political theory
> had any substantive advice or direction to offer
> statesmen." This view was shaped by his wary
> observation of the systems of totalitarianism that
> dominated two major European nations in the 1930's,
> Nazism in Germany and Communism in the Soviet Union. As
> a result, he strenuously resisted the notion that
> politics could have a redemptive effect by radically
> transforming human existence. Such thinking could
> scarcely be further from the vision of neoconservative
> policy intellectuals that the global projection of
> American power can effect radical democratic change.
> "The idea," Smith contends, "that political or military
> action can be used to eradicate evil from the human
> landscape is closer to the utopian and idealistic
> visions of Marxism and the radical Enlightenment than
> anything found in the writings of Strauss."
>
> Liberal democracy lies at the core of Strauss's
> political views, and its basis is the concept of
> skepticism. Since there are no certainties in the realm
> of politics, perhaps not in any realm, politics must be
> the arena for negotiation between different
> perspectives, with cautious moderation likely to be the
> best policy. At one point, Smith, the Alfred Cowles
> professor of political science at Yale, describes
> Strauss's position as "liberalism without illusions."
> All this may sound a little antiquated, and Smith is
> right to associate Strauss with cold war liberals like
> Raymond Aron, Isaiah Berlin, Walter Lippmann and Lionel
> Trilling. But it's a view from the middle of the past
> century that might profitably be fostered in our own
> moment of political polarization, when a self-righteous
> sense of possessing assured truths is prevalent on both
> the right and the left.
>
> The other general point that Smith makes about
> Strauss's alleged paternity of neoconservatism is that
> a considerable part of his work has nothing to do with
> politics of any sort. Smith divides his book -- a
> collection of previously published essays, inevitably
> with some repetition among them -- into two parts, the
> first entitled "Jerusalem," the second, "Athens."
> Strauss used these terms to designate the two poles of
> Western culture, roughly corresponding to revelation
> and reason. It is in the "Athens" section that Smith
> traces Strauss's trajectory through the history of
> political philosophy. The essays of the "Jerusalem"
> part, on the other hand, follow his engagement with
> Maimonides, Spinoza, Scholem and Zionism (a movement
> that he had embraced from adolescence but that he
> thought did not alter the metaphysical condition of
> galut, exile, in which Jews found themselves).
>
> The Jewish-theological side of Strauss certainly had no
> perceptible effect on his American disciples, most of
> them Jews and all of them, as far as I know, secular.
> In these concerns, Strauss was thoroughly the
> intellectual product of 1920's German Jewry. Like
> others of that period, including Walter Benjamin, he
> approached the idea of revealed religion with the
> utmost seriousness. It does not appear that he remained
> a believing Jew, yet he was not prepared simply to
> dismiss the claims of Jerusalem against Athens.
>
> On the contrary, the sweeping agenda of reformist or
> revolutionary reason first put forth in the
> Enlightenment worried him deeply, and he saw religion,
> with its assertion of a different source of truth, as a
> necessary counterweight to the certitudes of the 18th
> century. His vision of reality was, to use a term
> favored by both Scholem and Benjamin, "dialectic." Why
> some of his most prominent students missed this
> essential feature of his thought, and why they turned
> to the right, remains one of the mysteries of his
> intellectual legacy.
>
> -----------------
> Robert Alter's most recent book is "Imagined Cities:
> Urban Experience and the Language of the Novel."
>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------
>
>   Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of
>   storage and industry-leading spam and email virus
>   protection.
>
>

The next meeting of the Platypus Marxist reading group in Chicago will be on Sunday June 25, 12 noon - 4PM. Please feel free to come and bring a friend.

The topic for this Sunday's meeting is "The post-'60s Left and the 'unknown' Marx: the path not taken," and will focus on 2 readings: one by Martin Nicolaus on Marx's Grundrisse (1968) [PDF]; and the other by Moishe Postone on rethinking Marx in a "post-Marxist" world (1995) [HTML].

These readings can be accessed (along with the planned schedule for future readings and meetings, and further information on Platypus) at the following web page:

http://home.comcast.net/~platypus1917/platypus_chicagoreadings2006.htm#25june2006

This will be the first in a series of 10 bi-weekly meetings on the '60s New Left, mostly drawing from texts from The New Left Reader (1969),edited by Carl Oglesby (Grove Press, 1969: ISBN 8345615368). (This book is out of print, but it was a mass-market paperback, and used copies are widely available for under $5.00 at web vendors such as amazon.com, abebooks.com, alibris.com, bookfinder.com, et al.) The readings for this Sunday's meeting and for the subsequent meeting (in two weeks' time) are available on-line at the web address listed above.

About us: Platypus is a new international journal of critical letters and emancipatory politics that is being launched next year (2007) by a group of co-thinkers of the Marxian Left influenced by the October 1917 Bolshevik Revolution (Lenin, Trotsky, et al.), and by Western Marxism (Luxemburg, Lukács, Korsch, Gramsci, et al.) and Frankfurt School Critical Theory (Horkheimer, Marcuse, Adorno, et al.).

The Platypus Marxist reading group in Chicago is comprised of approx. 25-30 members, ranging in age from 20-40, students and junior faculty at the Univ. Chicago and the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, and other thinkers and political activists, who have been meeting bi-weekly on alternate Sundays for the past several months, to discuss theoretical and practical problems for reconstituting the Left today.  Our reading group is dedicated to engaging the historical background for current problems in the self-understanding of the Left.

The coming meeting on Sun. 6/25 will take place in downtown Chicago at the 112 S. Michigan Ave. building of the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (near the corner of Michigan and Monroe, on Michigan Ave. between Monroe and Adams, across the street from the Art Institute Museum). (We have alternated locations for the reading group between Hyde Park, Wicker Park, and downtown Chicago.)

We will meet initially in the cafe area on the 12th floor of the 112 S. Michigan Ave. building of SAIC, then we will go up to the 14th floor, 2 levels up the stairs in the same cafe area, to hold the actual meeting.

To gain access, you will have to register with photo ID at the security station in the lobby of the building: tell them you are there for a meeting taking place on the 12th floor.

Best,
Chris

http://home.comcast.net/~platypus1917

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/platypus1917

[June 11 readings]

Overview

The set of readings for our meeting on June 11 centered on Marx's Critique of the Gotha Prorgramme (1875) -- Marx's critique of the unification document drafted by the "Marxist" Eisenachers and the "Lassalleans" for forming the (precursor of the) German Social Democratic Party/SPD, which was to become the largest and most powerful and influential workers party, and the heart of the international socialist movement, as well as the center of international Marxism, before 1917.

So, the issue for our reading of Marx's critique of this (early manifestation of the ostensibly "Marxist") movement in modern politics is: how to understand the relationship of Leftist/labor politics to capitalism? In this sense, Marx's thought is best understood not as the ideology but rather the immanent critique of the modern workers movement and of (ostensibly) Leftist-progressive-emancipatory politics in general. -- How is the Left and the (even ostensibly "revolutionary") workers movement symptomatic of and implicated in the reproduction/reconstitution of capitalism; but, also, how does it, as expression and integral part of capitalist society, point beyond itself?

Quoting Dante?

We began with Marx's summary of his own theoretical development in his Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859). We spent some time discussing the quotation by Dante's Divine Comedy (Canto III) with which Marx concludes his Preface, "Here all mistrust must be abandoned; And here must perish every craven thought," and pondered why Marx would think it appropriate to quote the words Dante placed in Virgil's mouth at the gates of Hell (or Purgatory?). This is not "Abandon all hope" but, rather, prepare for a an arduous struggle that will test what one is able or would want to believe (about capitalism/modern society). This is important to the extent that Marx wanted to critique and push further the Leftist thought of his time and explore the most radical depths of the problematic nature of the society in which he lived; Marx didn't come with ready-made answers: he was no ideologue. -- And this should provide a model for us in the critique and attempt to get beyond capitalism today.

Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme

In the discussion of the Critique of the Gotha Programme itself, our goal was to try to capture the point of what might be seemingly obscure or out-of-step or "cranky" about the "Old Man" Marx's critique of his followers' political effort: what was Marx going on about?

How might Marx's critique have been prescient of later problems on the "Marxist"/labor Left? How does it speak to problems of the critique of capitalism and movements (ostensibly) against capitalism today?

What is the relationship between empirical politics (of the working class) and Marx's critique of "political economy" (capitalism)? What is the relationship between economic and political demands on the Left? What is the relationship between and differences of Marx's thought and (radical) democracy and liberalism? How does Marx seek not to (one-sidedly) negate but work through and get beyond the categories of liberal and social-democratic politics?

Why did Marx feel that his own critical achievements were being disserved by his "Marxists" followers in the Gotha Programme? What was the "spirit of Lassalle" that Marx was so adamant about flushing out and critiquing? How did Marx understand the educational (and not merely rallying) function of political programme?

Karl Korsch on Marx's Critique

How did Karl Korsch in his Introduction to Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme (1922) regard Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme as a vital text for the "return to Marx" impulse of the 1917-19 revolutionary moment? -- If we are indeed approaching (yet) another "back to Marx" moment on the Left, how might Marx's critique (grounded in 19th Century society and politics) retain (and regain) its currency to the present?

* * *

Understanding Marx's economic categories?

One issue occuring to the organizers of the group is how well served we might be by a more direct engagement with Marx's political-economic texts (such as Capital) to help further understanding of some of the categories being raised in the texts. (E.g., how Marx regards the labor theory of value as formulated by the classical bourgeois political ecoonomy of Locke, Smith, et al.; how the dual dimensions of the commodity form, use value vs. exchange value, are categories for constituting the social-political subjectivity of labor dialectically, etc.)

How to best address the fact that Marx was not about the economic "unmasking" or critique of politics? Marx's politics and his critique of modern society were not only about the critique of the economic conditions of material exploitation and immiseration of the workers (the mass of humanity), but rather how the attempt to overcome exploitation in capitalism by, e.g., the workers movement, might be able, in pointing beyond its own categories of discontent and social struggle, to overcome the domination of a social form of self-alienation of human activity, "capital," to which modern society as a whole (i.e., not only the social agency of the workers, but also even the "agency" of the capitalists themselves) is subject and constrained.

One thought is that we need to ground and clarify Marx's political-economic categories (and his critique of them); the other is that the purpose of our discussion is best served by the current focus on theoretical issues of what the Left has been about politically, which will help inform the actual critical intent of Marx's political-economic analyses.

* * *

Sustaining critical consciousness: Democrats or "worse" vs. "anyone but Bush"

Another topic in our discussion, towards the end of the meeting, was the problem of "worse-ism" as might be manifested on the Left today, and the problem of sustaining, in the long-term, the potential for a renaissance and growth of Leftist politics that seems to be in the air today. What do we "hope for" in the dominant forms of politics today? Are we anxious about, or do we really want the Democrats to win elections in '06 and '08? If so, why might we? -- Whether the development of the Left and the possibility of overcoming capitalism is best "served" by the apparently crassly reactionary politics of, e.g., Bush, or, whether the Democrats would make more salutary political opponents for truly radical politicization. -- For the Democrats and their politics are the real enemy that needs to be overcome, substantially. Whether deteriorating social and political conditions are conducive of greater critical political consciousness; or, whether something like the Bush administration is actually distracting and misleading about the nature of the social and political problems with which the Left must contend. -- We might wish to struggle against and thus hope to get beyond the "best," and not merely the "worst" forms of politics of this social system.