RSS FeedRSS FeedYouTubeYouTubeTwitterTwitterFacebook GroupFacebook Group
You are here: The Platypus Affiliated Society/Archive for category 2013

An upcoming panel series, to  be held internationally in Amherst, Halifax, Chicago, London, and Toronto in Fall 2013.

A moderated panel discussion and audience Q&A with thinkers, activists and political figures focused on contemporary problems faced by the Left in its struggles to construct a politics adequate to the self-emancipation of the working class.

For the recording of the first iteration of the panel, which took place at UMass Amherst on September 20, 2013, with Stanley Aronowitz, Robert Pollin, and Jason Wright, click here.

Description:

"Capital is not a book about politics, and not even a book about labour: it is a book about unemployment." - Fredric Jameson, Representing Capital: A Reading of Volume One

"...the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all." - Joan Robinson

"The error consists in believing that labor, by which I mean heteronomous, salaried labor, can and must remain the essential matter. It's just not so. According to American projections, within twenty years labor time will be less than half that of leisure time. I see the task of the left as directing and promoting this process of abolition of labor in a way that will not result in a mass of unemployed on one side, and aristocracy of labor on the other and between them a proletariat which carries out the most distasteful jobs for forty-five hours a week. Instead, let everyone work much less for his salary and thus be free to act in a much more autonomous manner...Today "communism" is a real possibility and even a realistic proposition, for the abolition of salaried labor through automation saps both capitalist logic and the market economy." - Andre Gorz

It is generally assumed that Marxists and other Leftists have the political responsibility to support reforms for the improvement of the welfare of workers. Yet, leading figures from the Marxist tradition-- such as Lenin, Luxemburg and Trotsky-- also understood that such reforms would broaden the crisis of capitalism and potentially intensify contradictions that could adversely impact the immediate conditions of workers. For instance, full employment, while being a natural demand from the standpoint of all workers’ interests, also threatens the conditions of capitalist production (which rely on a surplus of available labor), thereby potentially jeopardizing the system of employment altogether. In light of such apparent paradoxes, this panel seeks to investigate the politics of work from Leftist perspectives. It will attempt to provoke reflection on and discussion of the ambiguities and dilemmas of the politics of work by including speakers from divergent perspectives, some of whom seek after the immediate abolition of labor and others of whom seek to increase the availability of employment opportunities. It is hoped that this conversation will deepen the understanding of the contemporary problems faced by the Left in its struggles to construct a politics adequate to the self-emancipation of the working class.

Questions:
1. How do you characterize work and employment as a political issue in contemporary society? What is wrong with unemployment? And/or what is wrong with work?

2. A distinction is often drawn between "work" as purposeful human activity (presumably existing before and after capitalism), on the one hand, and "work" in the sense of labor in capitalism, where the worker undertakes purposeful activity for money under threat of material scarcity (typically in the form of wage labor), on the other hand. Is this distinction politically relevant when thinking about work? In a free society, would work manifest in one or both senses?

3. If the widely observable phenomenon of overwork and unemployment is a necessary feature of capitalist society, why and how is this so? What kinds of social necessity, in the present organization of the world, do you take to be underlying this phenomenon? Then, given your understanding of the nature of this necessity, what would it mean to radically transform it?

4. In the history of the Left, what examples do you regard as informing your attitude towards the politics of work and unemployment today, and what is relevant about these touchpoints?

5. Historically, the left has sought to remedy the problems of overwork and unemployment, through various means: full employment; a guaranteed minimum income regardless of employment; and/or shorter working hours for those employed. Which of these, if any, do you consider to be adequate responses, and how, if at all, should the Left pursue them?

6. If the abolition of wage labor should indeed be a goal of emancipatory politics, what forms of politics or concrete demands should be pursued to attain this goal? How do we get from "here" to "there"?

7. Given the breadth of issues and struggles pursued by the Left historically and today--race and racism, gender equality, environmental concerns, globalization, militarism, etc--what is the relationship between the politics of work and the broader project of social emancipation? Exactly how central or peripheral is the politics of work to social emancipation as such?

8. Where do you find the most promising attempts by the Left to address the issue of work and unemployment, today? What makes this contemporary work relevant and propitious?

9. What role, if any, do you assign to political organization, such as an actual or potential political party, in working to progressively transform contemporary relations of work and unemployment? What should be the relationship between any such organization and the working class?

10. A century ago, these questions were consciously taken up by a politically constituted workers movement in which socialists and Marxists participated. Today, discussions of this topic risk becoming utopian in the a-political sense. How, if at all, has the decline of workers movements and the death of the Left circumscribed our ability to engage the politics of work in the present?

The second of a panel series, to subsequently be held internationally in Chicago, London, and Toronto in Fall 2013. The first event was held in conjunction with Rethinking Marxism in Amherst, Mass.

Thanks to Mark Cunningham (https://www.youtube.com/user/fwmarkc) for providing the video recording.

A moderated panel discussion and audience Q&A with thinkers, activists and political figures focused on contemporary problems faced by the Left in its struggles to construct a politics adequate to the self-emancipation of the working class. Hosted by the Platypus Affiliated Society.

Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Panelists:
George Caffentzis - Midnight Notes Collective
Shay Enxuga - Baristas Rise Up
Larry Haiven -Solidarity Halifax / Saint Mary's University

Co-sponsored by the Halifax Radical Imagination Project:
http://radicalimagination.org/

Description:
"Capital is not a book about politics, and not even a book about labour: it is a book about unemployment." - Fredric Jameson, Representing Capital: A Reading of Volume One

"...the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all." - Joan Robinson

"The error consists in believing that labor, by which I mean heteronomous, salaried labor, can and must remain the essential matter. It's just not so. According to American projections, within twenty years labor time will be less than half that of leisure time. I see the task of the left as directing and promoting this process of abolition of labor in a way that will not result in a mass of unemployed on one side, and aristocracy of labor on the other and between them a proletariat which carries out the most distasteful jobs for forty-five hours a week. Instead, let everyone work much less for his salary and thus be free to act in a much more autonomous manner...Today "communism" is a real possibility and even a realistic proposition, for the abolition of salaried labor through automation saps both capitalist logic and the market economy." - Andre Gorz

It is generally assumed that Marxists and other Leftists have the political responsibility to support reforms for the improvement of the welfare of workers. Yet, leading figures from the Marxist tradition-- such as Lenin, Luxemburg and Trotsky-- also understood that such reforms would broaden the crisis of capitalism and potentially intensify contradictions that could adversely impact the immediate conditions of workers. For instance, full employment, while being a natural demand from the standpoint of all workers’ interests, also threatens the conditions of capitalist production (which rely on a surplus of available labor), thereby potentially jeopardizing the system of employment altogether. In light of such apparent paradoxes, this panel seeks to investigate the politics of work from Leftist perspectives. It will attempt to provoke reflection on and discussion of the ambiguities and dilemmas of the politics of work by including speakers from divergent perspectives, some of whom seek after the immediate abolition of labor and others of whom seek to increase the availability of employment opportunities. It is hoped that this conversation will deepen the understanding of the contemporary problems faced by the Left in its struggles to construct a politics adequate to the self-emancipation of the working class.

Questions:
1. How do you characterize work and employment as a political issue in contemporary society? What is wrong with unemployment? And/or what is wrong with work?

2. A distinction is often drawn between "work" as purposeful human activity (presumably existing before and after capitalism), on the one hand, and "work" in the sense of labor in capitalism, where the worker undertakes purposeful activity for money under threat of material scarcity (typically in the form of wage labor), on the other hand. Is this distinction politically relevant when thinking about work? In a free society, would work manifest in one or both senses?

3. If the widely observable phenomenon of overwork and unemployment is a necessary feature of capitalist society, why and how is this so? What kinds of social necessity, in the present organization of the world, do you take to be underlying this phenomenon? Then, given your understanding of the nature of this necessity, what would it mean to radically transform it?

4. In the history of the Left, what examples do you regard as informing your attitude towards the politics of work and unemployment today, and what is relevant about these touchpoints?

5. Historically, the left has sought to remedy the problems of overwork and unemployment, through various means: full employment; a guaranteed minimum income regardless of employment; and/or shorter working hours for those employed. Which of these, if any, do you consider to be adequate responses, and how, if at all, should the Left pursue them?

6. If the abolition of wage labor should indeed be a goal of emancipatory politics, what forms of politics or concrete demands should be pursued to attain this goal? How do we get from "here" to "there"?

7. Given the breadth of issues and struggles pursued by the Left historically and today--race and racism, gender equality, environmental concerns, globalization, militarism, etc--what is the relationship between the politics of work and the broader project of social emancipation? Exactly how central or peripheral is the politics of work to social emancipation as such?

8. Where do you find the most promising attempts by the Left to address the issue of work and unemployment, today? What makes this contemporary work relevant and propitious?

9. What role, if any, do you assign to political organization, such as an actual or potential political party, in working to progressively transform contemporary relations of work and unemployment? What should be the relationship between any such organization and the working class?

10. A century ago, these questions were consciously taken up by a politically constituted workers movement in which socialists and Marxists participated. Today, discussions of this topic risk becoming utopian in the a-political sense. How, if at all, has the decline of workers movements and the death of the Left circumscribed our ability to engage the politics of work in the present?

THE RECENT COINAGE OF “THE ANTHROPOCENE” as a technical term of art presents an intriguing intellectual and political puzzle. Arguments for accepting the Anthropocene as a fundamental change in all hitherto experienced human history appear driven less by the hopes to chronicle accurately natural history, than by designs for redirecting how human beings ought to act now.

[English]  |   [Ελληνικό]

In heutigen Diskussionen wird Marx häufig schlicht als Gegner des Liberalismus angesehen; der Marxismus dementsprechend als eine Bewegung, die den Kapitalismus abschaffen will. Diese Auffassung lässt unberücksichtigt, dass Marx’ Werke eine Kritik der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft darstellen, sich also direkt auf die bürgerlich-liberale Gesellschaft des 19. Jahrhunderts als Grundlage der Kritik beziehen. Doch was bedeutet hier Kritik?

Die Geschichte des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts, und auch die Geschichte des Marxismus im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, haben dazu beigetragen, dass die Trennschärfe der Begriffe „Liberalismus“ und „Kapitalismus“ oft nicht mehr in ausreichendem Maße gegeben ist. Inwiefern und warum ist eine Gegenüberstellung dieser Begriffe wieder, oder immer noch, sinnvoll? Wie kann überhaupt die marxistische Sicht auf die Begriffe „Liberalismus“ und „Kapitalismus“, insbesondere in ihrem Verhältnis zu dem der „bürgerlichen Gesellschaft“, wieder neu heraus erarbeitet werden? Und welche Bedeutung hat diese Frage überhaupt für heutige politische Probleme?

Um diese Fragen näher zu beleuchten, werden wir uns im kommenden Semester mit dem Begriff des Liberalismus beschäftigen, wie er vor Marx von bßrgerlichen Aufklärern wie Benjamin Constant, Immanuel Kant und Jean-Jacques Rousseau verwendet wurde, und wie Marx selbst das Verhältnis der Begriffe in seinem Werk behandelte. Des Weiteren werden wir die Entwicklung und Veränderung seiner Theorien durch die Geschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts betrachten, indem wir uns mit Schriften unterschiedlicher Marx-Interpreten und Marxist_innen, wie Georg Lukåcs, Theodor Adorno, Moishe Postone und Robert Pippin auseinandersetzen.
Dieser Weg durch die geschichtliche Entwicklung der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft soll Aufschluss darüber geben, ob und inwiefern der – scheinbare – Gegensatz von Marxismus und Liberalismus heute noch immer Gültigkeit besitzt.

 Alle sind herzlich willkommen!


Termin: Jeden Freitag, 14 Uhr

Ort: Neue Mensa 117 (Campus Bockenheim)


Leseliste:

• Basistexte

+ Zusatztexte


Woche 1, 18.10.2013: Zum Verhältnis von bßrgerlicher Gesellschaft und Marxismus

• Inschriften von Louis Menand (über Edmund Wilson), Karl Marx (über “Werden”), JamesMiller (über Rousseau) und Peter Preuss (über Nietzsche) über moderne Geschichte und Freiheit
• Chris Cutrone, “Das Kapital in der Geschichte” (2008) (im Reader S. 19-22)
• Cutrone, “The Marxist hypothesis” (2010)
+ Capital in history timeline and chart of terms


Woche 2, 25.10.2013: BĂźrgerliches Denken Teil 1: Rousseau

Wer den Mut besitzt, einem Volke Einrichtungen zu geben, muß sich imstande fühlen, gleichsam die
menschliche Natur umzuwandeln, jedes Individuum, das für sich ein vollendetes und einzeln bestehendes Ganze ist, zu einem Teile eines größeren Ganzen umzuschaffen, aus dem dieses Individuum
gewissermaßen erst Leben und Wesen erhält; die Beschaffenheit des Menschen zu seiner eigenen
Kräftigung zu verändern und an die Stelle des leiblichen und unabhängigen Daseins, das wir alle von
der Natur empfangen haben, ein nur teilweises und geistiges Dasein zu setzen. Kurz, er muß dem
Menschen die ihm eigentßmlichen Kräfte nehmen, um ihn mit anderen auszustatten, die seiner Natur
fremd sind und die er ohne den Beistand anderer nicht zu benutzen versteht.

– Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Der Gesellschaftsvertrag (1762)

• Jean Jacques Rousseau, Auszüge aus Der Gesellschaftsvertrag (1762) (Erstes Buch: Kap. 5 – 9, Zweites Buch: Kap. 1 – 4)
+ Rousseau, Abhandlung ßber den Ursprung und die Grundlagen der Ungleichheit unter den Menschen (1754)
+ Rainer Maria Rilke, “Archaischer Torso Apollos” (1908)
+ Robert Pippin, “On Critical Theory” (2004)


Woche 3, 01.11.2013: BĂźrgerliches Denken Teil 2: Kant und Constant

• Immanuel Kant, “Idee zu einer allgemeinen Geschichte in weltbürgerlicher Absicht” und “Was ist Aufklärung?” (1784)
• Benjamin Constant, “Von der Freiheit des Altertums, verglichen mit der Freiheit der Gegenwart” (1819)


Woche 4, 08.11.2013: Das Scheitern des Marxismus

• Max Horkheimer, Auszüge aus Dämmerung (1926–31)
• Adorno, “Ausschweifungen” (1944–47) (GS4:297-300, Anhang in Minima Moralia)


Woche 5, 15.11.2013: Utopie und Kritik

• Leszek Kolakowski, “Der Sinn des Begriffes ‘Linke’” (1968)
• Karl Marx, Auszug aus den Anmerkungen zur Doktordissertation (1839–41) [MEW 40, S. 325 - 331] • Marx, Brief von Marx an Arnold Ruge ( September 1843)


Woche 6, 22.11.2013: Sozialismus

• Marx, Auszüge aus Ökonomisch-philosophische Manuskripte (1844): Die entfremdete Arbeit;Privateigentum und Kommunismus; Bedürfnis, Produktion und Arbeitsteilung (bis |XXI||, MEW 40:556 [exclusiv ||XXXIV|| Die Grundrente])
• Marx und Friedrich Engels, Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei (1848)
+ Marx, Ansprache der ZentralbehÜrde an den Bund (1850)


Woche 7, 29.11.2013: Die Revolution von 1848

• Engels, Zur Taktik der Sozialdemokratie (Einleitung zu Karl Marx’ “Klassenkämpfe in Frankreich 1848 bis 1850″ (1895))
• Marx, Auszüge aus Die Klassenkämpfe in Frankreich 1848 bis 1850 (1850) (nur Teil I, der verlinkt ist)
• Marx, Auszüge aus Der achtzehnte Brumaire des Louis Napoleon (1852) [Teil I und VII]


Woche 8, 06.12.2013: Bonapartismus

• Marx, Inauguraladresse der Internationalen Arbeiter-Assoziation (1864)
• Marx, Auszüge aus Der Bürgerkrieg in Frankreich [Teil III und IV] (1871, mit Engels Einleitung von 1891)
+ Karl Korsch, “The Marxism of the First International” (1924)
+ Korsch, Einleitung zu Marx, Randglossen zum Programm der deutschen Arbeiterpartei (1922)
• Marx, Kritik des Gothaer Programms (1875)
+Marx, Einleitung zum Programm der französischen Arbeiterpartei (1880) [Über den Entwurf]

 


Woche 9, 13.12.2013: Kritik der politischen Ökonomie

• Marx, Einleitung zur Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie (1857–61) [MEW Bd. 13, S.615-641] • Marx, Kapital Bd. I, Kap. 1 Teil. 4 “Der Fetischcharakter der Ware und sein Geheimnis” (1867) [MEW Bd. 23, S.85-98]


Woche 10, 20.12.2013: Neomarxismus und die Neue Linke

• Martin Nicolaus, “The unknown Marx” (1968)
• Moishe Postone, “Necessity, labor, and time” (1978)
+ Postone, “History and helplessness: Mass mobilization and contemporary forms of anticapitalism” (2006)
+ Postone, “Theorizing the contemporary world: Brenner, Arrighi, Harvey” (2006)


Woche 11, 17.01.2014: Gender und Sexualität in der Neuen Linken

• Juliet Mitchell, “Women: The longest revolution” (1966)
• Clara Zetkin, “Erinnerungen an Lenin” (1925)
• Theodor W. Adorno, “Sexual taboos and the law today” (1963) (deutscher Audiolink folgt)
+ John D’Emilio, “Capitalism and gay identity” (1983)


Woche 12, 24.01.2014: Verdinglichung

• Georg Lukács, “Das Phänomen der Verdinglichung” (Teil I des Kapitels “Die Verdinglichung und das Bewusstsein des Proletariats,” Geschichte und Klassenbewusstsein (1923))


Woche 13, 31.01.2014: Klassenbewusstsein

• Lukács, Vorwort von 1922, “Was ist orthodoxer Marxismus?” (1919), “Klassenbewusstsein” (1920). aus: Geschichte und Klassenbewusstsein (1923)
+ Marx, Vorwort zur ersten Auflage und Nachwort zur zweiten Auflage (1873) des Kapitals (1867)


Woche 14, 07.02.2014: Liberalismus, Marxismus und Philosophie

• Korsch, “Marxismus und Philosophie” (1923) [in der verlinkten Ausgabe S.84-160] + Karl Marx, Auszug aus den Anmerkungen zur Doktordissertation (1839–41) [MEW 40, S. 325 - 331] + Marx, Brief von Marx an Arnold Ruge ( September 1843)
+ Marx, “Thesen über Feuerbach” (1845)

Come one come all! Before going out to celebrate Hallowe'en come have a pint with us. (If the Marquis gets too crowded we'll move across to the New Cross House)

Marquis Of Granby, New Cross

322 New Cross Rd, se14 6ag London