September 24, 2014
Panel Event, Chicago, UIC
Featuring:
Walter Benn Michaels, UIC professor, English
John Bachtell, chairman, Communist Party USA
Judith K. Gardiner, UIC professor, Gender and Women's Studies, English
Panel description:
āAfter the failure of the 1960s New Left, the underlying despair with regard to the real efficacy of political will, of political agency, in a historical situation of heightened helplessness, became a self-constitution as outsider, as other, rather than an instrument of transformation. Focused on the bureaucratic stasis of the Fordist, late 20th Century world, the Left echoed the destruction of that world by the dynamics of capital: neoliberalism and globalization.
The idea of a fundamental transformation became bracketed and, instead, was replaced by the more ambiguous notion of āresistance.ā The notion of resistance, however, says little about the nature of that which is being resisted, or of the politics of the resistance involved.
āResistanceā is rarely based on a reflexive analysis of possibilities for fundamental change that are both generated and suppressed by the dynamic heteronomous order of capital. āResistanceā is an undialectical category that does not grasp its own conditions of possibility; it fails to grasp the dynamic historical context of capital and its reconstitution of possibilities for both domination and emancipation, of which the āresistersā do not recognize that that they are a part.ā
ā Moishe Postone, āHistory and Helplessness: Mass Mobilization and Contemporary Forms of Anticapitalismā (Public CultureĀø 18.1: 2006)
Resistance politics has waned since the Occupy movement, but it remains unclear to many on the left how an avowedly reform-oriented or even revolutionary politics might function other than as an elaborate act of resistance. What might render a strike more than a prolonging of workersā accommodation to the prevailing trends? How might socialists build independent electoral parties that can become more than a protest vote? How are the spontaneous discontents (acts of āresistanceā) that constantly emerge in our society channeled into a politics of the status quo, and what has it taken in the past-- what might it yet require-- for the Left to transcend such a politics?
Speakers:
Christopher P. (Anarcho-Syndicalist Review)
Michael Staudenmaier (author, Truth and Revolution)
Mel Rothenberg (Chicago Political Economy Group)
Jamie Theophilos (local activist)
Where & When:
Thursday, November 20, 7:00 - 9:30 pm
Cobb 110
5811 S. Ellis Ave.
University of Chicago
Description:
It seems that there are still only two radical ideologies: Anarchism and Marxism. They emerged out of the same crucible - the Industrial Revolution, the unsuccessful revolutions of 1848 and 1871, a weak liberalism, the centralization of state power, the rise of the workers movement, and the promise of socialism. They are the revolutionary heritage, and all significant radical upsurges of the last 150 years have returned to mine their meaning for the current situation. In this respect, our moment seems no different.
There are a few different ways these ideologies have been taken up. Recent worldwide square occupations reflect one pattern: a version of Marxist theory ā understood as a political-economic critique of capitalism ā is used to comprehend the world, while ananarchist practice ā understood as an anti-hierarchical principle that insists revolution must begin now ā is used to organize, in order to change it. Some resist this combination, claiming that Marxism rejects anti-statist adventurism, and call for a strategic reorganization of the working class to resist austerity, and perhaps push forward a āNew New Dealā. This view remains wedded to a supposedly practical welfarist social democracy, which strengthens the state and manages capital. There is a good deal of hand waving in both these orientations with regard to politics, tactics, and the end goal. Finally, there have been attempts to leave the grounds of these theories entirely ā but these often seem either to land right back in one of the camps or to remain marginal.
To act today we seek to draw up the balance sheet of the 20th century. The historical experience concentrated in these ideas must be unfurled if they are to serve as compass points. To see in what ways the return of these ideologies represent an authentic engagement and in what ways the return of a ghost. Where have the battles left us? What forms do we have for meeting, theoretically and practically, the problems of our present?
Benj Gerdes
Matthew Jesse Jackson
Ruslana Lichtzier
A discussionĀ of the relation of Keynesianism, social-democratic politics and Marxism to the purported decline of the U.S. as global hegemonic state, beginning in the 1970s and continuing in "Left" discourse to the present held on June 14th, 2014 at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. Ā Teach-in led by Chris Cutrone.
Readings for discussion:
Platypus Historians Group, Friedrich Hayek and the legacy of Milton Friedman: Neo-liberalism and the question of freedom (In part, a response to Naomi Klein) (2008)
Robert Lekachman, Capitalism for Beginners (1981)
Michael Harrington, "Marxism and democracy" Praxis International 1.1 (1981)
