In October, the Platypus Review published it's fiftieth issue. In celebration of this landmark occasion, at the issue No. 50 release party held in New York City on November 15, 2012, an international video conference with the members of the current and past editorial staff of the Platypus Review was held, including speakers involved with the Platypus Review from New York City and Chicago, USA, London, UK, Thessaloniki, Greece, Maastricht, the Netherlands, Frankfurt, Germany, and Graz, Austria.
On November 4th, 2012, Platypus member Chris Cutrone gave a talk on the Marxist notion of class consciousness at the RamĂłn Miranda BeltrĂĄn exhibition, "Chicago is My Kind of Town," at the gallery Julius in Chicago.
Transcripted in Platypus Review #51 (Click banner below to see):
Platypus Affiliated Society member Chris Cutrone on RT's Crosstalk, hosted by Peter Lavelle, on the global economic crisis.
âThe IMF has released a report that predicts the hoped-for global economic growth is again endangered. Why is this happening? Why has the Great Recession come back so early? Did it ever end? Has austerity made things worse? And is there a way to avoid the âfiscal cliffâ issue in Washington? CrossTalking with Seijiro Takeshita (Mizuho International, London), Martin Hennecke (Tyche Group, Hong Kong) and Chris Cutrone (School of the Art Institute of Chicago).â The impasse of policy, stimulus vs. austerity, and the question of different models for capitalism and the need for socialism.
Panel held at the Marxist Literary Group Summer 2011 Institute on Culture and Society at the Institute for the Humanities, University of Illinois at Chicago on June 22, 2011
The legacy of revolution 1917-19 in Russia, Germany, Hungary and Italy is concentrated above all in the historical figures Vladimir Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg and Leon Trotsky, leaders of the Left in the Second International (1889-1914) â what they called ârevolutionary social democracyâ â in the period preceding the crisis of war, revolution, counterrevolution and civil war in World War I and its aftermath. In 1920, Georg LukĂĄcs summed up this experience as follows: â[T]he crisis [of capital] remains permanent, it goes back to its starting-point, repeats the cycle until after infinite sufferings and terrible detours the school of history completes the education of the proletariat and confers upon it the leadership of mankind. . . . Of course this uncertainty and lack of clarity are themselves the symptoms of the crisis in bourgeois society. As the product of capitalism the proletariat must necessarily be subject to the modes of existence of its creator. . . . inhumanity and reification.â Nonetheless, these Marxists understood their politics as being âon the basis of capitalismâ itself (Lenin). How were the 2nd Intl. radicals, importantly, critics, and not merely advocates, of their own political movement? What is the legacy of these figures today, after the 20th century â as Walter Benjamin said in his 1940 âTheses on the Philosophy of History,â âagainst the grainâ of their time, reaching beyond it? How did Lenin, Luxemburg, and Trotsky contribute to the potential advancement and transformation of Marxism, in and through the crisis of Marxism in the early 20th century? How can we return to these figures productively, today, to learn the lessons of their history?
Panelists:
Chris Cutrone, Lenin
Greg Gabrellas, Luxemburg
Ian Morrison, Trotsky
Moderator:
Spencer Leonard
Panel held at the Marxist Literary Group Summer 2011 Institute on Culture and Society at the Institute for the Humanities, University of Illinois at Chicago on June 20, 2011
The âbourgeois revolutionsâ from the 16th through the 19th centuries â extending into the 20th â conformed humanity to modern city life, ending traditional, pastoral, religious custom in favor of social relations of the exchange of labor. AbbĂ© SieyĂšs wrote in 1789 that, in contradistinction to the clerical 1st Estate who âprayedâ and the aristocratic 2nd Estate who âfought,â the commoner 3rd Estate âworked:â âWhat has the 3rd Estate been? Nothing.â âWhat is it? Everything.â Kant warned that universal bourgeois society would be the mere midpoint in humanityâs achievement of freedom. After the last bourgeois revolutions in Europe of 1848 failed, Marx wrote of the âconstitution of capital,â the ambivalent, indeed self-contradictory character of âfree wage labor.â In the late 20th century, the majority of humanity abandoned agriculture in favor of urban life â however in âslum cities.â How does the bourgeois revolution appear from a Marxian point of view? How did what Marx called the âproletarianizationâ of society circa 1848 signal not only the crisis and supersession, but the need to fulfill and âcompleteâ the bourgeois revolution, whose task now fell to the politics of âproletarianâ socialism, expressed by the workersâ call for âsocial democracy?â How did this express the attempt, as Lenin put it, to overcome bourgeois society âon the basis of capitalismâ itself? How did subsequent Marxism lose sight of Marx on this, and how might Marxâs perspective on the crisis of the bourgeois revolution in the 19th century still resonate today?
Panelists;
Spencer Leonard, âMarxâs critique of political economy: Proletarian socialism continuing the bourgeois revolution?â
Pamela Nogales, âMarx on the U.S. Civil War as the 2nd American Revolutionâ
Jeremy Cohan, âLukĂĄcs on Marxâs Hegelianism and the dialectic of Marxismâ
Moderator:
Chris Cutrone