Eine Podiumsdiskussion, veranstaltet von der Platypus Affiliated Society an der Universität Wien am 14. Dezember 2017.

Podium: 

Franz Schandl (Redaktion Streifzüge)
Emmanuel Tomaselli (Der Funke) 
Michael Märzen (Gruppe Arbeiter*innenstandpunkt)
Tobias Schweiger (KPÖ PLUS)
Philipp Eichhorn

Im 20. Jahrhundert tauchte immer wieder die Erinnerung an 1917 auf. Ob die Volksfront der '30er, die Kommunistische Revolution in China 1949 oder die Neue Linke der '60er, die Linke hat versucht sich – ob positiv oder negativ – im Verhältnis zu den Zielen und Ergebnissen von 1917 zu verstehen. Jedoch hat sich seit 1917 das revolutionäre Bewusstsein seiner primären Akteure in verschiedene Oppositionen aufgelöst: Stalinismus und Trotzkismus sehen sich gleichermaßen als das legitime Erbe des Bolschewismus; das Prinzip des Liberalismus steht heute in Opposition zum Prinzip des Sozialismus; Libertarismus wird gegen Autoritarismus ausgespielt; der machiavellistische Lenin gegen die Cassandra der Revolution Luxemburg; der revolutionäre Wille der Zwecke, die die Mittel heiligen gegen die prinzipiellen emanzipatorischen Methoden und die Tugend der praktischen Niederlage. Gleichzeitig wurde die Vergeblichkeit sowohl von Lenins als auch Luxemburgs Politik naturalisiert: es wird stillschweigend vorausgesetzt, dass weder das, was Lenin noch das, was Luxemburg zu erreichen versuchten, tatsächlich erreichbar war – weder in ihrer Zeit noch in unserer. Die Prämissen der Revolution selbst stehen in Frage: sind die Formen bürgerlicher Gesellschaft wie Staat, Politik, Arbeit und Kapital überhaupt noch aktuell und damit Widersprüche, die über sich hinausweisen und das Potential ihrer eigenen Überwindung bergen?

1. Wie hat sich die Erinnerung an 1917 im Laufe des 20. Jahrhunderts verändert?
2. Warum scheint die Erinnerung an 1917 in Oppositionen zerfallen zu sein?
3. Stellt uns die Erinnerung an 1917 heute noch Aufgaben und wenn ja in welcher Hinsicht?
4. Inwiefern ist 1917 ein wichtiger Bezugspunkt für die Kämpfe der Gegenwart und inwiefern bietet die Gegenwart ein Potential zur Verwirklichung der Ziele von 1917?

[. . .]

On February 18, 2017, as part of its third European Conference, the Platypus Affiliated Society organized a panel discussion, “The Crisis of Neoliberalism,” at the University of Vienna. The event brought together the following speakers: Chris Cutrone, President of Platypus; John Milios, former chief economic advisor of SYRIZA; Emmanuel Tomaselli, of the International Marxist Tendency; and Boris Kargalitsky, of the Institute for Globalization Studies and Social Movements in Moscow. What follows is an edited transcript of their discussion.

[. . .]

A discussion on the crisis of neoliberalism, held on February 18, 2017 at the University of Vienna, as part of the third annual Platypus European Conference.

An edited transcript of the event was published in The Platypus Review Issue #96.

Speakers (in order):

Chris Cutrone -  Platypus Affiliated Society; School of the Art Institute (Chicago)
John Milios - former Chief economic advisor of SYRIZA (Athens)
Emmanuel Tomaselli - Funke Redaktion; International Marxist Tendency (Vienna)
Boris Kargalitzky - Institute of Globalisation Studies and Social Movements (Moscow)

Description:

The Left has for over a generation – for more than 40 years, since the crisis of 1973 – placed its hopes in the Democratic and Labour Parties to reverse or slow neoliberal capitalism – the move to trans-national trade agreements, the movement of capital and labor, and austerity. The post-2008 crisis of neoliberalism, despite phenomena such as SYRIZA, Occupy Wall Street, the Arab Spring and anti-austerity protests more generally, Bernie Sanders's candidacy, and Jeremy Corbyn's Labour leadership, has found expression on the avowed Right, through UKIP, Brexit, the U.K. Conservatives' move to "Red Toryism" and now Donald Trump's election. The old neoliberal consensus is falling apart, and change is palpably in the air. Margaret Thatcher's infamous phrase "There Is No Alternative" has been proven wrong. What can the Left do to advance the struggle for socialism under such circumstances?

In the 1960s the Left faced political and social crises in an era of full employment and economic growth. Departing from official Communism, which had largely supported the development of the welfare state in industrialized capitalist countries, many on the Left challenged the existing political order, of Keynesian-Fordism, through community organising on the principle of expanding individual and collective freedom from the state. Against Keynesian economic demands, many of these Leftists supported the Rights efforts, to integrate formerly oppressed identity groups into the corporate professional-managerial class. Since the 1970s, the significance of the fact that all these aims were taken up, politically, by the Right, in
the name of ‘freedom’, in the form of neo-liberalism is still ambiguous today.

Some on the Left have understood this phase of ‘neo-liberalism’ to be continuous with the post-war Fordist state, for example in Ernest Mandel’s conception of “late capitalism” and David Harvey’s idea of “post-Fordism”. The movement of labor and capital was still administered by the Fordist state. Distinctively, others on the Left have opposed neo-liberalism for over a generation through a defence of the post-war welfare state, through appeals to anti-austerity and anti-globalisation.

How does this distinction within the Left between the defense of the welfare state and the defense of individual freedom affect the Left’s response to the crisis of neo-liberalism? Why has the Left recently supported attempts to politically manage the economic crisis post-2008, against attempts at political change? How can the Left struggle for political power, with the aim of overcoming capitalism and achieving socialism, when the political expression of the crisis of neoliberalism has largely come from the Right, and Trump won the election in November?

[. . .]