Vortrag und Diskussion mit der Platypus Affiliated Society, veranstaltet am 01.12.16 in Bielefeld.

In Kooperation mit der Antifa AG an der Uni Bielefeld.

Viele Interpreten unterstellen der Kritischen Theorie der Frankfurter Schule eine Abkehr vom Marxismus, weil sie sich der politischen Praxis enthalten habe. Wo Adorno nicht gleich ganz von der Tradition Marxens gelöst wird, packt man ihn in Abgrenzung zu Lenin und dem orthodoxen Marxismus in die Schubladen des „Westlichen“ oder des „Neo“-Marxismus.
In einem Gespräch mit Max Horkheimer von 1956, das unter dem Namen „Diskussion über Theorie und Praxis“ bekannt wurde, bemerkte Adorno jedoch: „Ich wollte immer […] eine Theorie entwickeln, die Marx, Engels und Lenin die Treue hält, aber auch andererseits nicht hinter die fortgeschrittenste Kultur zurückfällt“. Adorno, so scheint es, war ein Leninist. Wie aber genau wollte Adorno Marx, Engels und Lenin die „Treue“ halten? Welche Politik erscheint Adorno möglich und notwendig in einer Zeit, in der weder eine revolutionäre Partei noch eine selbstbewusste Arbeiterbewegung besteht? Welche Verbindungen zur Praxis bestehen bei Adornos Theorie? Adornos Kritik wurde von der Neuen Linken ignoriert und ist insofern von der Geschichte übergangen worden. Nicht, weil die Kritik ein Ende von Praxis überhaupt forderte, sondern im Gegenteil, weil sie, wie Adorno in den „Marginalien zu Theorie und Praxis“ kurz vor seinem Tod schrieb, „zu praktisch“ für die Aktivisten gewesen ist. Ist das Projekt der Kritischen Theorie gescheitert? Was würde es bedeuten die berühmte „Flaschenpost“ zu entkorken?

Teach-in on anti-Trump-ism and its implications for the left, held by Platypus members Nunzia Faes and Clint Montgomery in Frankfurt, Germany on November 11, 2016.

The accusations against Donald Trump of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and even fascism have been front and center for Republicans, liberals and leftists alike, while at the same time it is recognized that it was millions of former Obama voters who put him over the edge.

Many of the policies Trump called for already existed. For instance, surveillance and increased scrutiny of Muslim immigrants in the “War on Terror,” the war against ISIS, the wall on the border with Mexico, the mass deportations of “illegal” immigrants, and proposals for a super-exploitative guest-worker immigration program. Since the election, many of his strongly worded rhetoric has been removed from his platform entirely. Leaders of the Democratic Party such as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have conceded support for Trump on his policies meant to help American workers and to "drain the swamp" by getting finance out of politics. Meanwhile, many on the Left call for the dismantling of the Democratic Party, as a corporate fundraising machine that doesn’t speak to the needs of working people, to start anew. However what this means for them is the reinvigoration of the Democratic Party, which, based on the statements of Warren and Sanders, will now be led by President Trump.

During the campaign season itself the far left was divided between a strong anti-Trump, lesser evil endorsement of the Democrat establishment candidate and those who, too aware of what that neoliberal, imperialist establishment politics meant for people in America and around the world, could only stand helpless before the absence of anything outside the reality of Trump versus Clinton.

What is clear is that there is now no opposition to the status quo from the Left in America with power independent of the Democrat Party. In light of this fact, any future Left must keep firmly in view that its diagnosis of the Trump phenomenon--whether it is whitelash, proto-fascism, or neoliberal discontent--is at once its answer to what it represents. What sort of answers could the Left offer to oppose the establishment from the Left?"

The political and cultural Left, which have stood for increasing the scope of freedom, have historically shifted positons on issues of gender and sexuality. For instance, where once the Left challenged gender and family norms in society, there has been a turn to advocation participation in predominant institutions, for instance in legal reforms and the medical industry: there has been some conflict in LGBTQ circles over the politcs of the trans identity, whether it should be considered a subjective development or an objective condition, and further if it should be considered at all by the Left. What do such controversies tell us about the politics of sexual freedom and the history of the Left, moving forward? How are issues of sexual freedom related to issues in the greater society and not of concern merely to sexual minorities and subcultures? Is there simply a need to be recognized as present, as expressed by Queer Nation? Or might we look forward to renewed politcal disputes around issues of sexual freedom? What can history teach us about this?

Which way forward for trans liberation?
Which way forward for human emancipation?