7:00pm / 30 November 2016
London School of Economics
Speakers (in order):
Adam Booth (writer and activist with Socialist Appeal and the International Marxist Tendency)
James Heartfield (Sp!ked / Author of 'An Unpatriotic History of the Second World War')
Patrick Neveling (SOAS Development Studies, Utrecht University Cultural Anthropology)
Paul Demarty (Weekly Worker / CPGB)
Panel description:
The Left has for over a generation â for more than 40 years, since the crisis of 1973 â placed its hopes in the Democratic and Labour Parties to reverse or slow neoliberal capitalism â the move to trans-national trade agreements, the movement of capital and labor, and austerity. The post-2008 crisis ofneoliberalism, 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?
Some background:
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 âfreedomâ, in the form of neo-liberalism is still ambiguous today.
Some on the Left have understood this phase of âneo-liberalismâ to be continuous with the post-war Fordist state, for example in Ernest Mandelâs conception of âlate capitalismâ and David Harveyâs idea of âpost-Fordismâ. 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 Leftâs 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 neo-liberalism has largely come from the Right, and Trump won the election in November?
Panel description:Â
The Left has for over a generation â for more than 40 years, since the crisis of 1973 â placed its hopes in the Democratic and Labour Parties to reverse or slow neoliberal capitalism â the move to trans-national trade agreements, the movement of capital and labor, and austerity. The post-2008 crisis ofneoliberalism, 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?
Some background:Â
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 âfreedomâ, in the form of neo-liberalism is still ambiguous today.
Some on the Left have understood this phase of âneo-liberalismâ to be continuous with the post-war Fordist state, for example in Ernest Mandelâs conception of âlate capitalismâ and David Harveyâs idea of âpost-Fordismâ. 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 Leftâs 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 neo-liberalism has largely come from the Right, and Trump won the election in November?
Our preliminary readings have four weeks on radical bourgeois philosophy (Rousseau, Hegel, Nietzsche), three weeks on the 1960's New Left (neo-Marxism, gender and sexuality, anti-black racism in the US) and one week on 'precursors' to the Frankfurt School (Reich and Kracauer). The primary reading group lasts eleven weeks and focuses on two questions: What is the left, and what is Marxism?
Panelists (in order of presentations):
Neil Davenport - Institute of Ideas / Spiked
Mike Macnair - Communist Party of Great Britain / Weekly Worker
Gerry Downing - Socialist Fight
Panel Description:
A united and peaceful Europe seemed to be a distant dream for a generation which went through the experience of war and destruction. In the latter part of the 20th century, this hope gained shape in the new realities of the European Union. Despite its official proclamation of peace, social well being and an âalternative to capitalism and communismâ, today the project finds itself in a prolonged crisis with uncertain expectations. The refugee crisis, the Euro-crisis, massive austerity and the increasing interference into democratic principles, a growing division between powerful and weak economies, and Germany's new hegemony appear in stark contrast to the official slogans of âEuropean values and solidarityâ. The desperate struggle of SYRIZA demonstrated the necessity and seeming impossibility of the Left across Europe to answer with a politics that would be truly international and go beyond âresisting austerity.âDespite growing social unrest, the deep ambivalence towards the EU expresses itself in the inability of the Left to formulate a coherent vision of a political alternative. Should it be overcome on the basis of the EU itself, or against the EU? The clarification of its nature and appropriate responses seem to be one of the most pressing issues for the Left on the continent and beyond.
Questions:
1. The EU ideologically relies on defining itself as a project of pacifism (peace in Europe) and a âthird wayâ politics of a âsocial market economyâ. What do you make of these claims? Should the Left be fighting for the fulfillment of the promise of the EU? How would you characterize the evolution and realization of the EU project in light of its foundational claims?
2. How can the project of the EU be described in political and economic terms? Is it an âimperialistâ project? If so, who are the âImperialistsâ? Is the EU a âneoliberalâ project? If so, to what end? What do these terms clarify? What would an anti-neoliberal or anti-imperialist politics entail?
3. What are the driving forces behind the EU and what are the implications for a Left politics in Europe? Can the EU be âpushed to the Leftâ or is it a project against the Left?
4. Today, the Leftâs response to the Euro-crisis has mostly confined itself to nation states. Yet, the EU represents a âtransnationalâ project. How does this affect the nature of internationalism for the Left? Is this an opportunity yet to be realized, or does the EU represent an obstacle to a true international?
5. SYRIZA was seen as an indicator of shifting political and economic forces in the EU, yet the Left in stronger economies has remained weak. What did its election reveal? What has the Brexit question revealed about the European Left and its tasks? How do both of these affect the dynamic of the EU and how do they task the greater Left?
Platypus London invites you to our inaugural public forum event at the London School of Economics on what Brexit means for the Left.
**TIME 7pm, Wednesday 8th June**
**ROOM: Tower 2, 9th floor, room 9.05**
Panelists:
Neil Davenport - Institute of Ideas / Spiked
Gerry Downing - Socialist Fight
Sacha Ismail - Alliance for Workers' Liberty
Mike Macnair - Communist Party of Great Britain / Weekly Worker
Panel Description:
A united and peaceful Europe seemed to be a distant dream for a generation which went through the experience of war and destruction. In the latter part of the 20th century, this hope gained shape in the new realities of the European Union. Despite its official proclamation of peace, social well being and an âalternative to capitalism and communismâ, today the project finds itself in a prolonged crisis with uncertain expectations. The refugee crisis, the Euro-crisis, massive austerity and the increasing interference into democratic principles, a growing division between powerful and weak economies, and Germany's new hegemony appear in stark contrast to the official slogans of âEuropean values and solidarityâ. The desperate struggle of SYRIZA demonstrated the necessity and seeming impossibility of the Left across Europe to answer with a politics that would be truly international and go beyond âresisting austerity.â
Despite growing social unrest, the deep ambivalence towards the EU expresses itself in the inability of the Left to formulate a coherent vision of a political alternative. Should it be overcome on the basis of the EU itself, or against the EU? The clarification of its nature and appropriate responses seem to be one of the most pressing issues for the Left on the continent and beyond.
Questions:
1. The EU ideologically relies on defining itself as a project of pacifism (peace in Europe) and a âthird wayâ politics of a âsocial market economyâ. What do you make of these claims? Should the Left be fighting for the fulfillment of the promise of the EU? How would you characterize the evolution and realization of the EU project in light of its foundational claims?
2. How can the project of the EU be described in political and economic terms? Is it an âimperialistâ project? If so, who are the âImperialistsâ? Is the EU a âneoliberalâ project? If so, to what end? What do these terms clarify? What would an anti-neoliberal or anti-imperialist politics entail?
3. What are the driving forces behind the EU and what are the implications for a Left politics in Europe? Can the EU be âpushed to the Leftâ or is it a project against the Left?
4. Today, the Leftâs response to the Euro-crisis has mostly confined itself to nation states. Yet, the EU represents a âtransnationalâ project. How does this affect the nature of internationalism for the Left? Is this an opportunity yet to be realized, or does the EU represent an obstacle to a true international?
5. SYRIZA was seen as an indicator of shifting political and economic forces in the EU, yet the Left in stronger economies has remained weak. What did its election reveal? What has the Brexit question revealed about the European Left and its tasks? How do both of these affect the dynamic of the EU and how do they task the greater Left?
