RSS FeedRSS FeedLivestreamLivestreamVimeoVimeoTwitterTwitterFacebook GroupFacebook Group
You are here: Platypus /Archive for category Media

Hier findet ihr einen Audiomitschnitt zur Podiumsdiskussion "50 Jahre 68" vom 26.06.2018 in Frankfurt am Main.

Seit einem halben Jahrhundert kennzeichnet 1968 einen Meilenstein sozialer und politischer Umbrüche - ein Jahr sozialer Aufstände, die die ganze Welt umspannten. Eingeleitet von einer Neuen Linken, welche sich von der Alten Linken der 20er und 30er abzugrenzen suchte, legten die Ereignisse von 1968 den Grundstein für alles Folgende: von Protestpolitik bis hin zur akademischen Linken.
Heute, da die Vereinigten Staaten in einem scheinbar endlosen Krieg in Asien verwickelt sind, der Aufruf zur Amtsenthebung eines unbeliebten Präsidenten laut wird, und sich auf den Straßen Aktivisten um Forderungen nach Befreiung hinsichtlich Herkunft, Gender und Sexualität zum Kampf erheben, treten Ansprüche, in denen sich der politische Horizont von 1968 wiederspiegelt, in Erinnerung. Mit möglicherweise nie dagewesener Dringlichkeit müssen wir die Frage stellen: Welche Lehren sind aus der Neuen Linken zu ziehen, wenn eine andere Generation an den Aufbau einer Linken des 21. Jahrhunderts herantreten soll?

Mit:

Jonathan Klein (unter_bau)
Ines Schwerdtner (das Argument, Ada-Magazine)
Klaus Wallenstein (MLPD)

Hier findet ihr einen Audiomitschnitt zur Podiumsdiskussion "Die Wohnraumfrage und die linke" am 11.06.2018 in Frankfurt am Main.

In den letzten Jahren haben sich viele linke Aktivisten und Theoretiker mit der Wohnungsfrage, der damit zusammenhängenden Veränderung der Städte und den steigenden Mieten auseinandergesetzt. Ein Großteil der Aktivität richtet sich gegen Gentrifizierung und versucht bestehende politische Parteien dazu zu bewegen, in Sozialenwohnungsbau zu investieren und die Mietsteigerungen zu bremsen.

Seit Friedrich Engels in den 1840ern die Lebens- und Wohnbedingungen der englischen Arbeiterklasse untersucht hat, haben politische Veränderungen im Kapitalismus zu unterschiedlichen Formen von staatlicher Wohnungspolitik geführt. Dennoch bleibt die Wohnungskrise im Kapitalismus ungelöst.

Wie sind die politischen Kämpfe der Vergangenheit und Gegenwart - für bessere Wohnungen und eine gerechtere Stadtplanung, gegen Neoliberalismus und Gentrifizierung – einzuordnen? Wie könnten sie heute den Kampf für Sozialismus und das Streben nach Freiheit vorantreiben?

Mietentscheid Frankfurt - Andreas Schindel
Exit - Herbert Böttcher
Solidarisches Gallus - Ivo Eichhorn
Interventionistische Linke (IL) - Rolf Engelke

Eine Podiumsdiskussion, veranstaltet von der Platypus Affiliated Society im Amerlinghaus in Wien am 11. Juli 2018.

Podium:

Christian Hofmann (Bundesjugendsekretär in der GPA-djp)

Michael Fischer
Michael Märzen (Arbeiter*innenstandpunkt, Liga für die 5. Internationale)
Martin Gutlederer (Der Funke, Internationale Marxistische Tendenz)

Im Lichte der aktuellen öffentlichen Debatte über den 12-Stunden-Arbeitstag diskutieren wir über das Verhältnis der Linken zur Politik der Arbeit. Wie hat linke Politik der Arbeit in der Vergangenheit ausgesehen, welche politischen Ziele verfolgt Politik der Arbeit in der Gegenwart und welches Potential für die Linke steckt darin?

 

For 2017, the third time the Platypus Affiliated Society hosts its European Conference and we are happy to announce the University of Vienna as this year's location. The program includes two panel discussions on the Politics of Critical Theory and the Crisis of Neoliberalism as well as several workshops.

University of Vienna

Panel Speakers (in order):

- Chris Cutrone, Platypus Affiliated Society, Chicago

- John Milios, former Chief economic advisor of SYRIZA, Athens

- Emmanuel Tomaselli, Funke Redaktion , International Marxist Tendency, Wien

- Boris Kargalitzky, Institute of Globalisation Studies and Social Movements, Moskau

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?

For 2017, the third time the Platypus Affiliated Society hosts its European Conference and we are happy to announce the University of Vienna as this year's location. The program includes two panel discussions on the Politics of Critical Theory and the Crisis of Neoliberalism as well as several workshops.

University of Vienna

Speakers: Dirk Lehmann und Anne Koppenburger, Bielefeld

For 2017, the third time the Platypus Affiliated Society hosts its European Conference and we are happy to announce the University of Vienna as this year's location. The program includes two panel discussions on the Politics of Critical Theory and the Crisis of Neoliberalism as well as several workshops.

University of Vienna

What is the legacy of the 1917 Russian Revolution today? A teach-in on problems of Leftist historiography.

Speakers (in order):

- Chris Cutrone

- Richard Rubin

For 2017, the third time the Platypus Affiliated Society hosts its European Conference and we are happy to announce the University of Vienna as this year's location. The program includes two panel discussions on the Politics of Critical Theory and the Crisis of Neoliberalism as well as several workshops.

University of Vienna

Speakers (in order):

- Chris Cutrone, Platypus Affilated Society, Chicago

- Martin Suchanek, Workers Power, Berlin

- Haziran Zeller, Berlin

Recently, the New Left Review published a translated conversation between the critical theorists Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer causing more than a few murmurs and gasps. In the course of their conversation, Adorno comments that he had always wanted to develop a theory that remains faithful to Marx, Engels and Lenin, while keeping up with culture at its most advanced.’ Adorno, it seems, was a Leninist. As surprising as this evidence might have been to some, is it not more shocking that Adorno’s politics, and the politics of Critical Theory, have remained taboo for so long? Was it really necessary to wait until Adorno and Horkheimer admitted their politics in print to understand that their primary preoccupation was with maintaining Marxism’s relation to bourgeois critical philosophy such as Kant and Hegel? This panel proposes to state the question as directly as possible and to simply ask: How did the practice and theory of Marxism, from Marx to Lenin, make possible and necessary the politics of Critical Theory?

Hier findet ihr einen Audiomitschnitt zur Podiumsdiskussion "Politik der Arbeit" vom 31.01.2017 in Frankfurt am Main.
Aus gegebenem Anlass widmet sich diese Podiumsdiskussion dem Verständnis einiger grundlegender Fragen des Marxismus mit Blick auf ihre heutige Relevanz:
Traditionell unterstützten Marxisten und andere Teile der Linken auf politischer Ebene die Forderung der Arbeiter nach Reformen, welche ihre Lebensbedingungen verbessern sollten. Doch verstanden führende Persönlichkeiten der marxistischen Tradition wie Lenin, Luxemburg und Trotzki, dass solche Reformen zugleich die Krise des Kapitalismus vertieften, da sie seine immanenten Widersprüche zuspitzten.
So ist z.B. die Vollbeschäftigung eine – vom Standpunkt der Arbeiter – notwendige Forderung. Gleichzeitig aber wird das gesamte System der Beschäftigung gefährdet, welches unter Bedingungen kapitalistischer Produktion auf die Abschöpfung des Mehrwerts der verfügbaren Arbeitskraft angewiesen ist.
Um die Probleme und Ambiguitäten einer möglichen Politik der Arbeit herauszuschälen, lassen wir verschiedene linke Perspektiven zu Wort kommen. Diese Diskussion soll ein Klärungsversuch zentraler Fragen für eine neu konstituierte internationale marxistische Linke darstellen. Welches sind gegenwärtig theoretische und praktische Hindernisse einer solchen Linken, die durch die Politik der Arbeit die Befreiung der Arbeiterklasse anstreben würde?
Ist die Arbeiterklasse eine Identität neben anderen unterdrückten Identitäten? Gibt es heute eine Arbeiterklasse und muss diese sich selbst emanzipieren? Auf welchem Weg kann das erreicht werden? Welche Prinzipien zeichneten die Politik der Arbeit einst aus? Was ist das Verhältnis von Reform und Revolution?
Mit:
Thomas Seibert - Interventionistische Linke
Holger Marcks - unter_bau
Jonas - farbeRot
Heinz Klee - Arbeiterbund zum Wiederaufbau der KPD

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 – 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 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 ‘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 neo-liberalism has largely come from the Right, and Trump won the election in November?

A panel on the politics of work held at the University of Houston, December 4, 2016 by Platypus Houston.

Panelists:

Dylan Daney - UNITE HERE!
David Michael Smith - Houston Socialist Movement
Duy Lap Nguyen - Professor of World Cultures and Literatures, University of Houston

"Capital is not a book about politics, and not even a book about labour: it is a book about unemployment." - Fredric Jameson, Representing Capital: A Reading of Volume One

"...the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all." - Joan Robinson

"The error consists in believing that labor, by which I mean heteronomous, salaried labor, can and must remain the essential matter. It's just not so. According to American projections, within twenty years labor time will be less than half that of leisure time. I see the task of the left as directing and promoting this process of abolition of labor in a way that will not result in a mass of unemployed on one side, and aristocracy of labor on the other and between them a proletariat which carries out the most distasteful jobs for forty-five hours a week. Instead, let everyone work much less for his salary and thus be free to act in a much more autonomous manner...Today "communism" is a real possibility and even a realistic proposition, for the abolition of salaried labor through automation saps both capitalist logic and the market economy." - Andre Gorz

It is generally assumed that Marxists and other Leftists have the political responsibility to support reforms for the improvement of the welfare of workers. Yet, leading figures from the Marxist tradition-- such as Lenin, Luxemburg and Trotsky-- also understood that such reforms would broaden the crisis of capitalism and potentially intensify contradictions that could adversely impact the immediate conditions of workers. For instance, full employment, while being a natural demand from the standpoint of all workers’ interests, also threatens the conditions of capitalist production (which rely on a surplus of available labor), thereby potentially jeopardizing the system of employment altogether. In light of such apparent paradoxes, this panel seeks to investigate the politics of work from Leftist perspectives. It will attempt to provoke reflection on and discussion of the ambiguities and dilemmas of the politics of work by including speakers from divergent perspectives, some of whom seek after the immediate abolition of labor and others of whom seek to increase the availability of employment opportunities. It is hoped that this conversation will deepen the understanding of the contemporary problems faced by the Left in its struggles to construct a politics adequate to the self-emancipation of the working class.