RSS FeedRSS FeedYouTubeYouTubeTwitterTwitterFacebook GroupFacebook Group
You are here: The Platypus Affiliated Society/Archive for category Panels Audio

A panel discussion organized by the Platypus Affiliated Society, held on June 13, 2013, at the Labour Center of Thessaloniki in Thessaloniki, Greece.

Description:
Recently, following a steady pace, a new series of social struggles has emerged in Greece: struggles based on direct democracy and horizontal organizational forms. These struggles share an aversion to the traditional left politics, while on the same time they are considered as social movements opposing state administration and neoliberalism. Square occupations, local assemblies, cooperatives against the privatization of the water, producers-consumers movements, factories occupation under workers control have come to light while the crisis is going deeper. Even if these struggles affect only a handful of the "victims" of the crisis, those involved in them want to fulfill their needs and at the same time overcome old forms of politics by creating new ones. Have new types of struggles really appeared? If yes, is it desirable to replace the previous ones? Do these struggles have an anticapitalistic content? How people involved imagine the escalation and continuation of these struggles? How is the Left related to and influence them? Can solidarity fill in the gap between politics "from above" and politics "from below"?

Speakers:
1) Kostas Nikolaou, member of PROSKALO (initiative for social and solidarity economy) and of Initiative 136 (union of Non-Profit Water Cooperatives of the Municipalities of the Thessaloniki: http://www.136.gr/article/citizens-bid-control-thessalonikis-water).

2) Christos Manoukas, member of KEHA (movement for workers' emancipation and self-management) and of solidarity committee of Vio.Me. factory.

3) Dimitris, worker of Vio.Me. self-managed factory (http://www.viome.org/)

4) Iraklis Christoforidis, member of OKDE (greek section of the 4th International, http://www.okde.gr/)

Questions:
1) Which is the role, in your opinion, of the political organizations in relation to social struggles? Is there a difference between political and social struggles according to their conception and the way they are being conducted?

2) Is the politicization of these struggles a desirable goal? How can this goal be achieved?

3) How do you conceive solidarity as a political goal for social initiatives? Is solidarity always radical or can it be conservative as well? Is there a "tension" between solidarity and critical political consciousness?

4) Some social struggles, especially under tough economic and social circumstances, may express the interests of a group of people at the expense of general social interests. How can this relationship between the part and the whole be expressed in a fertile way? What does it mean to characterize a struggle with limited participation as radical?

5) Do the social struggles that have emerged share a new form and a new content? Do these struggles continue past struggles in Greece or abroad? Are they part of a broader national or international movement, and if yes, which is it?

6) Can there be a common basis on which all these struggles be united and radicalized? If yes, how can this common basis be combined with the obvious local characteristics of the struggles? Is there an antagonistic relationship between local and broader scale of the struggles?

7) Who is the real enemy of these struggles? Do they have explicitly or implicitly anticapitalistic goal? How can these goals be achieved in a local or a national level in the midst of an international economy?

8) Do these struggles have a prefigurative character (do they partly substantiate some of the aspects of a free future society)? Is this character compatible with the necessity for fulfilling the basic needs of those involved in social struggles?

9) Do the alternative economic initiatives wish to compete and replace the existing dominant economy (with its massive industrial and technological forms or financial forms etc.)? Is this a conscious choice of departing from past movement whose ambition was to socialize the existing economy?

A panel discussion held at Left Forum 2013, at Pace University, on June 9, 2013.

This panel was transcripted in Platypus Review #61 (Click on banner below to see):

theprweb1-91

Description:
Bourgeois society came into full recognition with Rousseau, who in the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality and On the Social Contract, opened its radical critique. Hegel wrote: "The principle of freedom dawned on the world in Rousseau." Marx quoted Rousseau favorably that "Whoever dares undertake to establish a people’s institutions must feel himself capable of changing, as it were, human nature... to take from man his own powers, and give him in exchange alien powers which he cannot employ without the help of other men." Rousseau posed the question of society, which Adorno wrote is a "concept of the Third Estate." Marx recognized the crisis of bourgeois society in the Industrial Revolution and workers' call for socialism. But proletarian socialism is no longer the rising force it was in Marx's time. So what remains of thinking the unrealized radicalism of bourgeois society without Marx? Kant stated that if the potential of bourgeois society was not fully achieved as the “mid-point” of freedom then Rousseau may have been right to prefer savagery against civilization’s “glittering misery.” Nietzsche warned that we might continue to be "living at the expense of the future:" "Perhaps more comfortably, less dangerously, but at the same time in a meaner style, more basely." How have thinkers of the revolutionary epoch after Rousseau, Adam Smith, Kant, Hegel, Benjamin Constant, and Nietzsche himself, contributed to the possibility of emancipation in a world after Marxism?

Speakers:
Chris Cutrone
Spencer Leonard
Sunit Singh

A talk and guided discussion held at Left Forum 2013, at Pace University, on June 8th, 2013.

Description:
If it is true that the 'commodity-structure' (Lukacs) is the defining feature of modern capitalism down through the present, then it stands to reason that it has no less impacted the way art is produced, consumed, circulated, and exchanged. This shift in art's character happened both objectively (e.g., as in an article produced for exchange on the market), and subjectively (i.e., as a kind of experience and form of expression for the social and individual body). However, art's relationship to its status as a commodity is an ambivalent one: Art has become at once more free from past forms of domination, but its freedom is constrained when subject to the dynamics of capital. Art as a commodity is both its cure and poison, and has become a social problem for its practice. Since becoming aware of this problem, artists, philosophers, curators, and critics have taken various approaches in seeking to overcome it. How has art under a capitalist society changed from its pre-capitalist practices? What is the commodity-form, and what is art's relationship to its logic? Must art seek emancipation from the commodity-form, or is it at home in it? In what sense does art take part in the Left and emancipatory politics -- a practice also seeking to overcome the commodity-form -- if at all? By asking these questions, this panel seeks to reinvestigate art's relationship to the commodity form, and make intelligible how this problematic relationship still sticks with us today.

Discussion Questions:
1. How do you define the terms ‘art,’ and ‘commodity?’ In what ways does art in capitalist society differ from art in precapitalist society? How would you posit the relationship between art and the ‘commodity-structure’ of capitalism? Is art already a commodity from the start, or does it get ‘commodified’ only when integrated in the market? Are there ways that art can resist its commodification, and if so, how?

2. Acknowledging that the issue of art and commodity is not a new question, what troubles this discourse today? How has art’s relationship to the commodity-form changed over time, and what does it look like now? Do we understand the problem better than our predecessors, or are we in a worse mode of understanding?

3. If emancipatory politics is the objective, does overcoming capitalism necessarily follow the abolition of art’s status as a commodity? Do contemporary attempts in ‘dematerialized’ or ‘process-based’ art practices (e.g., social practice, pedagogical projects, or institutional critique) challenge the commodity status of the art object, and if so, how? Should art even seek emancipation from the commodity? In what sense does art take part in the Left and emancipatory politics -- a practice also seeking to overcome the commodity-form -- if at all? 4. How do you position yourself as cultural production within this dialogue? If this is a question about the work of arts’ mode of production in society, and opens up the question of class, then in what ways specifically does your work—or other contemporary art work—respond to class consciousness? What role does criticism or art play towards an emancipatory politics?

Speakers:
Ben Blumberg
Victoria Campbell
Chris Mansour

Eine Veranstaltung der Platypus Affiliated Society Deutschland. Mit freundlicher UnterstĂŒtzung der Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung.

Mit:
Pablo Graubner (SDAJ)
Thomas Lohmeier (Die Linke/prager frĂŒhling)
Karin (Interventionistische Linke/No Troika)
Stefan Torak (campusantifa/ M31)

Mittwoch, 5. Juni
19-22h

Festsaal, Studierendenhaus (ĂŒber KOZ)
Campus Bockenheim
Frankfurt am Main

Mit der EinfĂŒhrung des Euro im Jahr 2002 als gemeinsamer WĂ€hrung der EuropĂ€ischen Union und dem damit einhergehenden Integrationsprozess der EU wurde eine weitgehende politische Stabilisierung Europas angestrebt. Gleichzeitig wurde durch den Euro jedoch auch eine Freihandelszone geschaffen, von der in erster Linie die starke Exportwirtschaft Deutschlands profitierte. Besonders seit der EinfĂŒhrung der Hartz-Reformen unter Gerhard Schröder und der extremen Ausweitung des Niedriglohnsektors auf dem deutschen Arbeitsmarkt begannen strukturell schwĂ€chere Ökonomien wie Griechenland, Spanien und Italien, aber auch Frankreich und Belgien, zu stagnieren oder drifteten gar in eine große Rezession ab. Aus dieser Perspektive betrachtet, hatte der Prozess der EuropĂ€ischen Integration einen gegenteiligen Effekt als ursprĂŒnglich intendiert: Unter der gegenwĂ€rtigen Wirtschaftskrise hat es den Anschein, als ob Europa zerfĂ€llt, und in vielen LĂ€ndern befinden sich nationalistische Separationsbewegungen im Aufwind, wie in Norditalien, Flandern oder im Elsass.

Die Krise drĂŒckt sich also nicht nur in einem ökonomischen, sondern auch in einem politischen Zerfallsprozess aus: Statt einer transnationalen europĂ€ischen Föderation kehrt in Europa das alte Gespenst des Nationalismus wieder ein. Daneben fĂŒhlen sich viele Menschen innerhalb der EU ohnmĂ€chtig und entmĂŒndigt in Anbetracht der Entdemokratisierung im Zuge der AusteritĂ€tspolitik. Dies geht einher mit einem Vertrauensverlust in klassische politische Institutionen wie Parteien und Parlamente. Selbst der Erfolg von SYRIZA in Griechenland lĂ€sst sich nicht erklĂ€ren ohne BerĂŒcksichtigung der sozialen Bewegungen, die der Partei starken Aufwind verschafften. Auch in anderen LĂ€ndern der EU drĂŒckt sich der Protest gegen die sog. „Troika“ im Erstarken außerparlamentarischer Bewegungen aus, wie der „Indignados“ in Spanien oder „Blockupy“ in Deutschland.

Laut Eigendarstellung von „Blockupy“ ist es Ziel des BĂŒndnisses, „gegen das autoritĂ€re Krisenmanagement und die Troika-Politik Widerstand zu leisten, um die demokratischen und sozialen Rechte der BeschĂ€ftigten, Prekarisierten und Erwerbslosen in Europa zu verteidigen.“ Doch wogegen genau richtet sich dieser Widerstand? Gegen ökonomische Institutionen wie die EuropĂ€ische Zentralbank und den Internationalen WĂ€hrungsfond? Oder gegen die neoliberale Ideologie als solche? In welche Richtung weist so ein Widerstand? ZurĂŒck zum Wohlfahrtsstaatsmodell des Fordismus? Oder können die Proteste gar der Beginn einer neuen anti-kapitalistischen Ausrichtung der europĂ€ischen Linken bedeuten? WĂ€re die EU dabei als transnationale Föderation erhaltenswert oder gehört sie abgeschafft? Was wĂŒrde an ihre Stelle treten? Wie wĂŒrde ein demokratisches Europa aussehen und welche Verantwortung kommt dabei Parteien und Parlamenten zu? Wie also sieht die Zukunft linker Politik in Europa aus? Welche Möglichkeiten auf Erfolg bestehen fĂŒr die neuen Protestbewegungen? Und wie wĂŒrde ein solcher Erfolg ĂŒberhaupt definiert werden?

A moderated panel discussion hosted by the Platypus Affiliated Society held on Friday, May 24, 2013 at the Eyelevel Gallery in Halifax.

In conjunction with the Annual Y-Level Exhibition ("And all sat mute")

Please Note: Due to technical problems, the ending of the event for both audio and video is cut off.

Description:
If it is true that the 'commodity-structure' (Lukacs) is the defining feature of modern capitalism down through the present, then it stands to reason that it has no less impacted the way art is produced, consumed, circulated, and exchanged. This shift in art's character happened both objectively (e.g., as in an article produced for exchange on the market), and subjectively (i.e., as a kind of experience and form of expression for the social and individual body). However, art's relationship to its status as a commodity is an ambivalent one: Art has become at once more free from past forms of domination, but its freedom is constrained when subject to the dynamics of capital. Art as a commodity is both its cure and poison, and has become a social problem for its practice. Since becoming aware of this problem, artists, philosophers, curators, and critics have taken various approaches in seeking to overcome it.

How has art under a capitalist society changed from its pre-capitalist practices? What is the commodity-form, and what is art's relationship to its logic? Must art seek emancipation from the commodity-form, or is it at home in it? In what sense does art take part in the Left and emancipatory politics -- a practice also seeking to overcome the commodity-form -- if at all? By asking these questions, this panel seeks to reinvestigate art's relationship to the commodity form, and make intelligible how this problematic relationship still sticks with us today.

Panelists:
Merray Gerges
Jocelyn Li
Jakub Milčák
Beck Gilmer-Osborne