I want to speak about the meaning of history for any purportedly Marxian Left. We in Platypus focus on the history of the Left because we think that the narrative one tells about this history is in fact one’s theory of the present. Implicitly or explicitly, in one’s conception of the history of the Left, is an account of how the present came to be. By focusing on the history of the Left, or, by adopting a Left-centric view of history, we hypothesize that the most important determinations of the present are the result of what th

[. . .]

I decided not to participate in any illegal protests at the RNC. There’s a simple, material reason: Had I been arrested I would have been accountable for bail money (or unhappily relying on legal defense funds that I truly feel have more value elsewhere) and possibly a day’s worth of income.

[. . .]

Barack Obama had, until recently, made his campaign for President of the United States a referendum on the invasion and occupation of Iraq. In the Democratic Party primaries, Obama attacked Hillary Clinton for her vote in favor of the invasion. Among Republican contenders, John McCain went out of his way to appear as the candidate most supportive of the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq.

[. . .]

Mi propósito en esta charla es presentar una discusión sobre el significado de la historia para cualquier izquierda que se asuma marxista. En Platypus hacemos eje en la historia de la izquierda porque pensamos que la narrativa histórica que uno cuente no es otra cosa que una teoría del presente. Implicita o explicitamente, la concepción de la historia que se adopta constituye una toma de posición respecto de como el presente ha llegado a ser lo que es hoy. Al centrarnos en la historia de la izquierda, y al adoptar una perspectiva política cuyo eje es esta mirada izquierdista de la historia, estamos sosteniendo como hipótesis que las características determinantes de nuestro presente tal como lo conocemos son el resultado de lo que la izquierda ha hecho históricamente por acción u omisión.

[. . .]

What does it mean to say, as Platypus does, that “the Left is Dead?” It represents the desire for a tabula rasa, for a start from scratch. It is the admission that there is no living tradition, no movement to join in the Marxist Left; That it has been defeated and that it has self-destructed. It means that the Maoisms and Trotskyisms that today stumble around like zombies in the form of tiny sectarian groups have either given themselves to dishonestly cheerleading for the Green and Democratic parties or simply have become antiquarian societies reciting old revolutionary pieties with the mechanical enthusiasm of Hare-Krishna monks; While at the same time the “radicals” and “anarchists” that prescribe dropping out of society by building “alternative communities” “outside of capitalism” have rationalized their powerlessness into a lifestyle that poses as politics.

[. . .]