2Issue #7 /October 2008

1 Financecapital: Whyfinancialcapitalismisnomore "fictitious"thananyotherkind PlatypusHistoriansGroup

1 FivequestionstothestudentLeft PamelaNogalesandBenShepard

2 Iraqandtheelection Thefogof"anti-war"politics ChrisCutrone

2 Apolemiconprotest ReflectionsontheRNCresistance RaechelTiffe

2 ViolenceattheRNC BenjaminBlumbergandIanMorrison

3 Capitalinhistory TheneedforaMarxianphilosophyofhistoryoftheLeft ChrisCutrone

4 Reenacting'68 LiamWarfield

www.platypus1917.org /theplatypusreview

Issue#7|October2008

Platypus ReviewThe

7

Submission guidelinesArticlescanrangeinlengthfrom500–1,000words.Wewillconsiderlongerpiecesbutpreferthattheybesubmittedasproposals.Pleasesendarticles,eventcalendarlistingsubmissions,andanyinquiriesaboutthisprojectto:platypus1917webzine@yahoogroups.com

The Platypus Review Taking stock of the multifaceted universe of positions and goals that constitute Left politics today, we are left with the disquieting suspicion that perhaps a deeper common-ality underlies this apparent variety: what exists today is built on the desiccated remains of what was once felt to be possible. In order to make sense of the present, we find it neces-sary to disentangle the vast accumulation of positions on the Left, and to evaluate their saliency for an emancipa-tory politics of the present. Doing this work implies a reconsideration of what we mean by “the Left”. This task necessarily begins from what we see as a prevalent feature of the Left today: a general disenchant-ment with the present state of progressive politics. We feel that this disenchantment cannot be cast off by sheer will, by “carrying on the fight,” but must be addressed and itself made an object of critique. Thus we begin with what immediately confronts us. The editorial board of The Platypus Review is motivat-ed by a sense that the very concepts of the “political” and

Iraq and the electionThe fog of "anti-war" politics

ChrisCutrone

"Iraq" continues on page 3

The Platypus Review is funded by:TheUniversityofChicagoStudentGovernment

SchooloftheArtInstituteofChicagoStudentGovernmentThePlatypus AffiliatedSociety

BaRack OBama had,untilrecently,madehiscampaignforPresidentoftheUnitedStatesareferendumontheinvasionandoccupationofIraq.IntheDemocraticPartyprimaries,ObamaattackedHillaryClintonforhervoteinfavoroftheinvasion.AmongRepublicancontenders,JohnMcCainwentoutofhiswaytoappearasthecandidatemostsupportiveoftheBushadministration’spolicyinIraq.Lookingtowardsthegeneralelection,itisoverIraqthatthecandidateshavebeenmostclearlyopposed:ObamahassoughttodistinguishhimselfmostsharplyfromMc-CainonIraq,emphasizingtheirdifferencesinjudgment.Priortotherecentfinancialmelt-downonWallStreet,therewasaconsistencyofemphasisonIraqasasignalissueofthecampaign.ButwithIraqdramaticallypacifiedinrecentmonths,itspoliticalimportancehasdiminished.Obama’spositiononIraqhas,ifanything,losthimtractionastheMcCain-supportedBushpolicyhassucceeded. Nowmightbeagoodtimetostepbackandlookatassumptionsregardingthepoliticsofthewar,andassesstheirtruenatureandcharacter,whattheyhavemeantforthemainstreamaswellasfortheostensible“Left.” Onemajorassumptionthathaspersistedfromthebeginningoftheanti-warmovementandoverthecourseofthetwopresidentialtermsoftheBushadministrationhasbeenthattheIraqwarwastheresultofamaverickpolicy,inwhich“neoconservative”ideologueshijackedtheU.S.governmentinordertoimplementanextremeagenda.Recently,moreastuteobserversofAmericanpoliticssuchasAdolphReed(in“WhereObamaismseemstobegoing,”BlackAgendaReport,July16,2008,on-lineatblackagendareport.com)haveconcededthepointthatawarinIraqcouldeasilyhavebeenembracedevenbyaDemocraticadminstration.Reedwrites:

“LesserevilistsassertasindisputablefactthatGore,orevenKerry,wouldn’thaveinvadedIraq.PerhapsGorewouldn’thave,butIcan’tsaythat’sasurething.(Andwhowashisrunningmate,bytheway?[JoeLieber-man,whorecentlyspokeinsupportofMcCainattheRepublicanNationalConvention—CC.])Moreover,wedon’tknowwhatothermilitaryadventurismthathe

—likeClinton—wouldhaveundertaken...No,I’mnotatallconvincedthattheRightwouldn’thavebeenabletohoundeitherGoreintoinvadingIraqorKerryintocontinuingthewarindefinitely.”

Thisraisestheissueofwhat“opposition”totheIraqwarpolicyoftheBushadministrationreallyamountsto.TheDemocrats’jockeyingforpositionisanexcellentframethroughwhichtoexaminethepoliticsofthewar.

FortheDemocrats’criticismoftheBushpolicyhasbeentransparentlyopportunist,toseizeupontheproblemsofthewarforpoliticalgainagainsttheRepublicans.Opposi-tionhascomeonlytotheextentthatthewarseemedtobeafailedpolicy,somethingofwhichObamahastakenadvantagebecausehewasnotintheU.S.Senatewhenthewarauthorizationwasvoted,andsohehasbeenabletoescapeculpabilityforthisdecisionhisfellowDemocratsmadewhenitwaslessopportunetoopposethewar.(RecallthatthisfactwastheoccasionforBillClinton’sinfamousremarkthatObama’ssupposedrecordofuncompromisedoppositiontothewarwasa“fairytale,”forClintonpointedoutthatObamahadadmittedthathedidn’tknowhowhewouldhavevotedhadhebeenintheSenateatthetime.)Furthermore,oppositiontothewaronthesupposed“Left”hassimilarlyfocusedontheBushadministration(forexampleintheverynameoftheanti-warcoalitionWorldCan’tWait,i.e.,untilthenextelection,andtheircallto“ExorcisetheBushRegime”),thusplayingdirectlyintothepoliticsoftheDemocraticParty,result-ingnowineitherpassiveoractivesupportoftheObamacandidacy. OnObama’scandidacy,Reedwentontosaythat

“Obamaisonrecordasbeingpreparedtoexpandthewar[“onterror”]intoPakistanandmaybeIran...He’salsomadeprettyclearthatAIPAC[American-IsraelPublicAffairsCommittee]hashisear,whichdoesitfortheMiddleEast,andIwouldn’tbeshockedifhisadministrationweretocontinue,orevenstepup,underwritingcovertoperationsagainstVenezuela,Cuba(he’salreadyseveraltimeslinkedeachofthosetwogovernmentswithNorthKoreaandIran)andmaybeEcuadororBolivia....ThisiswhereIdon’tgivetwoshitsfortheliberals’criticismofBush’sforeignpolicy:theydon’tmindimperialism;theyjustwantamoreefficientlyandrationallymanagedone.AsPaulStreetarguesinBlack Agenda Report,aswellasinhisforthcomingbookBarack Obama and the Future of American Politics,anObamapresidencywouldfurtherlegitimizetheimperialistorientationofUSforeignpolicybyinscribingitasliberalismorthe‘newkind’ofprogressivism....[T]hebipartisan‘supportthetroops’rhetoricthathasbecomeascaffoldfordiscussingthewarisarusefornotaddressingitsfoundationinabellicose,imperialistforeignpolicythatmakestheUnitedStatesascourgeontheEarth.Obama,likeotherDems,doesn’twantsuchadiscussionanymorethantheRepublicansdobecausethey’reallcommittedtomaintainingthatfoundation.”

Inrecognizingthatthe“liberals’criticismofBush’sforeignpolicy[doesn’t]mindimperialism;theyjustwantamoreefficientlyandrationallymanagedone,”Reedandoth-ers’argumentsonthe“Left”begthequestionofU.S.“im-perialism”anditsplaceintheworld.ThisisanunexaminedinheritancefromtheVietnamanti-warmovementofthe1960s-70sthathasbecomedoxaonthe“Left.”Putanotherway,ithasbeenlongsinceanyonequestionedthemeaningof“anti-imperialism”—asked,“asopposedtowhat?” If,asReedputitaboutGore,Kerry,etal.,thatthe

“Rightwouldhavebeenabletohound”themintoIraqorotherwars,thisbegsthequestionofwhythoseonthe

“Left”wouldnotregardObama,Kerry,Gore,or(either)Clinton,notasbeholdentotheRight,butratherbeingthemselvespartoftheRight,not“capitulatingto”U.S.imperialismbutpartofitsactualpoliticalfoundation.Thereisanevidentwishtoavoidraisingthequestionandproblemofwhatistheactualnatureandcharacterof“U.S.imperialism”anditspolicies,whatactuallymakestheU.S.,asReedputit,“ascourgeontheEarth,”andwhatitmeanstoopposethisfromthe“Left.”ForitmightindeedbethecasethatnotonlytheDemocratsdon’twantsuchadiscussionofthe“foundation”of“U.S.imperialism”(“anymorethantheRepublicansdo”),butneitherdothoseonthe“Left.” ForAdolphReed,asforanyostensible“Left,”thedifficultyliesinthepotentialstakesofproblematizingtheroleofU.S.powerintheworld.IftheU.S.hasproventobe,asReedputit,a“scourgeontheEarth,”the“Left”hasconsistentlyshiedawayfromthinkingabout,orremaineddeeplyconfusedandself-contradictoryoverthereasonsforthis—andwhatcanandshouldbedoneaboutit. Reedplacedthisprobleminhistoricalcontextbypointingoutthat:

“[E]verymajorpartypresidentialcandidatebetween1956and1972—exceptone,BarryGoldwater,whoranpartlyonhiswillingnesstoblowuptheworldandwastrouncedforit—ranonapledgetoendtheVietnamWar.Everyoneofthemlied,exceptmaybeNixonthethirdtimehemadethepledge,butthattimehehadalotofhelpfromtheNorthVietnameseandVietCong.”

—ButNixonetal.wouldhavegottenalotmore“help”livinguptotheirpledgestoendtheU.S.warinVietnamiftheCommunistshadjustlaiddownanddied. Wasthisthepoliticsofthe“biglie,”asReedinsists,echoingthecriticismsoftheBushadministration’swarpolicy,supposedlybasedondeceit,oristhereamoresimpleandobviousexplanation:thatindeed,allAmericanpoliticianswereandremaincommittedtoendingwar,butonlyontheirown,“U.S.imperial”terms?Andwhywouldanyoneexpectotherwise? Ifthisisthecase,then,thedifferencebetweentheObamaandMcCaincampaignsregardingU.S.“imperial-ism”wouldamounttonodifferenceatall.ObamahaspledgedtoremoveU.S.troopsfromIraqasquicklyaspossible,butonlyifthe“securitysituation”allowsthis.McCainhaspledgedtoremaininIraqaslongasittakesto

“getthejobdone.”What’sthedifference?EspeciallygiventhattheBushadministrationitselfhasbeguntroopreduc-tionsandhasagreedinitsnegotiationswiththegovern-

mentofIraqtoa“definitetimetable”forwithdrawalofU.S.combattroops,astheSunniinsurgencyhasbeenquelledorco-optedintothepoliticalprocessandShiamilitiaslikeMuqtadaal-Sadr’sMahdiBrigadehavenotonlylaiddowntheirarmsbutarepresentlydisbandingentirely.NolessthanBushandMcCain,Obama,too,isgettingwhathewantsinIraq.Everyonecandeclare“victory.”Andtheyaredoingso.(ObamacanclaimvindicationthedegreetowhichthepacificationofIraqseemsmoreduetothepoliticalprocessthere—suchasthe“Anbarawakening”movement,etc.—thantoU.S.militaryintervention.) Allthedoomsdayscenariosareblowingawaylikesomanymiragesinthesand,revealingthattheonlydifferencesthateverexistedamongRepublicansandDemocratsamountedtoposturingovermattersofdetailinpolicyimplementationandnotoverfundamental

“principles.”ThisdespitetheObamacampaign’ssophisticqualifiersontheevidentvictoryofU.S.policyinIraqbeingmerelya“tacticalsuccesswithinastrategicblunder,”andtheirpointingoutthatthegreatergoalsofeffective

“politicalreconciliation”amongIraqifactionsremainyettobeachieved.Whatwasonceregardedinthecynicallyhyperbolic“anti-war”rhetoricoftheDemocratsasanun-mitigated“disaster”inIraqisturningouttobesomethingthatmerelycouldhavebeendone better. The“Left”hasechoedthehollownessofsuchrhetoric.Atbase,thishasbeentheresultofaseverelymistakenifnotentirelydelusionalimaginationofthewaranditscauses. Atbase,theU.S.didnotinvadeandoccupyIraqtostealitsoil,orforanyothervenalornefariousreason,butratherbecausetheU.N.’s12-year-oldsanctionsagainstSaddamHussein’sBaathistgovernment,whichmeantthecompromiseandunderminingofeffectiveIraqisover-eignty(forinstanceinthecarvingofanautonomousKurd-ishzoneunderU.N.andNATOmilitaryprotection)wasunravelingintheoil-for-foodscandaletc.,andSaddam,afterthefirstgravemistakeofinvadingKuwait,madethefurtherfatefulerrorsofspitingtheU.N.armsinspectorsandcountingonbeingabletobalancetheinterestsoftheEuropeanandotherpowersintheU.N.againsttheU.S.threatofinvasionandoccupation.Theerrorsofjudgmentandbad-faithopportunismofSaddam,theEuropeans,andotherswereasmuchthecauseforthewarasanypolicyambitionsoftheneoconsintheBushadministration.Iraqwasbecominga“failedstate,”andnotleastbecauseoftheactionsofitsindisputablyhorrificallyoppressiverul-ers.IfSaddamcouldnothelpbuttochooseamongsuchbadalternativesforIraq,thisstandsasindictmentoftheBaathistregime,itsunviablecharacterinachangingworld.ThenichecarvedoutbythecombinationofColdWargeopoliticsandtheinternationalexploitationoftheIran-Iraqwarofthe1980sfortheBaathistshopofhorrorswasfinally,mercifully,closing. TheunravelingoftheU.N.sanctionsregimepriortothe2003invasionandoccupation,enforcednotonlybytheU.S.andBritainbutbyneighboringstatesandothers,can-notbeseparatedfromthehistoryofthedisintegrationoftheIraqistate.Thearmchairquarterbackingof“anti-war”politicswasfromtheoutset(andremainstothisday)tac-itly,shame-facedly,infavorofthestatus quo (andworse,today,mustretrospectivelytrytodistortandapologizefor

RaechelTiffe

A polemic on protestReflections on the RNC resistance

I decIded nOT TO PaRTIcIPaTeinanyillegalprotestsattheRNC. There’sasimple,materialreason:HadIbeenar-restedIwouldhavebeenaccountableforbailmoney(orunhappilyrelyingonlegaldefensefundsthatItrulyfeelhavemorevalueelsewhere)andpossiblyaday’sworthofincome.Ihavebeenandcontinuetobeamemberoftheworkingclass.Igrewupwithasinglemotherwhoworkedtwolow-payingjobs,andforthepastfiveyears,livingonmyown,Ihavesurvivedwellbelowthepovertyline.Iamalsocurrentlyuninsuredandwithouthealthcare.Cultur-allyspeaking,theworkingclasscommunitymightnotseemesoequitably;Iam,afterall,collegeeducatedandonmypathtowardstheivorytower.Butstill,gettingarrestedwasnotfinanciallyfeasibleforme.Ihaverenttopay. Theotherreasonisalittlemorecomplicated.IwasafraidthatIwouldn’tagreewiththewholeagenda.Iwasprovedright.Isupport:blockadingtheGOPbuses,blockingintersections,radicaldancepartiesinpublicspace.Idon’tsupport:smashingwindows/cars,violenthaterhetoric(“Whatdowewant?BushDead!”),and,mostimportantly,makingabstractionsoutofhumanbeings. Itisnotsurprisingornecessarilyregrettablethatnoteveryonehasthesameversionofanarchism.AndsoIamnotangrythattherearethosewhochoosetointerpretandperformitdifferently,butIamangrywhenthatperfor-mancegoessoblatantlyagainstsomeofthefundamentalelementsofthis“newworldinourhearts”thatsomanyradical/anarchist/progressivesclaimtowant.AndIamangrywhen—evenifpeoplearen’tmoralpacifists—thata“movement”thatclaimstowanttherevolutioncan’tevenseetherelevanceinstrategicpacifism.Tousethemostobviousandsimpleexample:theprotestersduringtheCivilRightsmovementdidnotfightback,themediacaptureditall,andtheygainedthevastmajorityofsup-portfromournation.I’mnottryingtosaythatthefightagainstcapitalismisthesameasthefightagainstracistlegislation,butIamcertainlynotaboveborrowingtacticsthatactuallyworked. True,IwasaPeaceStudiesminorandamchockfullofstoriesofpeacefulvictories.ButIamnolongerablindpacifist.Giventangiblegoals,sometimesdestructionmakessense.TheAutonomen,theoriginalBlackBloc,protectedtheirsquatsthroughaggressiveconfrontation.Thisisareal,concretegoal.Fightingtoend‘Republican’ideologyisnot.BreakingaDepartmentstorewindowwillnotendAmericanconservativism. TheviolenceattheRNCseemstomecompletelygoal-less.Worse,itstandsinoppositiontothesolidarityweclaimtoembody.Macy’swindowsandthosesmashedupcopcarsaregoingtobefixedbyworkingclassmenandwomen,probablypissedthattheyhavetospendextratimereplacingwhatwasinperfectlygoodconditiona

dayago.Similarly,whenanarchistgroupsparticipateinillegalactionatImmigrant’sRightsmarches,theydosowithcompletedisregardfortheir“comrades”whowouldbedeportedweretheytobenearbysomeonewhowasinstigatingthepolice.How’sthatforsolidarity? Whenpolarizationoccurswithinthe“movement”itself,webecomeweaker,moredividedandfurtherandfurtherawayfromtherevolution.Idon’tthinkthesolutionisuto-pia-group-think.Culturalidentitycanmotivateindividu-alstowardsgreaterandgreaterparticipation.Butthereneedstobeanideabigenoughforeveryonetoagreeon,anideathattakesprecedenceoverthefunofdiversetactics. ImagineforamomentthattheRNCWelcomingCom-mitteedecidedtodeclareacompletecommitmenttonon-violence.MoreAmericanswillparticipateinnonviolentactionsthathavelesspotentialforgettingthemarrestedthanviolentactionthatwill,imaginethatinsteadoffigur-ingouthowtohidehammersintheirpants,theRNCWel-comingCommitteewentoutandorganizedeverysinglegroupthatattendedthemainstreammarch.Imaginenowthatthose50,000peoplesittingintheintersection,block-ingtheGOPbuses.Thecopswouldn’tknowwhattodowiththemselves.Theworldwouldwatch,andtheradicalleftwouldgainsympathyandsupport. AcomradenotedthatshethoughtweweresupposedtobeprotestingtheviolenceandhateperpetratedbytheBush/McCainregime,notre-enactingit.Howcanwe,asrevolutionariesdedicatedtoajustandpeacefulworld,cre-atethatthroughviolenceandhate?Ibelieveinthepoweroftemporaryautonomouszonespresentinthespiritofpo-liticalactioninthestreets,thecreationofournewworldintheephemeralbutblissfulmomentsofunitedrebellion...butmynewworldhasnosmashedglass.Mynewworldhasnofearofattack.Mynewworldhasdancepartiesandkissesandlaughterandmusicandveganfoodandchantsthatmakeyoufeelsowarmn’fuzzythatyoubecomephysicallyincapableofcausingharmtoanother! Mynewworldisnot“us”takingover“them.”Whentheoppressedseektoovercomeopressionbybecomingthemselvesoppressors,absolutelynoonewins.Whenoneattacksanotherhumanbeingwhoseemsinhuman[e],theattackertoobecomesinhuman[e]inthatact.Itisimpossibletobefullypresentandhuman[e]inviolence.AsPauloFrierewrote:“Howcantheoppressed,asdividedunauthenticbeings,participateinthepedagogyoftheirliberation?Aslongastheyliveinthedualityinwhichtobeistobelike,andtobelikeistobeliketheoppressor,thiscontributionisimpossible….Liberationisthusachildbirth,andapainfulone.”Achildbirth,hewrites,becauseitwillbenewandunlikeanythingwe’veseenbefore.We’veseenviolencebefore,we’veseenthingssmashedandpeoplehurt.Butwehaven’tyetseenourliberation....|P

IanMorrisonandBenjaminBlumberg

Violence at the RNC

In maRch 2003,millionstooktothestreetsworldwidetoprotesttheimpendinginvasionofIraq.Despitetheirnumbers,theeffortsprovedinvain.Thewarwenton;theprotestsdwindled.Buthoweverattenuated,therearestillprotests.InMinneapolis/St.PaulthisAugust,some10,000marchedagainsttheRepublicanNationalConvention.Butasorganizedralliesgavewaytoirrationalviolence,theinadequacyoffiveyearsoffailedAnti-WaractivismandLeftoppositioncameintosharprelief. Mostoftheconfrontationsamountedtosimple,mo-mentaryblockagesoftraffic.Byallaccounts,thepolicegrosslyoverreacted:harassingjournalists,brutalizingprotestors,arrestingtheinnocent.Butmorefringeelementsinactivistculturewerealsoondisplay.Somehurledbricksthroughthewindowofabustransport-ingdelegates;otherssprayeddelegateswithunknownirritants.Theseactionsmayseemexcessiveandirrational,beyondtheobjectivesandattitudesofthewidermove-ment.Buttheirdeepermotivationslieswithinthemain-streamofactivistculturetoday Thehelplessnessoftheanti-warmovementhasturnedtheLeft’sdisappointmentsandfrustrationsintopathology.Energyisdirected,nottowardsrevolutionarychange,butagainstsocialintegration.Forcollege-agedyouththismeansthetransitionfromparentalauthoritytoworkinglife.Theanxietyandfearbuiltuparoundthisprocessofsocializationcreatesapoliticalimaginationdi-rectedatformingrupturesandbreakingpointsinsociety

—everything,fromorganizationalmeetingstoattendingprotests,centersoncreatingawallofresistanceagainstone’sowninevitableabsorptionintosociety. Asseasonedanti-waractivistAlexanderCockburnpointedoutlastyear,“ananti-warrallyhastobeedgy,not

comfortable.Emotionsshouldbehigh,nervesatleastabitraw,angertingedwithfear.”(“WhateverHappenedtotheAnti-WarMovement?”NewLeftReview,July-August2007).Suchemotionalismpointstothewaypresentformsofhelplessnesshavebeennaturalizedintooneoftheanti-warmovement’scoreassumptions,turningtrepidationintoapoliticalprogram. Naturalizinghelplessness,today’sprotesterscelebratesimplealtercationswiththepoliceasvictories.Violenceseemstocleansetheindividualoftheir‘bourgeois’confor-mity.Attendingaprotestmeansbreakingwiththedeca-denceofconsumersociety,creatinga‘prefigurative’space,tryingto‘createthenewworldinthepalmoftheold.’Eachblowofthetruncheondramatizesthedifferencebetweenprotestorandpolice.Theroughertheconflict,themoretheprotestorfeelsfreefromtheburdenofsociety. Yet,youngprotestersonlyelicitapolicebeatinginordertosensationalizetheirownsubmissiontoauthority.And,ironically,thisiscoupledwithaclearawarenessthatthetacticsemployedareutterlyinadequateinaddressingtheissuestheseprotestsproposetobefighting.IntheageofPredatordrones,blockingahighwaywillnotstopAmericanmilitarymight. TheLeft’shelplessness,onfulldisplayinMinneapolis,haserodedtheveryfunctionofprotest.Once,protestdem-onstratedthevitalityandrelevancyofthedemandforso-cialtransformation.Thousandsinthestreetscouldnotbeignored.Butprotesthasdevolvedintoaninsularsubcul-tureofself-hatred,frustration,andanxietyderivedfromapathologicalattitudetowardssocialintegration.Activistswhoequatesocialdominationwiththeirexperiencewithteargas,tazersandrubberbulletsblockthedevelopmentofamoreseriousandeffectiveLeftistpolitics.|P

The Platypus Review1 Issue #7 / October 2008

“Finance” continues on page 4

Finance capital:Why financial capitalism is no more “fictitious” than any other kindThePlatypusHistoriansGroup

WITh The PReSenT fInancIal melT-dOWnintheU.S.throwingtheglobaleconomyintoquestion,manyonthe“Left”arewonderingagainaboutthenatureofcapitalism.Whilemanywillbetemptedtojumponthebandwagonofthe“bailout”beingfloatedbytheBushadministrationandtheCongressionalDemocrats(includingObama),otherswillprotestthe“bailingout”ofWallStreet.Therhetoricof“WallStreetvs.MainStreet,”be-tween“hardworkingAmerica”andthe“financialfatcats,”however,beliesamorefundamentaltruth:thetwoareindissolublylinkedandareinfacttwosidesofthesamecoinofcapitalism.Itwouldbenolessreactionary—thatis,con-servativeofcapitalism—totrytooppose“productive”industrialmanufacturingorservicesectorcapitalismto

“parasitic”financialcapitalism.AsGeorgLukácspointedoutinhisseminalessay

“ReificationandtheConsciousnessoftheProletariat”(1923),followingMarx’scritiqueof“alienation”(inDas Capital,1867)(andechoingtheat-the-timeyet-to-bediscoveredwritingsbyMarxsuchasthe1844Economic and Philosophic ManuscriptsandtheGrundrisse,1858),modernsocietystructuredbythedynamicdominationofcapitalgivesriseto“necessaryformsofappearance”thataresymptomaticofcapital.Thesereified“formsofappearance”includenotonlyformsof“exchange”suchasmonetaryandfinancialsystems,butalso,morefundamentally,formsofwagelaborandconcreteformsofproduction,whicharejustasmuchapartofcapital’sreproductionasasocialsystemasareanyconventionsofexchange.Thismeansthatonecannotopposeonesideofcapi-taltoanother,onecannotsidewith“productivelabor”against“parasiticcapital”withoutbeingone-sidedandfallingintoatrapofadvocatingandparticipatinginthereproductionofcapitalatadeeperlevel.Lukácsrecog-nized,followingMarx,thatcapitalasnotmerelyaformof“economics”butasocialsystemof(re)production.Butmostvarietiesof“Marxism”havemissedthisverycrucialpoint,andsotakeMarxtomeanrathertheopposite,thatindustrialproductionembodieswhatistrueandgoodaboutcapital,whileexchangeandmoneyrepresentswhatisfalseandbadaboutit.Suchpseudo-

”Marxism”hasfalsely(andconservatively)vilifiedthesupposedly“fictitious”natureof“financecapital.”

FollowingMarx,Lukács,throughhisconceptof“reification,”soughttodeepenthecriticalrecognitionofthesocial-historicalproblemofcapital,torecognizethatmodernsocietyasstructuredanddominatedbycapitalexhibitsspecificsymptomsofthisdomination.Suchsymptomsaretheattemptsbyhumanbeingsindividu-allyandcollectivelytomaster,controlandadjudicatetheeffectsofthesocialdynamismthatcapitalsetsinmotion.However,inMarx’sphrase(fromthe1848Manifesto of the Communist Party),thedynamicofcapitalensuresthat“allthatissolidmeltsintoair.”Themodernsocietyofcapitalisoneinwhichallconcretewaysoflife,socialorganizationandproduction,aresubjecttorevolutioniza-tionthroughacycleof“creativedestruction.”ButMarxdidnotsimplybemoanthisdynamismofcapitalthatendsupmakingtransientallhumanendeavors,mockingtheirfutility.Rather,Marxrecognizedthisdynamismasan“alien-ated”formofsocialfreedom.Thecreativedestructionengenderedbycapitalisthewaycapitalreproducesitssociallogic,butitalsogivesrisetotransformationsofconcretewaysofsociallifetheworldhasneverbeforeseen,engenderingnewpossibilitiesforhumanity—thepast200yearsofcapitalismhaveseenmore,andmoreprofoundchanges,globally,thanpreviousmillenniasaw.Unfortunately,thereproductionofcapitalalsomeansunderminingsuchnewhumanpotentialities(forinstance,newformsofgenderandsexualrelations)assoonastheyarebroughtontotheever-shiftinghorizonofpos-sibility.Withthecurrentfinancialcollapse,thetemptationwillbetoretreattowhatmanyonthepseudo-”Left”havelongadvocated,a“newNewDeal”ofKeynesianFordistandwelfare-statesocial-securityreforms.Thetempta-tiononthe“Left”(aswellastheRight)willbetoseewhatsomehavecalled“savingcapitalismfromitself”as

“progress.”Butsuchattemptstomasterthedynamicsofcapitalwillnotonlyfailtoachievetheiraims,butwillalsoentailunexpectedfurtherconsequencesandproblemsnolesspotentiallydestructiveforhumanitythanso-called

“free-market”practicesofcapitalism.Iftheneo-Keynesiansaswellasothers,suchasthemoreradical“socialists”onthe“Left”aremistakenintheirhopesforreformistsolutionstotheproblemsofcapital,itisnotleastbecausetheydon’trecognizecapi-talismasa(alienated)formof(increasingthescopeof)freedom.Rather,theirnemesesamongthe“neo-liberals”suchasMiltonFriedman(inthe1962bookCapitalism and Freedom)andFriedrichHayek(inhis1943bookThe Road to Serfdom)havegivenexpressiontothisliberaldimen-sionofcapital,whichtheyopposedtowhattheytooktobetheworseauthoritarianismof(nationalist)socialism.OpposedtothishavebeenthinkerssuchasKarlPo-lanyi(The Great Transformation,1944)andJohnKennethGalbraith(The Affluent Society,1958,whichwarnedoftheeffectsofprivate-sectorcapitaloutstrippingthepublic

Five questions to the student Left

PamelaNogalesandBenjaminShepard

an InTeRvIeW WITh SdS memBeRRachelHautpub-lishedintheSeptemberissueofthispublicationprovokedwidespreadcommentinradicalcircles.(1)Wewelcomethediscussionbutworrythatitremainsensconcedwithinthesterilejargonandpettyantinomiesoftheactually-ex-isting-Left.Morefundamentalquestionsexistthan,say,thepositionofsectariangroupswithintheSDS--ques-tionsthatunsettlethecomfortableassumptionsofradicalpolitics.There’satemptationtothinksuchofquestion-ingasanirrelevant,academicobstructiontorealaction.Indeed,mostcontemporaryradicaltheoryconfusesmorethanclarifies.Butconfusedpoliticalthinkingleadstoconfusedpoliticsandconfusedpoliticsmeanfailedpolitics.Herearefivequestionsthatpointtowardstherootsofconfusion.Wedon’thavefirmanswerstoanyofthem.Theytroubleus,andoccupyourthoughtsandconversations.1. What is Capitalism, and how can it be overcome?TheSDSaimsto“changeasocietywhichdependsuponmultipleandreciprocalsystemsofoppressionanddominationforitssurvival:racismandwhitesupremacy,capitalism,patriarchy,heterosexismandtransphobia,authoritarianismandimperialism,amongothers.”Thesesystems,withasingleexception,aresimpleformsofdomination.Arulingstratum(whites,men)oppressesagivensubaltern.Capitalismseemsmuchmorecompli-cated;impossibletoreducetothedirectandviolentop-pressionofoneclassbyanother.Howoughtthestudentmovementunderstandthecharacteristicformofcapital-istdomination?Andwhatformsofpoliticsareadequatetoovercomeit?2. SDS is against imperialism; what is it for?Manyanti-imperialistsinsistthatendingAmericanglobaldominationwouldopentheopportunityforrevolution-aryforcesacrosstheworld.Butsuchanargumentdoesnotspecifythepossibleagentsofsocialtransformation.

1See:FreedomRoadSocialistOrganization(www.frso.org),Kasamablog(mikeely.wordpress.com),TheDailyRadicalblog(www.dailyradical.org/),LouisProyectblog(louisproyect.wordpress.com),RevolutionaryLeftblog(www.revleft.com),Marxist-Leninistblog(marxistleninist.word-press.com),andLeftSpotblog(http://leftspot.com/blog).

Worse,thepositionignoresthepossibilityof reaction-arydomesticpolitics.IftheUnitedStateswithdrewfromIraqandAfghanistan,morereactionaryforces--Muslimtheocracy,corruptnationalism--couldeasilytakeitsplace.Intheabsenceofarealinternationalprogressivemovement,thechoicewillalwaysbetweenbadandworse.How,then,canthe(American)studentmovementhelpcultivateemancipatorypoliticsaroundtheglobe?

3. How does racism matter? TheCivilRightsmovementeliminatedde jurediscrimina-tion,andrenderedpublicbigotryunacceptable.Butracialinequalitiesstillexist.AfricanAmericanshave,forinstance,adisproportionatelyhighrateofincarceration.Radicalscitesuchdiscrepanciesasevidenceofthecontinuedforceofracism.Butstressingracerisksglossingoverthestruc-tural,class-boundconstitutionofpoverty.IfcontemporaryAmericansocietyis,infact,racist,whatisthespecificformofthisracism?HowdoesthisracismrelatetothebroadersocialstructureoftheUnitedStates?Whatpoliticalandsocialchangeswouldrenderracism,andtheveryconceptsofracethatitdependsupon,irrelevant?

4. What kind of questions can students ask?MembersofSDSoftendisavowtheirdistinctiveidentityasstudents,feelingitanunwarrantedandembarrassingprivilege.Butstudentlifepresentsuniqueopportunities

--toread,todiscuss,toexamineandcritiquedifferenttraditionsofpolitics.ButSDSdoesnot,asawhole,takeuptheopportunity.Fearofsectariancontroversypre-cludessustainedideologicaldiscussion,sotheorientationandformoftheorganizationremainsunquestionedanduncertain.Serious,honestreflectionandconversationcanclarifytheseuncertainties.So,whatsortoffundamental questionsoughttheSDSaskitselfandthebroaderLeft?Howcanitaskthem?

5. Why, and how, could the New SDS succeed where the old did not? ThePortHuronstatementsoughtto“replacepowerrootedinpossession,privilege,orcircumstancebypoweranduniquenessrootedinlove,reflectiveness,reason,andcreativity...”ThefirstSDSfailedtomeetitsowntask.Possession,privilegeandcircumstancestilldeterminesocialpower.SowhydidtheOldSDSfail?Andhowcanthenewonesucceed?Theproblemisbroader,though.Withthepassingofthe60smoment,whatever(slim)possibilityofinternationalrevolutionarychangetherewashasevaporated.Noorganizedpoliticalforceoffersthepracticalpossibilityofaqualitativelybetterfutureforallhumanity.Howoughtweunderstandthelossofpoliticalpossibility?Whatwouldmakeinternationalrevolutionarypoliticspossibleagain?WhatrolemightSDS,asamove-mentintheU.S.,attheheartofglobalcapitalism,playinsuchaprocess?|P

the “Left” have become so inclusive as to be meaning-less. The Review seeks to be a forum among a variety of tendencies and approaches to these categories of thought and action—not out of a concern with inclusion for its own sake, but rather to provoke productive disagreement and to open shared goals as sites of contestation. In this way, the recriminations and accusations arising from politi-cal disputes of the past might be elevated to an ongoing critique that seeks to clarify its object. The editorial board wishes to provide an ongoing public forum wherein questioning and reconsidering one’s own convictions is not seen as a weakness, but as part of the necessary work of building a revolutionary politics. We hope to create and sustain a space for interrogating and clarifying the variety of positions and orientations currently represent-ed on the political Left, in which questions may be raised and discussions pursued that do not find a place within existing Left discourses, locally or Internationally. As long as submissions exhibit a genuine commitment to this project, all kinds of content will be considered for publication.

StaffSeniorEditor:IanMorrison

Editors:GregGabrellasPamelaNogalesLaurieRojasBenjaminShepard

Designer:PamelaNogales

CopyEditors:MichaelYongJeremyCohan

WebzineEditor:LaurieRojas

ThePlatypusAffiliatedSocietypresents:

What is a Movement?Adiscussiononthemeaninganddirectionof"Movements"historicallyandtoday.

Thursday, October 16, 2008, 7-9 PM

SchooloftheArtInstituteofChicago280S.ColumbusDr.mainauditorium

Panelists: LuisBrennan(newStudentsforaDemocraticSociety)

ChuckHendricks(UniteHere)JorgeMujica(Movimiento10deMarzo)

PomegranateHealthCollectiveRepresentativeRichardRubin(Platypus)

2 Issue #7 /October 2008

1Financecapital:Whyfinancialcapitalismisnomore"fictitious"thananyotherkindPlatypusHistoriansGroup

1FivequestionstothestudentLeftPamelaNogalesandBenShepard

2IraqandtheelectionThefogof"anti-war"politicsChrisCutrone

2ApolemiconprotestReflectionsontheRNCresistanceRaechelTiffe

2ViolenceattheRNCBenjaminBlumbergandIanMorrison

3CapitalinhistoryTheneedforaMarxianphilosophyofhistoryoftheLeftChrisCutrone

4Reenacting'68LiamWarfield

www.platypus1917.org/theplatypusreview

Issue#7|October2008

Platypus ReviewThe

7

Submission guidelinesArticlescanrangeinlengthfrom500–1,000words.Wewillconsiderlongerpiecesbutpreferthattheybesubmittedasproposals.Pleasesendarticles,eventcalendarlistingsubmissions,andanyinquiriesaboutthisprojectto:platypus1917webzine@yahoogroups.com

The Platypus Review Taking stock of the multifaceted universe of positions and goals that constitute Left politics today, we are left with the disquieting suspicion that perhaps a deeper common-ality underlies this apparent variety: what exists today is built on the desiccated remains of what was once felt to be possible. In order to make sense of the present, we find it neces-sary to disentangle the vast accumulation of positions on the Left, and to evaluate their saliency for an emancipa-tory politics of the present. Doing this work implies a reconsideration of what we mean by “the Left”. This task necessarily begins from what we see as a prevalent feature of the Left today: a general disenchant-ment with the present state of progressive politics. We feel that this disenchantment cannot be cast off by sheer will, by “carrying on the fight,” but must be addressed and itself made an object of critique. Thus we begin with what immediately confronts us. The editorial board of The Platypus Review is motivat-ed by a sense that the very concepts of the “political” and

Iraq and the electionThe fog of "anti-war" politics

ChrisCutrone

"Iraq" continues on page 3

The Platypus Review is funded by:TheUniversityofChicagoStudentGovernment

SchooloftheArtInstituteofChicagoStudentGovernmentThePlatypus AffiliatedSociety

BaRack OBama had,untilrecently,madehiscampaignforPresidentoftheUnitedStatesareferendumontheinvasionandoccupationofIraq.IntheDemocraticPartyprimaries,ObamaattackedHillaryClintonforhervoteinfavoroftheinvasion.AmongRepublicancontenders,JohnMcCainwentoutofhiswaytoappearasthecandidatemostsupportiveoftheBushadministration’spolicyinIraq.Lookingtowardsthegeneralelection,itisoverIraqthatthecandidateshavebeenmostclearlyopposed:ObamahassoughttodistinguishhimselfmostsharplyfromMc-CainonIraq,emphasizingtheirdifferencesinjudgment.Priortotherecentfinancialmelt-downonWallStreet,therewasaconsistencyofemphasisonIraqasasignalissueofthecampaign.ButwithIraqdramaticallypacifiedinrecentmonths,itspoliticalimportancehasdiminished.Obama’spositiononIraqhas,ifanything,losthimtractionastheMcCain-supportedBushpolicyhassucceeded.Nowmightbeagoodtimetostepbackandlookatassumptionsregardingthepoliticsofthewar,andassesstheirtruenatureandcharacter,whattheyhavemeantforthemainstreamaswellasfortheostensible“Left.”Onemajorassumptionthathaspersistedfromthebeginningoftheanti-warmovementandoverthecourseofthetwopresidentialtermsoftheBushadministrationhasbeenthattheIraqwarwastheresultofamaverickpolicy,inwhich“neoconservative”ideologueshijackedtheU.S.governmentinordertoimplementanextremeagenda.Recently,moreastuteobserversofAmericanpoliticssuchasAdolphReed(in“WhereObamaismseemstobegoing,”BlackAgendaReport,July16,2008,on-lineatblackagendareport.com)haveconcededthepointthatawarinIraqcouldeasilyhavebeenembracedevenbyaDemocraticadminstration.Reedwrites:

“LesserevilistsassertasindisputablefactthatGore,orevenKerry,wouldn’thaveinvadedIraq.PerhapsGorewouldn’thave,butIcan’tsaythat’sasurething.(Andwhowashisrunningmate,bytheway?[JoeLieber-man,whorecentlyspokeinsupportofMcCainattheRepublicanNationalConvention—CC.])Moreover,wedon’tknowwhatothermilitaryadventurismthathe

—likeClinton—wouldhaveundertaken...No,I’mnotatallconvincedthattheRightwouldn’thavebeenabletohoundeitherGoreintoinvadingIraqorKerryintocontinuingthewarindefinitely.”

Thisraisestheissueofwhat“opposition”totheIraqwarpolicyoftheBushadministrationreallyamountsto.TheDemocrats’jockeyingforpositionisanexcellentframethroughwhichtoexaminethepoliticsofthewar.

FortheDemocrats’criticismoftheBushpolicyhasbeentransparentlyopportunist,toseizeupontheproblemsofthewarforpoliticalgainagainsttheRepublicans.Opposi-tionhascomeonlytotheextentthatthewarseemedtobeafailedpolicy,somethingofwhichObamahastakenadvantagebecausehewasnotintheU.S.Senatewhenthewarauthorizationwasvoted,andsohehasbeenabletoescapeculpabilityforthisdecisionhisfellowDemocratsmadewhenitwaslessopportunetoopposethewar.(RecallthatthisfactwastheoccasionforBillClinton’sinfamousremarkthatObama’ssupposedrecordofuncompromisedoppositiontothewarwasa“fairytale,”forClintonpointedoutthatObamahadadmittedthathedidn’tknowhowhewouldhavevotedhadhebeenintheSenateatthetime.)Furthermore,oppositiontothewaronthesupposed“Left”hassimilarlyfocusedontheBushadministration(forexampleintheverynameoftheanti-warcoalitionWorldCan’tWait,i.e.,untilthenextelection,andtheircallto“ExorcisetheBushRegime”),thusplayingdirectlyintothepoliticsoftheDemocraticParty,result-ingnowineitherpassiveoractivesupportoftheObamacandidacy.OnObama’scandidacy,Reedwentontosaythat

“Obamaisonrecordasbeingpreparedtoexpandthewar[“onterror”]intoPakistanandmaybeIran...He’salsomadeprettyclearthatAIPAC[American-IsraelPublicAffairsCommittee]hashisear,whichdoesitfortheMiddleEast,andIwouldn’tbeshockedifhisadministrationweretocontinue,orevenstepup,underwritingcovertoperationsagainstVenezuela,Cuba(he’salreadyseveraltimeslinkedeachofthosetwogovernmentswithNorthKoreaandIran)andmaybeEcuadororBolivia....ThisiswhereIdon’tgivetwoshitsfortheliberals’criticismofBush’sforeignpolicy:theydon’tmindimperialism;theyjustwantamoreefficientlyandrationallymanagedone.AsPaulStreetarguesinBlack Agenda Report,aswellasinhisforthcomingbookBarack Obama and the Future of American Politics,anObamapresidencywouldfurtherlegitimizetheimperialistorientationofUSforeignpolicybyinscribingitasliberalismorthe‘newkind’ofprogressivism....[T]hebipartisan‘supportthetroops’rhetoricthathasbecomeascaffoldfordiscussingthewarisarusefornotaddressingitsfoundationinabellicose,imperialistforeignpolicythatmakestheUnitedStatesascourgeontheEarth.Obama,likeotherDems,doesn’twantsuchadiscussionanymorethantheRepublicansdobecausethey’reallcommittedtomaintainingthatfoundation.”

Inrecognizingthatthe“liberals’criticismofBush’sforeignpolicy[doesn’t]mindimperialism;theyjustwantamoreefficientlyandrationallymanagedone,”Reedandoth-ers’argumentsonthe“Left”begthequestionofU.S.“im-perialism”anditsplaceintheworld.ThisisanunexaminedinheritancefromtheVietnamanti-warmovementofthe1960s-70sthathasbecomedoxaonthe“Left.”Putanotherway,ithasbeenlongsinceanyonequestionedthemeaningof“anti-imperialism”—asked,“asopposedtowhat?”If,asReedputitaboutGore,Kerry,etal.,thatthe

“Rightwouldhavebeenabletohound”themintoIraqorotherwars,thisbegsthequestionofwhythoseonthe

“Left”wouldnotregardObama,Kerry,Gore,or(either)Clinton,notasbeholdentotheRight,butratherbeingthemselvespartoftheRight,not“capitulatingto”U.S.imperialismbutpartofitsactualpoliticalfoundation.Thereisanevidentwishtoavoidraisingthequestionandproblemofwhatistheactualnatureandcharacterof“U.S.imperialism”anditspolicies,whatactuallymakestheU.S.,asReedputit,“ascourgeontheEarth,”andwhatitmeanstoopposethisfromthe“Left.”ForitmightindeedbethecasethatnotonlytheDemocratsdon’twantsuchadiscussionofthe“foundation”of“U.S.imperialism”(“anymorethantheRepublicansdo”),butneitherdothoseonthe“Left.”ForAdolphReed,asforanyostensible“Left,”thedifficultyliesinthepotentialstakesofproblematizingtheroleofU.S.powerintheworld.IftheU.S.hasproventobe,asReedputit,a“scourgeontheEarth,”the“Left”hasconsistentlyshiedawayfromthinkingabout,orremaineddeeplyconfusedandself-contradictoryoverthereasonsforthis—andwhatcanandshouldbedoneaboutit.Reedplacedthisprobleminhistoricalcontextbypointingoutthat:

“[E]verymajorpartypresidentialcandidatebetween1956and1972—exceptone,BarryGoldwater,whoranpartlyonhiswillingnesstoblowuptheworldandwastrouncedforit—ranonapledgetoendtheVietnamWar.Everyoneofthemlied,exceptmaybeNixonthethirdtimehemadethepledge,butthattimehehadalotofhelpfromtheNorthVietnameseandVietCong.”

—ButNixonetal.wouldhavegottenalotmore“help”livinguptotheirpledgestoendtheU.S.warinVietnamiftheCommunistshadjustlaiddownanddied.Wasthisthepoliticsofthe“biglie,”asReedinsists,echoingthecriticismsoftheBushadministration’swarpolicy,supposedlybasedondeceit,oristhereamoresimpleandobviousexplanation:thatindeed,allAmericanpoliticianswereandremaincommittedtoendingwar,butonlyontheirown,“U.S.imperial”terms?Andwhywouldanyoneexpectotherwise?Ifthisisthecase,then,thedifferencebetweentheObamaandMcCaincampaignsregardingU.S.“imperial-ism”wouldamounttonodifferenceatall.ObamahaspledgedtoremoveU.S.troopsfromIraqasquicklyaspossible,butonlyifthe“securitysituation”allowsthis.McCainhaspledgedtoremaininIraqaslongasittakesto

“getthejobdone.”What’sthedifference?EspeciallygiventhattheBushadministrationitselfhasbeguntroopreduc-tionsandhasagreedinitsnegotiationswiththegovern-

mentofIraqtoa“definitetimetable”forwithdrawalofU.S.combattroops,astheSunniinsurgencyhasbeenquelledorco-optedintothepoliticalprocessandShiamilitiaslikeMuqtadaal-Sadr’sMahdiBrigadehavenotonlylaiddowntheirarmsbutarepresentlydisbandingentirely.NolessthanBushandMcCain,Obama,too,isgettingwhathewantsinIraq.Everyonecandeclare“victory.”Andtheyaredoingso.(ObamacanclaimvindicationthedegreetowhichthepacificationofIraqseemsmoreduetothepoliticalprocessthere—suchasthe“Anbarawakening”movement,etc.—thantoU.S.militaryintervention.)Allthedoomsdayscenariosareblowingawaylikesomanymiragesinthesand,revealingthattheonlydifferencesthateverexistedamongRepublicansandDemocratsamountedtoposturingovermattersofdetailinpolicyimplementationandnotoverfundamental

“principles.”ThisdespitetheObamacampaign’ssophisticqualifiersontheevidentvictoryofU.S.policyinIraqbeingmerelya“tacticalsuccesswithinastrategicblunder,”andtheirpointingoutthatthegreatergoalsofeffective

“politicalreconciliation”amongIraqifactionsremainyettobeachieved.Whatwasonceregardedinthecynicallyhyperbolic“anti-war”rhetoricoftheDemocratsasanun-mitigated“disaster”inIraqisturningouttobesomethingthatmerelycouldhavebeendone better.The“Left”hasechoedthehollownessofsuchrhetoric.Atbase,thishasbeentheresultofaseverelymistakenifnotentirelydelusionalimaginationofthewaranditscauses.Atbase,theU.S.didnotinvadeandoccupyIraqtostealitsoil,orforanyothervenalornefariousreason,butratherbecausetheU.N.’s12-year-oldsanctionsagainstSaddamHussein’sBaathistgovernment,whichmeantthecompromiseandunderminingofeffectiveIraqisover-eignty(forinstanceinthecarvingofanautonomousKurd-ishzoneunderU.N.andNATOmilitaryprotection)wasunravelingintheoil-for-foodscandaletc.,andSaddam,afterthefirstgravemistakeofinvadingKuwait,madethefurtherfatefulerrorsofspitingtheU.N.armsinspectorsandcountingonbeingabletobalancetheinterestsoftheEuropeanandotherpowersintheU.N.againsttheU.S.threatofinvasionandoccupation.Theerrorsofjudgmentandbad-faithopportunismofSaddam,theEuropeans,andotherswereasmuchthecauseforthewarasanypolicyambitionsoftheneoconsintheBushadministration.Iraqwasbecominga“failedstate,”andnotleastbecauseoftheactionsofitsindisputablyhorrificallyoppressiverul-ers.IfSaddamcouldnothelpbuttochooseamongsuchbadalternativesforIraq,thisstandsasindictmentoftheBaathistregime,itsunviablecharacterinachangingworld.ThenichecarvedoutbythecombinationofColdWargeopoliticsandtheinternationalexploitationoftheIran-Iraqwarofthe1980sfortheBaathistshopofhorrorswasfinally,mercifully,closing.TheunravelingoftheU.N.sanctionsregimepriortothe2003invasionandoccupation,enforcednotonlybytheU.S.andBritainbutbyneighboringstatesandothers,can-notbeseparatedfromthehistoryofthedisintegrationoftheIraqistate.Thearmchairquarterbackingof“anti-war”politicswasfromtheoutset(andremainstothisday)tac-itly,shame-facedly,infavorofthestatus quo (andworse,today,mustretrospectivelytrytodistortandapologizefor

RaechelTiffe

A polemic on protestReflections on the RNC resistance

I decIded nOT TO PaRTIcIPaTeinanyillegalprotestsattheRNC.There’sasimple,materialreason:HadIbeenar-restedIwouldhavebeenaccountableforbailmoney(orunhappilyrelyingonlegaldefensefundsthatItrulyfeelhavemorevalueelsewhere)andpossiblyaday’sworthofincome.Ihavebeenandcontinuetobeamemberoftheworkingclass.Igrewupwithasinglemotherwhoworkedtwolow-payingjobs,andforthepastfiveyears,livingonmyown,Ihavesurvivedwellbelowthepovertyline.Iamalsocurrentlyuninsuredandwithouthealthcare.Cultur-allyspeaking,theworkingclasscommunitymightnotseemesoequitably;Iam,afterall,collegeeducatedandonmypathtowardstheivorytower.Butstill,gettingarrestedwasnotfinanciallyfeasibleforme.Ihaverenttopay.Theotherreasonisalittlemorecomplicated.IwasafraidthatIwouldn’tagreewiththewholeagenda.Iwasprovedright.Isupport:blockadingtheGOPbuses,blockingintersections,radicaldancepartiesinpublicspace.Idon’tsupport:smashingwindows/cars,violenthaterhetoric(“Whatdowewant?BushDead!”),and,mostimportantly,makingabstractionsoutofhumanbeings.Itisnotsurprisingornecessarilyregrettablethatnoteveryonehasthesameversionofanarchism.AndsoIamnotangrythattherearethosewhochoosetointerpretandperformitdifferently,butIamangrywhenthatperfor-mancegoessoblatantlyagainstsomeofthefundamentalelementsofthis“newworldinourhearts”thatsomanyradical/anarchist/progressivesclaimtowant.AndIamangrywhen—evenifpeoplearen’tmoralpacifists—thata“movement”thatclaimstowanttherevolutioncan’tevenseetherelevanceinstrategicpacifism.Tousethemostobviousandsimpleexample:theprotestersduringtheCivilRightsmovementdidnotfightback,themediacaptureditall,andtheygainedthevastmajorityofsup-portfromournation.I’mnottryingtosaythatthefightagainstcapitalismisthesameasthefightagainstracistlegislation,butIamcertainlynotaboveborrowingtacticsthatactuallyworked.True,IwasaPeaceStudiesminorandamchockfullofstoriesofpeacefulvictories.ButIamnolongerablindpacifist.Giventangiblegoals,sometimesdestructionmakessense.TheAutonomen,theoriginalBlackBloc,protectedtheirsquatsthroughaggressiveconfrontation.Thisisareal,concretegoal.Fightingtoend‘Republican’ideologyisnot.BreakingaDepartmentstorewindowwillnotendAmericanconservativism.TheviolenceattheRNCseemstomecompletelygoal-less.Worse,itstandsinoppositiontothesolidarityweclaimtoembody.Macy’swindowsandthosesmashedupcopcarsaregoingtobefixedbyworkingclassmenandwomen,probablypissedthattheyhavetospendextratimereplacingwhatwasinperfectlygoodconditiona

dayago.Similarly,whenanarchistgroupsparticipateinillegalactionatImmigrant’sRightsmarches,theydosowithcompletedisregardfortheir“comrades”whowouldbedeportedweretheytobenearbysomeonewhowasinstigatingthepolice.How’sthatforsolidarity?Whenpolarizationoccurswithinthe“movement”itself,webecomeweaker,moredividedandfurtherandfurtherawayfromtherevolution.Idon’tthinkthesolutionisuto-pia-group-think.Culturalidentitycanmotivateindividu-alstowardsgreaterandgreaterparticipation.Butthereneedstobeanideabigenoughforeveryonetoagreeon,anideathattakesprecedenceoverthefunofdiversetactics.ImagineforamomentthattheRNCWelcomingCom-mitteedecidedtodeclareacompletecommitmenttonon-violence.MoreAmericanswillparticipateinnonviolentactionsthathavelesspotentialforgettingthemarrestedthanviolentactionthatwill,imaginethatinsteadoffigur-ingouthowtohidehammersintheirpants,theRNCWel-comingCommitteewentoutandorganizedeverysinglegroupthatattendedthemainstreammarch.Imaginenowthatthose50,000peoplesittingintheintersection,block-ingtheGOPbuses.Thecopswouldn’tknowwhattodowiththemselves.Theworldwouldwatch,andtheradicalleftwouldgainsympathyandsupport.AcomradenotedthatshethoughtweweresupposedtobeprotestingtheviolenceandhateperpetratedbytheBush/McCainregime,notre-enactingit.Howcanwe,asrevolutionariesdedicatedtoajustandpeacefulworld,cre-atethatthroughviolenceandhate?Ibelieveinthepoweroftemporaryautonomouszonespresentinthespiritofpo-liticalactioninthestreets,thecreationofournewworldintheephemeralbutblissfulmomentsofunitedrebellion...butmynewworldhasnosmashedglass.Mynewworldhasnofearofattack.Mynewworldhasdancepartiesandkissesandlaughterandmusicandveganfoodandchantsthatmakeyoufeelsowarmn’fuzzythatyoubecomephysicallyincapableofcausingharmtoanother!Mynewworldisnot“us”takingover“them.”Whentheoppressedseektoovercomeopressionbybecomingthemselvesoppressors,absolutelynoonewins.Whenoneattacksanotherhumanbeingwhoseemsinhuman[e],theattackertoobecomesinhuman[e]inthatact.Itisimpossibletobefullypresentandhuman[e]inviolence.AsPauloFrierewrote:“Howcantheoppressed,asdividedunauthenticbeings,participateinthepedagogyoftheirliberation?Aslongastheyliveinthedualityinwhichtobeistobelike,andtobelikeistobeliketheoppressor,thiscontributionisimpossible….Liberationisthusachildbirth,andapainfulone.”Achildbirth,hewrites,becauseitwillbenewandunlikeanythingwe’veseenbefore.We’veseenviolencebefore,we’veseenthingssmashedandpeoplehurt.Butwehaven’tyetseenourliberation....|P

IanMorrisonandBenjaminBlumberg

Violence at the RNC

In maRch 2003,millionstooktothestreetsworldwidetoprotesttheimpendinginvasionofIraq.Despitetheirnumbers,theeffortsprovedinvain.Thewarwenton;theprotestsdwindled.Buthoweverattenuated,therearestillprotests.InMinneapolis/St.PaulthisAugust,some10,000marchedagainsttheRepublicanNationalConvention.Butasorganizedralliesgavewaytoirrationalviolence,theinadequacyoffiveyearsoffailedAnti-WaractivismandLeftoppositioncameintosharprelief.Mostoftheconfrontationsamountedtosimple,mo-mentaryblockagesoftraffic.Byallaccounts,thepolicegrosslyoverreacted:harassingjournalists,brutalizingprotestors,arrestingtheinnocent.Butmorefringeelementsinactivistculturewerealsoondisplay.Somehurledbricksthroughthewindowofabustransport-ingdelegates;otherssprayeddelegateswithunknownirritants.Theseactionsmayseemexcessiveandirrational,beyondtheobjectivesandattitudesofthewidermove-ment.Buttheirdeepermotivationslieswithinthemain-streamofactivistculturetodayThehelplessnessoftheanti-warmovementhasturnedtheLeft’sdisappointmentsandfrustrationsintopathology.Energyisdirected,nottowardsrevolutionarychange,butagainstsocialintegration.Forcollege-agedyouththismeansthetransitionfromparentalauthoritytoworkinglife.Theanxietyandfearbuiltuparoundthisprocessofsocializationcreatesapoliticalimaginationdi-rectedatformingrupturesandbreakingpointsinsociety

—everything,fromorganizationalmeetingstoattendingprotests,centersoncreatingawallofresistanceagainstone’sowninevitableabsorptionintosociety.Asseasonedanti-waractivistAlexanderCockburnpointedoutlastyear,“ananti-warrallyhastobeedgy,not

comfortable.Emotionsshouldbehigh,nervesatleastabitraw,angertingedwithfear.”(“WhateverHappenedtotheAnti-WarMovement?”NewLeftReview,July-August2007).Suchemotionalismpointstothewaypresentformsofhelplessnesshavebeennaturalizedintooneoftheanti-warmovement’scoreassumptions,turningtrepidationintoapoliticalprogram.Naturalizinghelplessness,today’sprotesterscelebratesimplealtercationswiththepoliceasvictories.Violenceseemstocleansetheindividualoftheir‘bourgeois’confor-mity.Attendingaprotestmeansbreakingwiththedeca-denceofconsumersociety,creatinga‘prefigurative’space,tryingto‘createthenewworldinthepalmoftheold.’Eachblowofthetruncheondramatizesthedifferencebetweenprotestorandpolice.Theroughertheconflict,themoretheprotestorfeelsfreefromtheburdenofsociety.Yet,youngprotestersonlyelicitapolicebeatinginordertosensationalizetheirownsubmissiontoauthority.And,ironically,thisiscoupledwithaclearawarenessthatthetacticsemployedareutterlyinadequateinaddressingtheissuestheseprotestsproposetobefighting.IntheageofPredatordrones,blockingahighwaywillnotstopAmericanmilitarymight.TheLeft’shelplessness,onfulldisplayinMinneapolis,haserodedtheveryfunctionofprotest.Once,protestdem-onstratedthevitalityandrelevancyofthedemandforso-cialtransformation.Thousandsinthestreetscouldnotbeignored.Butprotesthasdevolvedintoaninsularsubcul-tureofself-hatred,frustration,andanxietyderivedfromapathologicalattitudetowardssocialintegration.Activistswhoequatesocialdominationwiththeirexperiencewithteargas,tazersandrubberbulletsblockthedevelopmentofamoreseriousandeffectiveLeftistpolitics.|P

The Platypus Review 1Issue #7 / October 2008

“Finance” continues on page 4

Finance capital:Why financial capitalism is no more “fictitious” than any other kindThePlatypusHistoriansGroup

WITh The PReSenT fInancIal melT-dOWnintheU.S.throwingtheglobaleconomyintoquestion,manyonthe“Left”arewonderingagainaboutthenatureofcapitalism.Whilemanywillbetemptedtojumponthebandwagonofthe“bailout”beingfloatedbytheBushadministrationandtheCongressionalDemocrats(includingObama),otherswillprotestthe“bailingout”ofWallStreet. Therhetoricof“WallStreetvs.MainStreet,”be-tween“hardworkingAmerica”andthe“financialfatcats,”however,beliesamorefundamentaltruth:thetwoareindissolublylinkedandareinfacttwosidesofthesamecoinofcapitalism. Itwouldbenolessreactionary—thatis,con-servativeofcapitalism—totrytooppose“productive”industrialmanufacturingorservicesectorcapitalismto

“parasitic”financialcapitalism. AsGeorgLukácspointedoutinhisseminalessay

“ReificationandtheConsciousnessoftheProletariat”(1923),followingMarx’scritiqueof“alienation”(inDas Capital,1867)(andechoingtheat-the-timeyet-to-bediscoveredwritingsbyMarxsuchasthe1844Economic and Philosophic ManuscriptsandtheGrundrisse,1858),modernsocietystructuredbythedynamicdominationofcapitalgivesriseto“necessaryformsofappearance”thataresymptomaticofcapital. Thesereified“formsofappearance”includenotonlyformsof“exchange”suchasmonetaryandfinancialsystems,butalso,morefundamentally,formsofwagelaborandconcreteformsofproduction,whicharejustasmuchapartofcapital’sreproductionasasocialsystemasareanyconventionsofexchange. Thismeansthatonecannotopposeonesideofcapi-taltoanother,onecannotsidewith“productivelabor”against“parasiticcapital”withoutbeingone-sidedandfallingintoatrapofadvocatingandparticipatinginthereproductionofcapitalatadeeperlevel.Lukácsrecog-nized,followingMarx,thatcapitalasnotmerelyaformof“economics”butasocialsystemof(re)production. Butmostvarietiesof“Marxism”havemissedthisverycrucialpoint,andsotakeMarxtomeanrathertheopposite,thatindustrialproductionembodieswhatistrueandgoodaboutcapital,whileexchangeandmoneyrepresentswhatisfalseandbadaboutit.Suchpseudo-

”Marxism”hasfalsely(andconservatively)vilifiedthesupposedly“fictitious”natureof“financecapital.”

FollowingMarx,Lukács,throughhisconceptof“reification,”soughttodeepenthecriticalrecognitionofthesocial-historicalproblemofcapital,torecognizethatmodernsocietyasstructuredanddominatedbycapitalexhibitsspecificsymptomsofthisdomination.Suchsymptomsaretheattemptsbyhumanbeingsindividu-allyandcollectivelytomaster,controlandadjudicatetheeffectsofthesocialdynamismthatcapitalsetsinmotion. However,inMarx’sphrase(fromthe1848Manifesto of the Communist Party),thedynamicofcapitalensuresthat“allthatissolidmeltsintoair.”Themodernsocietyofcapitalisoneinwhichallconcretewaysoflife,socialorganizationandproduction,aresubjecttorevolutioniza-tionthroughacycleof“creativedestruction.”ButMarxdidnotsimplybemoanthisdynamismofcapitalthatendsupmakingtransientallhumanendeavors,mockingtheirfutility. Rather,Marxrecognizedthisdynamismasan“alien-ated”formofsocialfreedom.Thecreativedestructionengenderedbycapitalisthewaycapitalreproducesitssociallogic,butitalsogivesrisetotransformationsofconcretewaysofsociallifetheworldhasneverbeforeseen,engenderingnewpossibilitiesforhumanity—thepast200yearsofcapitalismhaveseenmore,andmoreprofoundchanges,globally,thanpreviousmillenniasaw.Unfortunately,thereproductionofcapitalalsomeansunderminingsuchnewhumanpotentialities(forinstance,newformsofgenderandsexualrelations)assoonastheyarebroughtontotheever-shiftinghorizonofpos-sibility. Withthecurrentfinancialcollapse,thetemptationwillbetoretreattowhatmanyonthepseudo-”Left”havelongadvocated,a“newNewDeal”ofKeynesianFordistandwelfare-statesocial-securityreforms.Thetempta-tiononthe“Left”(aswellastheRight)willbetoseewhatsomehavecalled“savingcapitalismfromitself”as

“progress.”Butsuchattemptstomasterthedynamicsofcapitalwillnotonlyfailtoachievetheiraims,butwillalsoentailunexpectedfurtherconsequencesandproblemsnolesspotentiallydestructiveforhumanitythanso-called

“free-market”practicesofcapitalism. Iftheneo-Keynesiansaswellasothers,suchasthemoreradical“socialists”onthe“Left”aremistakenintheirhopesforreformistsolutionstotheproblemsofcapital,itisnotleastbecausetheydon’trecognizecapi-talismasa(alienated)formof(increasingthescopeof)freedom.Rather,theirnemesesamongthe“neo-liberals”suchasMiltonFriedman(inthe1962bookCapitalism and Freedom)andFriedrichHayek(inhis1943bookThe Road to Serfdom)havegivenexpressiontothisliberaldimen-sionofcapital,whichtheyopposedtowhattheytooktobetheworseauthoritarianismof(nationalist)socialism. OpposedtothishavebeenthinkerssuchasKarlPo-lanyi(The Great Transformation,1944)andJohnKennethGalbraith(The Affluent Society,1958,whichwarnedoftheeffectsofprivate-sectorcapitaloutstrippingthepublic

Five questions to the student Left

PamelaNogalesandBenjaminShepard

an InTeRvIeW WITh SdS memBeRRachelHautpub-lishedintheSeptemberissueofthispublicationprovokedwidespreadcommentinradicalcircles.(1)Wewelcomethediscussionbutworrythatitremainsensconcedwithinthesterilejargonandpettyantinomiesoftheactually-ex-isting-Left.Morefundamentalquestionsexistthan,say,thepositionofsectariangroupswithintheSDS--ques-tionsthatunsettlethecomfortableassumptionsofradicalpolitics.There’satemptationtothinksuchofquestion-ingasanirrelevant,academicobstructiontorealaction.Indeed,mostcontemporaryradicaltheoryconfusesmorethanclarifies.Butconfusedpoliticalthinkingleadstoconfusedpoliticsandconfusedpoliticsmeanfailedpolitics.Herearefivequestionsthatpointtowardstherootsofconfusion.Wedon’thavefirmanswerstoanyofthem.Theytroubleus,andoccupyourthoughtsandconversations.1. What is Capitalism, and how can it be overcome?TheSDSaimsto“changeasocietywhichdependsuponmultipleandreciprocalsystemsofoppressionanddominationforitssurvival:racismandwhitesupremacy,capitalism,patriarchy,heterosexismandtransphobia,authoritarianismandimperialism,amongothers.”Thesesystems,withasingleexception,aresimpleformsofdomination.Arulingstratum(whites,men)oppressesagivensubaltern.Capitalismseemsmuchmorecompli-cated;impossibletoreducetothedirectandviolentop-pressionofoneclassbyanother.Howoughtthestudentmovementunderstandthecharacteristicformofcapital-istdomination?Andwhatformsofpoliticsareadequatetoovercomeit?2. SDS is against imperialism; what is it for?Manyanti-imperialistsinsistthatendingAmericanglobaldominationwouldopentheopportunityforrevolution-aryforcesacrosstheworld.Butsuchanargumentdoesnotspecifythepossibleagentsofsocialtransformation.

1 See:FreedomRoadSocialistOrganization(www.frso.org),Kasamablog(mikeely.wordpress.com),TheDailyRadicalblog(www.dailyradical.org/),LouisProyectblog(louisproyect.wordpress.com),RevolutionaryLeftblog(www.revleft.com),Marxist-Leninistblog(marxistleninist.word-press.com),andLeftSpotblog(http://leftspot.com/blog).

Worse,thepositionignoresthepossibilityof reaction-arydomesticpolitics.IftheUnitedStateswithdrewfromIraqandAfghanistan,morereactionaryforces--Muslimtheocracy,corruptnationalism--couldeasilytakeitsplace.Intheabsenceofarealinternationalprogressivemovement,thechoicewillalwaysbetweenbadandworse.How,then,canthe(American)studentmovementhelpcultivateemancipatorypoliticsaroundtheglobe?

3. How does racism matter? TheCivilRightsmovementeliminatedde jurediscrimina-tion,andrenderedpublicbigotryunacceptable.Butracialinequalitiesstillexist.AfricanAmericanshave,forinstance,adisproportionatelyhighrateofincarceration.Radicalscitesuchdiscrepanciesasevidenceofthecontinuedforceofracism.Butstressingracerisksglossingoverthestruc-tural,class-boundconstitutionofpoverty.IfcontemporaryAmericansocietyis,infact,racist,whatisthespecificformofthisracism?HowdoesthisracismrelatetothebroadersocialstructureoftheUnitedStates?Whatpoliticalandsocialchangeswouldrenderracism,andtheveryconceptsofracethatitdependsupon,irrelevant?

4. What kind of questions can students ask?MembersofSDSoftendisavowtheirdistinctiveidentityasstudents,feelingitanunwarrantedandembarrassingprivilege.Butstudentlifepresentsuniqueopportunities

--toread,todiscuss,toexamineandcritiquedifferenttraditionsofpolitics.ButSDSdoesnot,asawhole,takeuptheopportunity.Fearofsectariancontroversypre-cludessustainedideologicaldiscussion,sotheorientationandformoftheorganizationremainsunquestionedanduncertain.Serious,honestreflectionandconversationcanclarifytheseuncertainties.So,whatsortoffundamental questionsoughttheSDSaskitselfandthebroaderLeft?Howcanitaskthem?

5. Why, and how, could the New SDS succeed where the old did not? ThePortHuronstatementsoughtto“replacepowerrootedinpossession,privilege,orcircumstancebypoweranduniquenessrootedinlove,reflectiveness,reason,andcreativity...”ThefirstSDSfailedtomeetitsowntask.Possession,privilegeandcircumstancestilldeterminesocialpower.SowhydidtheOldSDSfail?Andhowcanthenewonesucceed?Theproblemisbroader,though.Withthepassingofthe60smoment,whatever(slim)possibilityofinternationalrevolutionarychangetherewashasevaporated.Noorganizedpoliticalforceoffersthepracticalpossibilityofaqualitativelybetterfutureforallhumanity.Howoughtweunderstandthelossofpoliticalpossibility?Whatwouldmakeinternationalrevolutionarypoliticspossibleagain?WhatrolemightSDS,asamove-mentintheU.S.,attheheartofglobalcapitalism,playinsuchaprocess?|P

the “Left” have become so inclusive as to be meaning-less. The Review seeks to be a forum among a variety of tendencies and approaches to these categories of thought and action—not out of a concern with inclusion for its own sake, but rather to provoke productive disagreement and to open shared goals as sites of contestation. In this way, the recriminations and accusations arising from politi-cal disputes of the past might be elevated to an ongoing critique that seeks to clarify its object. The editorial board wishes to provide an ongoing public forum wherein questioning and reconsidering one’s own convictions is not seen as a weakness, but as part of the necessary work of building a revolutionary politics. We hope to create and sustain a space for interrogating and clarifying the variety of positions and orientations currently represent-ed on the political Left, in which questions may be raised and discussions pursued that do not find a place within existing Left discourses, locally or Internationally. As long as submissions exhibit a genuine commitment to this project, all kinds of content will be considered for publication.

StaffSeniorEditor:IanMorrison

Editors:GregGabrellasPamelaNogalesLaurieRojasBenjaminShepard

Designer:PamelaNogales

CopyEditors:MichaelYongJeremyCohan

WebzineEditor:LaurieRojas

ThePlatypusAffiliatedSocietypresents:

What is a Movement?Adiscussiononthemeaninganddirectionof"Movements"historicallyandtoday.

Thursday, October 16, 2008, 7-9 PM

SchooloftheArtInstituteofChicago280S.ColumbusDr.mainauditorium

Panelists: LuisBrennan(newStudentsforaDemocraticSociety)

ChuckHendricks(UniteHere)JorgeMujica(Movimiento10deMarzo)

PomegranateHealthCollectiveRepresentativeRichardRubin(Platypus)

2Issue #7 /October 2008

1 Financecapital: Whyfinancialcapitalismisnomore "fictitious"thananyotherkind PlatypusHistoriansGroup

1 FivequestionstothestudentLeft PamelaNogalesandBenShepard

2 Iraqandtheelection Thefogof"anti-war"politics ChrisCutrone

2 Apolemiconprotest ReflectionsontheRNCresistance RaechelTiffe

2 ViolenceattheRNC BenjaminBlumbergandIanMorrison

3 Capitalinhistory TheneedforaMarxianphilosophyofhistoryoftheLeft ChrisCutrone

4 Reenacting'68 LiamWarfield

www.platypus1917.org /theplatypusreview

Issue#7|October2008

Platypus ReviewThe

7

Submission guidelinesArticlescanrangeinlengthfrom500–1,000words.Wewillconsiderlongerpiecesbutpreferthattheybesubmittedasproposals.Pleasesendarticles,eventcalendarlistingsubmissions,andanyinquiriesaboutthisprojectto:platypus1917webzine@yahoogroups.com

The Platypus Review Taking stock of the multifaceted universe of positions and goals that constitute Left politics today, we are left with the disquieting suspicion that perhaps a deeper common-ality underlies this apparent variety: what exists today is built on the desiccated remains of what was once felt to be possible. In order to make sense of the present, we find it neces-sary to disentangle the vast accumulation of positions on the Left, and to evaluate their saliency for an emancipa-tory politics of the present. Doing this work implies a reconsideration of what we mean by “the Left”. This task necessarily begins from what we see as a prevalent feature of the Left today: a general disenchant-ment with the present state of progressive politics. We feel that this disenchantment cannot be cast off by sheer will, by “carrying on the fight,” but must be addressed and itself made an object of critique. Thus we begin with what immediately confronts us. The editorial board of The Platypus Review is motivat-ed by a sense that the very concepts of the “political” and

Iraq and the electionThe fog of "anti-war" politics

ChrisCutrone

"Iraq" continues on page 3

The Platypus Review is funded by:TheUniversityofChicagoStudentGovernment

SchooloftheArtInstituteofChicagoStudentGovernmentThePlatypus AffiliatedSociety

BaRack OBama had,untilrecently,madehiscampaignforPresidentoftheUnitedStatesareferendumontheinvasionandoccupationofIraq.IntheDemocraticPartyprimaries,ObamaattackedHillaryClintonforhervoteinfavoroftheinvasion.AmongRepublicancontenders,JohnMcCainwentoutofhiswaytoappearasthecandidatemostsupportiveoftheBushadministration’spolicyinIraq.Lookingtowardsthegeneralelection,itisoverIraqthatthecandidateshavebeenmostclearlyopposed:ObamahassoughttodistinguishhimselfmostsharplyfromMc-CainonIraq,emphasizingtheirdifferencesinjudgment.Priortotherecentfinancialmelt-downonWallStreet,therewasaconsistencyofemphasisonIraqasasignalissueofthecampaign.ButwithIraqdramaticallypacifiedinrecentmonths,itspoliticalimportancehasdiminished.Obama’spositiononIraqhas,ifanything,losthimtractionastheMcCain-supportedBushpolicyhassucceeded. Nowmightbeagoodtimetostepbackandlookatassumptionsregardingthepoliticsofthewar,andassesstheirtruenatureandcharacter,whattheyhavemeantforthemainstreamaswellasfortheostensible“Left.” Onemajorassumptionthathaspersistedfromthebeginningoftheanti-warmovementandoverthecourseofthetwopresidentialtermsoftheBushadministrationhasbeenthattheIraqwarwastheresultofamaverickpolicy,inwhich“neoconservative”ideologueshijackedtheU.S.governmentinordertoimplementanextremeagenda.Recently,moreastuteobserversofAmericanpoliticssuchasAdolphReed(in“WhereObamaismseemstobegoing,”BlackAgendaReport,July16,2008,on-lineatblackagendareport.com)haveconcededthepointthatawarinIraqcouldeasilyhavebeenembracedevenbyaDemocraticadminstration.Reedwrites:

“LesserevilistsassertasindisputablefactthatGore,orevenKerry,wouldn’thaveinvadedIraq.PerhapsGorewouldn’thave,butIcan’tsaythat’sasurething.(Andwhowashisrunningmate,bytheway?[JoeLieber-man,whorecentlyspokeinsupportofMcCainattheRepublicanNationalConvention—CC.])Moreover,wedon’tknowwhatothermilitaryadventurismthathe

—likeClinton—wouldhaveundertaken...No,I’mnotatallconvincedthattheRightwouldn’thavebeenabletohoundeitherGoreintoinvadingIraqorKerryintocontinuingthewarindefinitely.”

Thisraisestheissueofwhat“opposition”totheIraqwarpolicyoftheBushadministrationreallyamountsto.TheDemocrats’jockeyingforpositionisanexcellentframethroughwhichtoexaminethepoliticsofthewar.

FortheDemocrats’criticismoftheBushpolicyhasbeentransparentlyopportunist,toseizeupontheproblemsofthewarforpoliticalgainagainsttheRepublicans.Opposi-tionhascomeonlytotheextentthatthewarseemedtobeafailedpolicy,somethingofwhichObamahastakenadvantagebecausehewasnotintheU.S.Senatewhenthewarauthorizationwasvoted,andsohehasbeenabletoescapeculpabilityforthisdecisionhisfellowDemocratsmadewhenitwaslessopportunetoopposethewar.(RecallthatthisfactwastheoccasionforBillClinton’sinfamousremarkthatObama’ssupposedrecordofuncompromisedoppositiontothewarwasa“fairytale,”forClintonpointedoutthatObamahadadmittedthathedidn’tknowhowhewouldhavevotedhadhebeenintheSenateatthetime.)Furthermore,oppositiontothewaronthesupposed“Left”hassimilarlyfocusedontheBushadministration(forexampleintheverynameoftheanti-warcoalitionWorldCan’tWait,i.e.,untilthenextelection,andtheircallto“ExorcisetheBushRegime”),thusplayingdirectlyintothepoliticsoftheDemocraticParty,result-ingnowineitherpassiveoractivesupportoftheObamacandidacy. OnObama’scandidacy,Reedwentontosaythat

“Obamaisonrecordasbeingpreparedtoexpandthewar[“onterror”]intoPakistanandmaybeIran...He’salsomadeprettyclearthatAIPAC[American-IsraelPublicAffairsCommittee]hashisear,whichdoesitfortheMiddleEast,andIwouldn’tbeshockedifhisadministrationweretocontinue,orevenstepup,underwritingcovertoperationsagainstVenezuela,Cuba(he’salreadyseveraltimeslinkedeachofthosetwogovernmentswithNorthKoreaandIran)andmaybeEcuadororBolivia....ThisiswhereIdon’tgivetwoshitsfortheliberals’criticismofBush’sforeignpolicy:theydon’tmindimperialism;theyjustwantamoreefficientlyandrationallymanagedone.AsPaulStreetarguesinBlack Agenda Report,aswellasinhisforthcomingbookBarack Obama and the Future of American Politics,anObamapresidencywouldfurtherlegitimizetheimperialistorientationofUSforeignpolicybyinscribingitasliberalismorthe‘newkind’ofprogressivism....[T]hebipartisan‘supportthetroops’rhetoricthathasbecomeascaffoldfordiscussingthewarisarusefornotaddressingitsfoundationinabellicose,imperialistforeignpolicythatmakestheUnitedStatesascourgeontheEarth.Obama,likeotherDems,doesn’twantsuchadiscussionanymorethantheRepublicansdobecausethey’reallcommittedtomaintainingthatfoundation.”

Inrecognizingthatthe“liberals’criticismofBush’sforeignpolicy[doesn’t]mindimperialism;theyjustwantamoreefficientlyandrationallymanagedone,”Reedandoth-ers’argumentsonthe“Left”begthequestionofU.S.“im-perialism”anditsplaceintheworld.ThisisanunexaminedinheritancefromtheVietnamanti-warmovementofthe1960s-70sthathasbecomedoxaonthe“Left.”Putanotherway,ithasbeenlongsinceanyonequestionedthemeaningof“anti-imperialism”—asked,“asopposedtowhat?” If,asReedputitaboutGore,Kerry,etal.,thatthe

“Rightwouldhavebeenabletohound”themintoIraqorotherwars,thisbegsthequestionofwhythoseonthe

“Left”wouldnotregardObama,Kerry,Gore,or(either)Clinton,notasbeholdentotheRight,butratherbeingthemselvespartoftheRight,not“capitulatingto”U.S.imperialismbutpartofitsactualpoliticalfoundation.Thereisanevidentwishtoavoidraisingthequestionandproblemofwhatistheactualnatureandcharacterof“U.S.imperialism”anditspolicies,whatactuallymakestheU.S.,asReedputit,“ascourgeontheEarth,”andwhatitmeanstoopposethisfromthe“Left.”ForitmightindeedbethecasethatnotonlytheDemocratsdon’twantsuchadiscussionofthe“foundation”of“U.S.imperialism”(“anymorethantheRepublicansdo”),butneitherdothoseonthe“Left.” ForAdolphReed,asforanyostensible“Left,”thedifficultyliesinthepotentialstakesofproblematizingtheroleofU.S.powerintheworld.IftheU.S.hasproventobe,asReedputit,a“scourgeontheEarth,”the“Left”hasconsistentlyshiedawayfromthinkingabout,orremaineddeeplyconfusedandself-contradictoryoverthereasonsforthis—andwhatcanandshouldbedoneaboutit. Reedplacedthisprobleminhistoricalcontextbypointingoutthat:

“[E]verymajorpartypresidentialcandidatebetween1956and1972—exceptone,BarryGoldwater,whoranpartlyonhiswillingnesstoblowuptheworldandwastrouncedforit—ranonapledgetoendtheVietnamWar.Everyoneofthemlied,exceptmaybeNixonthethirdtimehemadethepledge,butthattimehehadalotofhelpfromtheNorthVietnameseandVietCong.”

—ButNixonetal.wouldhavegottenalotmore“help”livinguptotheirpledgestoendtheU.S.warinVietnamiftheCommunistshadjustlaiddownanddied. Wasthisthepoliticsofthe“biglie,”asReedinsists,echoingthecriticismsoftheBushadministration’swarpolicy,supposedlybasedondeceit,oristhereamoresimpleandobviousexplanation:thatindeed,allAmericanpoliticianswereandremaincommittedtoendingwar,butonlyontheirown,“U.S.imperial”terms?Andwhywouldanyoneexpectotherwise? Ifthisisthecase,then,thedifferencebetweentheObamaandMcCaincampaignsregardingU.S.“imperial-ism”wouldamounttonodifferenceatall.ObamahaspledgedtoremoveU.S.troopsfromIraqasquicklyaspossible,butonlyifthe“securitysituation”allowsthis.McCainhaspledgedtoremaininIraqaslongasittakesto

“getthejobdone.”What’sthedifference?EspeciallygiventhattheBushadministrationitselfhasbeguntroopreduc-tionsandhasagreedinitsnegotiationswiththegovern-

mentofIraqtoa“definitetimetable”forwithdrawalofU.S.combattroops,astheSunniinsurgencyhasbeenquelledorco-optedintothepoliticalprocessandShiamilitiaslikeMuqtadaal-Sadr’sMahdiBrigadehavenotonlylaiddowntheirarmsbutarepresentlydisbandingentirely.NolessthanBushandMcCain,Obama,too,isgettingwhathewantsinIraq.Everyonecandeclare“victory.”Andtheyaredoingso.(ObamacanclaimvindicationthedegreetowhichthepacificationofIraqseemsmoreduetothepoliticalprocessthere—suchasthe“Anbarawakening”movement,etc.—thantoU.S.militaryintervention.) Allthedoomsdayscenariosareblowingawaylikesomanymiragesinthesand,revealingthattheonlydifferencesthateverexistedamongRepublicansandDemocratsamountedtoposturingovermattersofdetailinpolicyimplementationandnotoverfundamental

“principles.”ThisdespitetheObamacampaign’ssophisticqualifiersontheevidentvictoryofU.S.policyinIraqbeingmerelya“tacticalsuccesswithinastrategicblunder,”andtheirpointingoutthatthegreatergoalsofeffective

“politicalreconciliation”amongIraqifactionsremainyettobeachieved.Whatwasonceregardedinthecynicallyhyperbolic“anti-war”rhetoricoftheDemocratsasanun-mitigated“disaster”inIraqisturningouttobesomethingthatmerelycouldhavebeendone better. The“Left”hasechoedthehollownessofsuchrhetoric.Atbase,thishasbeentheresultofaseverelymistakenifnotentirelydelusionalimaginationofthewaranditscauses. Atbase,theU.S.didnotinvadeandoccupyIraqtostealitsoil,orforanyothervenalornefariousreason,butratherbecausetheU.N.’s12-year-oldsanctionsagainstSaddamHussein’sBaathistgovernment,whichmeantthecompromiseandunderminingofeffectiveIraqisover-eignty(forinstanceinthecarvingofanautonomousKurd-ishzoneunderU.N.andNATOmilitaryprotection)wasunravelingintheoil-for-foodscandaletc.,andSaddam,afterthefirstgravemistakeofinvadingKuwait,madethefurtherfatefulerrorsofspitingtheU.N.armsinspectorsandcountingonbeingabletobalancetheinterestsoftheEuropeanandotherpowersintheU.N.againsttheU.S.threatofinvasionandoccupation.Theerrorsofjudgmentandbad-faithopportunismofSaddam,theEuropeans,andotherswereasmuchthecauseforthewarasanypolicyambitionsoftheneoconsintheBushadministration.Iraqwasbecominga“failedstate,”andnotleastbecauseoftheactionsofitsindisputablyhorrificallyoppressiverul-ers.IfSaddamcouldnothelpbuttochooseamongsuchbadalternativesforIraq,thisstandsasindictmentoftheBaathistregime,itsunviablecharacterinachangingworld.ThenichecarvedoutbythecombinationofColdWargeopoliticsandtheinternationalexploitationoftheIran-Iraqwarofthe1980sfortheBaathistshopofhorrorswasfinally,mercifully,closing. TheunravelingoftheU.N.sanctionsregimepriortothe2003invasionandoccupation,enforcednotonlybytheU.S.andBritainbutbyneighboringstatesandothers,can-notbeseparatedfromthehistoryofthedisintegrationoftheIraqistate.Thearmchairquarterbackingof“anti-war”politicswasfromtheoutset(andremainstothisday)tac-itly,shame-facedly,infavorofthestatus quo (andworse,today,mustretrospectivelytrytodistortandapologizefor

RaechelTiffe

A polemic on protestReflections on the RNC resistance

I decIded nOT TO PaRTIcIPaTeinanyillegalprotestsattheRNC. There’sasimple,materialreason:HadIbeenar-restedIwouldhavebeenaccountableforbailmoney(orunhappilyrelyingonlegaldefensefundsthatItrulyfeelhavemorevalueelsewhere)andpossiblyaday’sworthofincome.Ihavebeenandcontinuetobeamemberoftheworkingclass.Igrewupwithasinglemotherwhoworkedtwolow-payingjobs,andforthepastfiveyears,livingonmyown,Ihavesurvivedwellbelowthepovertyline.Iamalsocurrentlyuninsuredandwithouthealthcare.Cultur-allyspeaking,theworkingclasscommunitymightnotseemesoequitably;Iam,afterall,collegeeducatedandonmypathtowardstheivorytower.Butstill,gettingarrestedwasnotfinanciallyfeasibleforme.Ihaverenttopay. Theotherreasonisalittlemorecomplicated.IwasafraidthatIwouldn’tagreewiththewholeagenda.Iwasprovedright.Isupport:blockadingtheGOPbuses,blockingintersections,radicaldancepartiesinpublicspace.Idon’tsupport:smashingwindows/cars,violenthaterhetoric(“Whatdowewant?BushDead!”),and,mostimportantly,makingabstractionsoutofhumanbeings. Itisnotsurprisingornecessarilyregrettablethatnoteveryonehasthesameversionofanarchism.AndsoIamnotangrythattherearethosewhochoosetointerpretandperformitdifferently,butIamangrywhenthatperfor-mancegoessoblatantlyagainstsomeofthefundamentalelementsofthis“newworldinourhearts”thatsomanyradical/anarchist/progressivesclaimtowant.AndIamangrywhen—evenifpeoplearen’tmoralpacifists—thata“movement”thatclaimstowanttherevolutioncan’tevenseetherelevanceinstrategicpacifism.Tousethemostobviousandsimpleexample:theprotestersduringtheCivilRightsmovementdidnotfightback,themediacaptureditall,andtheygainedthevastmajorityofsup-portfromournation.I’mnottryingtosaythatthefightagainstcapitalismisthesameasthefightagainstracistlegislation,butIamcertainlynotaboveborrowingtacticsthatactuallyworked. True,IwasaPeaceStudiesminorandamchockfullofstoriesofpeacefulvictories.ButIamnolongerablindpacifist.Giventangiblegoals,sometimesdestructionmakessense.TheAutonomen,theoriginalBlackBloc,protectedtheirsquatsthroughaggressiveconfrontation.Thisisareal,concretegoal.Fightingtoend‘Republican’ideologyisnot.BreakingaDepartmentstorewindowwillnotendAmericanconservativism. TheviolenceattheRNCseemstomecompletelygoal-less.Worse,itstandsinoppositiontothesolidarityweclaimtoembody.Macy’swindowsandthosesmashedupcopcarsaregoingtobefixedbyworkingclassmenandwomen,probablypissedthattheyhavetospendextratimereplacingwhatwasinperfectlygoodconditiona

dayago.Similarly,whenanarchistgroupsparticipateinillegalactionatImmigrant’sRightsmarches,theydosowithcompletedisregardfortheir“comrades”whowouldbedeportedweretheytobenearbysomeonewhowasinstigatingthepolice.How’sthatforsolidarity? Whenpolarizationoccurswithinthe“movement”itself,webecomeweaker,moredividedandfurtherandfurtherawayfromtherevolution.Idon’tthinkthesolutionisuto-pia-group-think.Culturalidentitycanmotivateindividu-alstowardsgreaterandgreaterparticipation.Butthereneedstobeanideabigenoughforeveryonetoagreeon,anideathattakesprecedenceoverthefunofdiversetactics. ImagineforamomentthattheRNCWelcomingCom-mitteedecidedtodeclareacompletecommitmenttonon-violence.MoreAmericanswillparticipateinnonviolentactionsthathavelesspotentialforgettingthemarrestedthanviolentactionthatwill,imaginethatinsteadoffigur-ingouthowtohidehammersintheirpants,theRNCWel-comingCommitteewentoutandorganizedeverysinglegroupthatattendedthemainstreammarch.Imaginenowthatthose50,000peoplesittingintheintersection,block-ingtheGOPbuses.Thecopswouldn’tknowwhattodowiththemselves.Theworldwouldwatch,andtheradicalleftwouldgainsympathyandsupport. AcomradenotedthatshethoughtweweresupposedtobeprotestingtheviolenceandhateperpetratedbytheBush/McCainregime,notre-enactingit.Howcanwe,asrevolutionariesdedicatedtoajustandpeacefulworld,cre-atethatthroughviolenceandhate?Ibelieveinthepoweroftemporaryautonomouszonespresentinthespiritofpo-liticalactioninthestreets,thecreationofournewworldintheephemeralbutblissfulmomentsofunitedrebellion...butmynewworldhasnosmashedglass.Mynewworldhasnofearofattack.Mynewworldhasdancepartiesandkissesandlaughterandmusicandveganfoodandchantsthatmakeyoufeelsowarmn’fuzzythatyoubecomephysicallyincapableofcausingharmtoanother! Mynewworldisnot“us”takingover“them.”Whentheoppressedseektoovercomeopressionbybecomingthemselvesoppressors,absolutelynoonewins.Whenoneattacksanotherhumanbeingwhoseemsinhuman[e],theattackertoobecomesinhuman[e]inthatact.Itisimpossibletobefullypresentandhuman[e]inviolence.AsPauloFrierewrote:“Howcantheoppressed,asdividedunauthenticbeings,participateinthepedagogyoftheirliberation?Aslongastheyliveinthedualityinwhichtobeistobelike,andtobelikeistobeliketheoppressor,thiscontributionisimpossible….Liberationisthusachildbirth,andapainfulone.”Achildbirth,hewrites,becauseitwillbenewandunlikeanythingwe’veseenbefore.We’veseenviolencebefore,we’veseenthingssmashedandpeoplehurt.Butwehaven’tyetseenourliberation....|P

IanMorrisonandBenjaminBlumberg

Violence at the RNC

In maRch 2003,millionstooktothestreetsworldwidetoprotesttheimpendinginvasionofIraq.Despitetheirnumbers,theeffortsprovedinvain.Thewarwenton;theprotestsdwindled.Buthoweverattenuated,therearestillprotests.InMinneapolis/St.PaulthisAugust,some10,000marchedagainsttheRepublicanNationalConvention.Butasorganizedralliesgavewaytoirrationalviolence,theinadequacyoffiveyearsoffailedAnti-WaractivismandLeftoppositioncameintosharprelief. Mostoftheconfrontationsamountedtosimple,mo-mentaryblockagesoftraffic.Byallaccounts,thepolicegrosslyoverreacted:harassingjournalists,brutalizingprotestors,arrestingtheinnocent.Butmorefringeelementsinactivistculturewerealsoondisplay.Somehurledbricksthroughthewindowofabustransport-ingdelegates;otherssprayeddelegateswithunknownirritants.Theseactionsmayseemexcessiveandirrational,beyondtheobjectivesandattitudesofthewidermove-ment.Buttheirdeepermotivationslieswithinthemain-streamofactivistculturetoday Thehelplessnessoftheanti-warmovementhasturnedtheLeft’sdisappointmentsandfrustrationsintopathology.Energyisdirected,nottowardsrevolutionarychange,butagainstsocialintegration.Forcollege-agedyouththismeansthetransitionfromparentalauthoritytoworkinglife.Theanxietyandfearbuiltuparoundthisprocessofsocializationcreatesapoliticalimaginationdi-rectedatformingrupturesandbreakingpointsinsociety

—everything,fromorganizationalmeetingstoattendingprotests,centersoncreatingawallofresistanceagainstone’sowninevitableabsorptionintosociety. Asseasonedanti-waractivistAlexanderCockburnpointedoutlastyear,“ananti-warrallyhastobeedgy,not

comfortable.Emotionsshouldbehigh,nervesatleastabitraw,angertingedwithfear.”(“WhateverHappenedtotheAnti-WarMovement?”NewLeftReview,July-August2007).Suchemotionalismpointstothewaypresentformsofhelplessnesshavebeennaturalizedintooneoftheanti-warmovement’scoreassumptions,turningtrepidationintoapoliticalprogram. Naturalizinghelplessness,today’sprotesterscelebratesimplealtercationswiththepoliceasvictories.Violenceseemstocleansetheindividualoftheir‘bourgeois’confor-mity.Attendingaprotestmeansbreakingwiththedeca-denceofconsumersociety,creatinga‘prefigurative’space,tryingto‘createthenewworldinthepalmoftheold.’Eachblowofthetruncheondramatizesthedifferencebetweenprotestorandpolice.Theroughertheconflict,themoretheprotestorfeelsfreefromtheburdenofsociety. Yet,youngprotestersonlyelicitapolicebeatinginordertosensationalizetheirownsubmissiontoauthority.And,ironically,thisiscoupledwithaclearawarenessthatthetacticsemployedareutterlyinadequateinaddressingtheissuestheseprotestsproposetobefighting.IntheageofPredatordrones,blockingahighwaywillnotstopAmericanmilitarymight. TheLeft’shelplessness,onfulldisplayinMinneapolis,haserodedtheveryfunctionofprotest.Once,protestdem-onstratedthevitalityandrelevancyofthedemandforso-cialtransformation.Thousandsinthestreetscouldnotbeignored.Butprotesthasdevolvedintoaninsularsubcul-tureofself-hatred,frustration,andanxietyderivedfromapathologicalattitudetowardssocialintegration.Activistswhoequatesocialdominationwiththeirexperiencewithteargas,tazersandrubberbulletsblockthedevelopmentofamoreseriousandeffectiveLeftistpolitics.|P

The Platypus Review1 Issue #7 / October 2008

“Finance” continues on page 4

Finance capital:Why financial capitalism is no more “fictitious” than any other kindThePlatypusHistoriansGroup

WITh The PReSenT fInancIal melT-dOWnintheU.S.throwingtheglobaleconomyintoquestion,manyonthe“Left”arewonderingagainaboutthenatureofcapitalism.Whilemanywillbetemptedtojumponthebandwagonofthe“bailout”beingfloatedbytheBushadministrationandtheCongressionalDemocrats(includingObama),otherswillprotestthe“bailingout”ofWallStreet.Therhetoricof“WallStreetvs.MainStreet,”be-tween“hardworkingAmerica”andthe“financialfatcats,”however,beliesamorefundamentaltruth:thetwoareindissolublylinkedandareinfacttwosidesofthesamecoinofcapitalism.Itwouldbenolessreactionary—thatis,con-servativeofcapitalism—totrytooppose“productive”industrialmanufacturingorservicesectorcapitalismto

“parasitic”financialcapitalism.AsGeorgLukácspointedoutinhisseminalessay

“ReificationandtheConsciousnessoftheProletariat”(1923),followingMarx’scritiqueof“alienation”(inDas Capital,1867)(andechoingtheat-the-timeyet-to-bediscoveredwritingsbyMarxsuchasthe1844Economic and Philosophic ManuscriptsandtheGrundrisse,1858),modernsocietystructuredbythedynamicdominationofcapitalgivesriseto“necessaryformsofappearance”thataresymptomaticofcapital.Thesereified“formsofappearance”includenotonlyformsof“exchange”suchasmonetaryandfinancialsystems,butalso,morefundamentally,formsofwagelaborandconcreteformsofproduction,whicharejustasmuchapartofcapital’sreproductionasasocialsystemasareanyconventionsofexchange.Thismeansthatonecannotopposeonesideofcapi-taltoanother,onecannotsidewith“productivelabor”against“parasiticcapital”withoutbeingone-sidedandfallingintoatrapofadvocatingandparticipatinginthereproductionofcapitalatadeeperlevel.Lukácsrecog-nized,followingMarx,thatcapitalasnotmerelyaformof“economics”butasocialsystemof(re)production.Butmostvarietiesof“Marxism”havemissedthisverycrucialpoint,andsotakeMarxtomeanrathertheopposite,thatindustrialproductionembodieswhatistrueandgoodaboutcapital,whileexchangeandmoneyrepresentswhatisfalseandbadaboutit.Suchpseudo-

”Marxism”hasfalsely(andconservatively)vilifiedthesupposedly“fictitious”natureof“financecapital.”

FollowingMarx,Lukács,throughhisconceptof“reification,”soughttodeepenthecriticalrecognitionofthesocial-historicalproblemofcapital,torecognizethatmodernsocietyasstructuredanddominatedbycapitalexhibitsspecificsymptomsofthisdomination.Suchsymptomsaretheattemptsbyhumanbeingsindividu-allyandcollectivelytomaster,controlandadjudicatetheeffectsofthesocialdynamismthatcapitalsetsinmotion.However,inMarx’sphrase(fromthe1848Manifesto of the Communist Party),thedynamicofcapitalensuresthat“allthatissolidmeltsintoair.”Themodernsocietyofcapitalisoneinwhichallconcretewaysoflife,socialorganizationandproduction,aresubjecttorevolutioniza-tionthroughacycleof“creativedestruction.”ButMarxdidnotsimplybemoanthisdynamismofcapitalthatendsupmakingtransientallhumanendeavors,mockingtheirfutility.Rather,Marxrecognizedthisdynamismasan“alien-ated”formofsocialfreedom.Thecreativedestructionengenderedbycapitalisthewaycapitalreproducesitssociallogic,butitalsogivesrisetotransformationsofconcretewaysofsociallifetheworldhasneverbeforeseen,engenderingnewpossibilitiesforhumanity—thepast200yearsofcapitalismhaveseenmore,andmoreprofoundchanges,globally,thanpreviousmillenniasaw.Unfortunately,thereproductionofcapitalalsomeansunderminingsuchnewhumanpotentialities(forinstance,newformsofgenderandsexualrelations)assoonastheyarebroughtontotheever-shiftinghorizonofpos-sibility.Withthecurrentfinancialcollapse,thetemptationwillbetoretreattowhatmanyonthepseudo-”Left”havelongadvocated,a“newNewDeal”ofKeynesianFordistandwelfare-statesocial-securityreforms.Thetempta-tiononthe“Left”(aswellastheRight)willbetoseewhatsomehavecalled“savingcapitalismfromitself”as

“progress.”Butsuchattemptstomasterthedynamicsofcapitalwillnotonlyfailtoachievetheiraims,butwillalsoentailunexpectedfurtherconsequencesandproblemsnolesspotentiallydestructiveforhumanitythanso-called

“free-market”practicesofcapitalism.Iftheneo-Keynesiansaswellasothers,suchasthemoreradical“socialists”onthe“Left”aremistakenintheirhopesforreformistsolutionstotheproblemsofcapital,itisnotleastbecausetheydon’trecognizecapi-talismasa(alienated)formof(increasingthescopeof)freedom.Rather,theirnemesesamongthe“neo-liberals”suchasMiltonFriedman(inthe1962bookCapitalism and Freedom)andFriedrichHayek(inhis1943bookThe Road to Serfdom)havegivenexpressiontothisliberaldimen-sionofcapital,whichtheyopposedtowhattheytooktobetheworseauthoritarianismof(nationalist)socialism.OpposedtothishavebeenthinkerssuchasKarlPo-lanyi(The Great Transformation,1944)andJohnKennethGalbraith(The Affluent Society,1958,whichwarnedoftheeffectsofprivate-sectorcapitaloutstrippingthepublic

Five questions to the student Left

PamelaNogalesandBenjaminShepard

an InTeRvIeW WITh SdS memBeRRachelHautpub-lishedintheSeptemberissueofthispublicationprovokedwidespreadcommentinradicalcircles.(1)Wewelcomethediscussionbutworrythatitremainsensconcedwithinthesterilejargonandpettyantinomiesoftheactually-ex-isting-Left.Morefundamentalquestionsexistthan,say,thepositionofsectariangroupswithintheSDS--ques-tionsthatunsettlethecomfortableassumptionsofradicalpolitics.There’satemptationtothinksuchofquestion-ingasanirrelevant,academicobstructiontorealaction.Indeed,mostcontemporaryradicaltheoryconfusesmorethanclarifies.Butconfusedpoliticalthinkingleadstoconfusedpoliticsandconfusedpoliticsmeanfailedpolitics.Herearefivequestionsthatpointtowardstherootsofconfusion.Wedon’thavefirmanswerstoanyofthem.Theytroubleus,andoccupyourthoughtsandconversations.1. What is Capitalism, and how can it be overcome?TheSDSaimsto“changeasocietywhichdependsuponmultipleandreciprocalsystemsofoppressionanddominationforitssurvival:racismandwhitesupremacy,capitalism,patriarchy,heterosexismandtransphobia,authoritarianismandimperialism,amongothers.”Thesesystems,withasingleexception,aresimpleformsofdomination.Arulingstratum(whites,men)oppressesagivensubaltern.Capitalismseemsmuchmorecompli-cated;impossibletoreducetothedirectandviolentop-pressionofoneclassbyanother.Howoughtthestudentmovementunderstandthecharacteristicformofcapital-istdomination?Andwhatformsofpoliticsareadequatetoovercomeit?2. SDS is against imperialism; what is it for?Manyanti-imperialistsinsistthatendingAmericanglobaldominationwouldopentheopportunityforrevolution-aryforcesacrosstheworld.Butsuchanargumentdoesnotspecifythepossibleagentsofsocialtransformation.

1See:FreedomRoadSocialistOrganization(www.frso.org),Kasamablog(mikeely.wordpress.com),TheDailyRadicalblog(www.dailyradical.org/),LouisProyectblog(louisproyect.wordpress.com),RevolutionaryLeftblog(www.revleft.com),Marxist-Leninistblog(marxistleninist.word-press.com),andLeftSpotblog(http://leftspot.com/blog).

Worse,thepositionignoresthepossibilityof reaction-arydomesticpolitics.IftheUnitedStateswithdrewfromIraqandAfghanistan,morereactionaryforces--Muslimtheocracy,corruptnationalism--couldeasilytakeitsplace.Intheabsenceofarealinternationalprogressivemovement,thechoicewillalwaysbetweenbadandworse.How,then,canthe(American)studentmovementhelpcultivateemancipatorypoliticsaroundtheglobe?

3. How does racism matter? TheCivilRightsmovementeliminatedde jurediscrimina-tion,andrenderedpublicbigotryunacceptable.Butracialinequalitiesstillexist.AfricanAmericanshave,forinstance,adisproportionatelyhighrateofincarceration.Radicalscitesuchdiscrepanciesasevidenceofthecontinuedforceofracism.Butstressingracerisksglossingoverthestruc-tural,class-boundconstitutionofpoverty.IfcontemporaryAmericansocietyis,infact,racist,whatisthespecificformofthisracism?HowdoesthisracismrelatetothebroadersocialstructureoftheUnitedStates?Whatpoliticalandsocialchangeswouldrenderracism,andtheveryconceptsofracethatitdependsupon,irrelevant?

4. What kind of questions can students ask?MembersofSDSoftendisavowtheirdistinctiveidentityasstudents,feelingitanunwarrantedandembarrassingprivilege.Butstudentlifepresentsuniqueopportunities

--toread,todiscuss,toexamineandcritiquedifferenttraditionsofpolitics.ButSDSdoesnot,asawhole,takeuptheopportunity.Fearofsectariancontroversypre-cludessustainedideologicaldiscussion,sotheorientationandformoftheorganizationremainsunquestionedanduncertain.Serious,honestreflectionandconversationcanclarifytheseuncertainties.So,whatsortoffundamental questionsoughttheSDSaskitselfandthebroaderLeft?Howcanitaskthem?

5. Why, and how, could the New SDS succeed where the old did not? ThePortHuronstatementsoughtto“replacepowerrootedinpossession,privilege,orcircumstancebypoweranduniquenessrootedinlove,reflectiveness,reason,andcreativity...”ThefirstSDSfailedtomeetitsowntask.Possession,privilegeandcircumstancestilldeterminesocialpower.SowhydidtheOldSDSfail?Andhowcanthenewonesucceed?Theproblemisbroader,though.Withthepassingofthe60smoment,whatever(slim)possibilityofinternationalrevolutionarychangetherewashasevaporated.Noorganizedpoliticalforceoffersthepracticalpossibilityofaqualitativelybetterfutureforallhumanity.Howoughtweunderstandthelossofpoliticalpossibility?Whatwouldmakeinternationalrevolutionarypoliticspossibleagain?WhatrolemightSDS,asamove-mentintheU.S.,attheheartofglobalcapitalism,playinsuchaprocess?|P

the “Left” have become so inclusive as to be meaning-less. The Review seeks to be a forum among a variety of tendencies and approaches to these categories of thought and action—not out of a concern with inclusion for its own sake, but rather to provoke productive disagreement and to open shared goals as sites of contestation. In this way, the recriminations and accusations arising from politi-cal disputes of the past might be elevated to an ongoing critique that seeks to clarify its object. The editorial board wishes to provide an ongoing public forum wherein questioning and reconsidering one’s own convictions is not seen as a weakness, but as part of the necessary work of building a revolutionary politics. We hope to create and sustain a space for interrogating and clarifying the variety of positions and orientations currently represent-ed on the political Left, in which questions may be raised and discussions pursued that do not find a place within existing Left discourses, locally or Internationally. As long as submissions exhibit a genuine commitment to this project, all kinds of content will be considered for publication.

StaffSeniorEditor:IanMorrison

Editors:GregGabrellasPamelaNogalesLaurieRojasBenjaminShepard

Designer:PamelaNogales

CopyEditors:MichaelYongJeremyCohan

WebzineEditor:LaurieRojas

ThePlatypusAffiliatedSocietypresents:

What is a Movement?Adiscussiononthemeaninganddirectionof"Movements"historicallyandtoday.

Thursday, October 16, 2008, 7-9 PM

SchooloftheArtInstituteofChicago280S.ColumbusDr.mainauditorium

Panelists: LuisBrennan(newStudentsforaDemocraticSociety)

ChuckHendricks(UniteHere)JorgeMujica(Movimiento10deMarzo)

PomegranateHealthCollectiveRepresentativeRichardRubin(Platypus)

3 The Platypus Review

Iraq, continued from page 2

4Issue #7/ October 2008

[ThefollowingisatalkthatwasgivenattheMarxist-Hu-manistCommitteepublicforumonThe Crisis in Marx-ist Thought,hostedbythePlatypusAffiliatedSocietyinChicagoonFriday,July25,2008.]I WanT TO SPeak aBOuT themeaningofhistoryforanypurportedlyMarxianLeft. WeinPlatypusfocusonthehistoryoftheLeft becausewethinkthatthenarrativeonetellsaboutthishistoryisinfactone’stheoryofthepresent.Implicitlyorexplicitly,inone’sconceptionofthehistoryoftheLeft,isanaccountofhowthepresentcametobe.ByfocusingonthehistoryoftheLeft,or,byadoptingaLeft-centricviewofhistory,wehypothesizethatthemostimportantdeterminationsofthepresentaretheresultofwhattheLefthasdoneorfailedtodohistorically. Forthepurposesofthistalk,Iwillfocusonthebroad-estpossibleframingforsuchquestionsandproblemsofcapitalinhistory,thebroadestpossiblecontextwithinwhichIthinkoneneedstounderstandtheproblemsfacedbytheLeft,specificallybyapurportedlyMarxianLeft. Iwillnot,forexample,befocusingsomuchonissuesforPlatypusinthehistoryofthevariousphasesandstagesofcapitalitself,forinstanceourcontentionthatthe1960srepresentednotanykindofadvance,butaprofoundretrogressionontheLeft.Iwillnotelucidateouraccountofhowthepresentsuffersfromatleast3generationsofdegenerationandregressionontheLeft:thefirst,inthe1930s,beingtragic;thesecondinthe1960sbeingfarcical;andthemostrecent,inthe1990s,beingsterilizing. But,sufficeittosay,Iwillpointoutthat,forPlatypus,therecognitionofregressionandtheattempttounder-standitssignificanceandcausesisperhapsourmostimportantpointofdeparture.Thetopicofthistalkisthemostfundamentalassumptioninformingourunderstand-ingofregression. Forpurposesofbrevity,Iwillnotbecitingexplicitly,butIwishtoindicatemyindebtednessforthefollowingtreatmentofapotentialMarxianphilosophyofhistory,beyondMarxandEngelsthemselves,andRosaLuxem-burg,LeninandTrotsky,toGeorgLukács,KarlKorsch,WalterBenjamin,TheodorAdorno,and,lastbutnotleast,theMarxscholarMoishePostone.And,moreover,Iwillbeindialogue,throughthesewriters,withHegel,whodistin-guishedphilosophicalhistoryasthestoryofthedevelop-mentoffreedom.—ForHegel,historyisonlymeaningfulthedegreetowhichitisthestoryoffreedom. Capitaliscompletelyunprecedentedinthehistoryof

humanity,hence,anystruggleforemancipationbeyondcapitalisalsocompletelyunprecedented.Whilethereisaconnectionbetweentheunprecedentednatureoftheemergenceofcapitalinhistoryandthestruggletogetbeyondit,thisconnectioncanalsobehighlymisleading,leadingtoafalsesymmetrybetweenthetransitionintoandwithindifferentperiodsofthetransformationsofmod-erncapital,andapotentialtransitionbeyondcapital.TherevoltoftheThirdEstate,whichinitiatedastillon-goingandnever-to-be-exhaustedmodernhistoryofbourgeois-democraticrevolutions,isboththegroundfor,and,fromaMarxianperspective,thenowpotentiallyhistoricallyobsolescentsocialformofpoliticsfromwhichproletariansocialistpoliticsseekstodepart,togetbeyond. Hegel,asaphilosopherofthetimeofthelastofthegreatbourgeois-democraticrevolutionsmarkingtheemergenceofmoderncapital,theGreatFrenchRevolu-tionof1789,wasforthisreasonatheoristoftherevoltoftheThirdEstate.Marx,whocamelater,afterthebegin-ningoftheIndustrialRevolutionofthe19thCentury,facedproblemsHegeldidnot. Ithasoftenbeenstated,butnotfullycomprehendedbyMarxiststhatMarxrecognizedthehistoricalmissionoftheclass-consciousproletariat,toovercomecapitalismandtothusdoawaywithclasssociety.Traditionally,thismeant,howeverparadoxically,eithertheendofthepre-historyorthebeginningofthetruehistoryofhumanity.—Inasense,thisdualityofthepossibilityofanendandatruebeginning,wasaresponsetoaRightHegeliannotionofanendtohistory,whatisassumedbyapologistsforcapitalasabestofallpossibleworlds. Famously,intheCommunist Manifesto,MarxandEngelsstatedthatallhistoryhithertohasbeenthehistoryofclassstruggles;Engelsaddedacleverfootnotelaterthatspecified“allwrittenhistory.”WemightextrapolatefromthisthatwhatEngelsmeantwasthehistoryofciviliza-tion;historyasclassstruggledidnotpertain,forinstance,tohumanhistoryorsociallifepriortotheformationofclasses,thetimeofthesupposed“primitivecommunism.”Later,in1942(in“ReflectionsonClassTheory”),Adorno,followingBenjamin(inthe“ThesesonthePhilosophyofHistory,”1940),wrotethatsuchaconceptionbyMarxandEngelsofallofhistoryasthehistoryofclassstruggleswasinfactacritiqueofallofhistory,acritiqueofhistoryitself. Soinwhatwaydoesthecritiqueofhistorymatterinthecritiqueofcapital?Theproblemwiththecom-monplaceviewofcapitalismasprimarilyaproblemofexploitationisthatitisinthisdimensionthatcapitalfails

todistinguishitselffromotherformsofcivilization.Whatisnewincapitalissocialdomination,whichmustbedis-tinguishedbothlogicallyandhistorically,structurallyandempirically,fromexploitation,towhichitisnotreducible.Socialdominationmeansthedominationofsocietybycapital.Thisiswhatisnewaboutcapitalinthehistoryofcivilization;priorformsofcivilizationknewovertdomina-tionofsomesocialgroupsoverothers,butdidnotknowasMarxrecognizedincapitalasocialdynamictowhichallsocialgroups—allaspectsofsocietyasawhole—aresubject. Sowemustfirstdrawademarcationapproximately10,000yearsago,withtheoriginsofcivilizationandclasssociety,whenthegreatagriculturalrevolutionoftheNeo-lithicAgetookplace,andhumanbeingswentfrombeingnomadichunter-gathererstobecomingsettledagricul-turalists.Thepredominantmodeoflifeforhumanitywentfromthehunter-gatherertothepeasant,andwasthisformostofsubsequenthistory. Severalhundredyearsago,however,asimilarlyprofoundtransformationbegan,inwhichthepredominantmodeoflifehasgonefromagriculturalpeasanttourbanworker:wage-earner,manufacturer,andindustrialproducer. Moreproximally,withtheIndustrialRevolutioninthelate-18thtoearly-19thCenturies,certainaspectsofthis

“bourgeois”epochofcivilizationandsocietymanifestedthemselvesandthrewthishistoryoftheemergenceofmodernityintoanewlight.Ratherthanan“endofhistory”asbourgeoisthinkersuptothattimehadthought,modernsociallifeenteredintoaseverecrisisthatfundamentallyproblematizedthetransitionfrompeasant-toworker-basedsociety. WithMarxinthe19thCenturycametherealizationthatbourgeoissociety,alongwithallitscategoriesofsubjectivityincludingitsvalorizationoflabor,mightitselfbetransitional,thattheend-goalofhumanitymightnotbefoundintheproductiveindividualofbourgeoistheoryandpractice,butthatthissocietymightpointbeyonditself,towardsapotentialqualitativetransformationatleastasprofoundasthatwhichseparatedthepeasantwayoflifefromtheurban“proletarian”one,indeedatransitionmoreontheorderofprofundityoftheNeolithicRevolutioninagriculturethatendedhunter-gatherersociety10,000yearsago,moreprofoundthanthatwhichseparatedmod-ernfromtraditionalsociety. Atthesametimethatthismodern,bourgeoissocietyratchetedintohighgearbythelate-18thCentury,itenteredintocrisis,andanew,unprecedentedhistorical

phenomenonwasmanifestedinpoliticallife,the“Left.”—Whileearlierformsofpoliticscertainlydisputedvalues,thiswasnotintermsofhistorical“progress,”whichbecamethehallmarkoftheLeft. TheIndustrialRevolutionoftheearly19thCentury,theintroductionofmachineproduction,wasaccompaniedbytheoptimisticandexhilaratingsocialistutopiassug-gestedbythesenewdevelopments,pointingtofantasticalpossibilitiesexpressedintheimaginationsofFourierandSaint-Simon,amongothers. Marxregardedthesocietyof“bourgeoisright”and

“privateproperty”asindeedalreadyrestingonthesocialconstitutionandmediationoflabor,fromwhichprivatepropertywasderived,andaskedthequestionofwhetherthetrajectoryofthissociety,fromtherevoltoftheThirdEstateandthemanufacturingerainthe18thCenturytotheIndustrialRevolutionofthe19thCentury,indicatedthepossibilityofafurtherdevelopment. Inthemidstofthedramaticsocialtransformationsofthe19thCenturyinwhichasMarxputitintheManifestothat“allthatwassolidmeltedintoair,”asearlyas1843,Marxprognosedandfacedthefuturevirtualproletarian-izationofsociety,andaskedwhetherandhowhumanityinproletarianformmightliberateitselffromthiscondition,whetherandhow,andwithwhatnecessitytheprole-tariatwould“transcend”and“abolishitself.”Asearlyasthe1844Manuscripts,Marxrecognizedthatsocialism(ofProudhonetal.)wasitselfsymptomaticofcapital:proletarianlaborwasconstitutiveofcapital,andthusitspoliticswassymptomaticofhowthesocietyconditionedbycapitalmightrevealitselfastransitional,aspointingbeyonditself.—ThiswasMarx’smostfundamentalpointofdeparture,thatproletarianizationwasasubstantialsocialproblemandnotmerelyrelativetothebourgeoisie,andthattheproletarianizationofsocietywasnottheovercom-ingofcapitalbutitsfullestrealization,andthatthis—theproletarianizedsocietyofcapital—pointedbeyonditself. Thus,withMarx,aphilosophyofthehistoryoftheLeftwasborn.ForMarxwasnotasocialistorcommunistsomuchasathinkerwhotaskedhimselfwithunderstandingthemeaningoftheemergenceofproletariansocialisminhistory.Marxwasnotsimplythebestormostconsistentorradicalsocialist,butratherthemosthistorically,andhencecritically,self-aware.By“scientific”socialism,Marxunderstoodhimselftobeelaboratingaformofknowledgeawareofitsownconditionsofpossibility. ForaHegelianandMarxianclarificationofthespeci-

ficityofthemodernproblemofsocialfreedom,however,itbecomesclearthattheLeftmustdefineitselfnotsociologically,whetherintermsofsocioeconomicclassoraprincipleofcollectivismoverindividualism,etc.,butratherasamatterofconsciousness,specificallyhistoricalconsciousness. For,startingwithMarx,itisconsciousnessofhistoryandhistoricalpotentialandpossibilities,howeverappar-entlyutopianorobscure,thatdistinguishestheLeftfromtheRight,notthestruggleagainstoppression—whichthemodernRightalsoclaims.TheRightdoesnotrepresentthepastbutrathertheforeclosingofpossibilitiesinthepresent. Forthisreason,itisimportantforustorecognizethepotentialandfactofregressionthatthepossibilitiesfortheLeftintheoryandpracticehavesufferedasaresultoftheabandonmentofhistoricalconsciousnessinfavoroftheimmediaciesofstrugglesagainstoppression. Marx’scritiqueofsymptomaticsocialism,fromProud-hon,Lassalle,Bakunin,etal.,tohisownfollowersinthenewGermanSocial-DemocraticPartyandtheirprogramatGotha(aswellasinEngels’ssubsequentcritiqueoftheErfurtProgramme),wasaimedatmaintainingtheMarx-ianvisioncorrespondingtothehorizonofpossibilityofpost-capitalistandpost-proletariansociety. Unfortunately,beginninginMarx’sownlifetime,theformofpoliticshesoughttoinspirebegantofallwellbelowthethresholdofthiscriticallyimportantconscious-nessofhistory.Andthevastmajorityofthisregressionhastakenplacepreciselyinthenameof“Marxism.”Through-outthehistoryofMarxism,fromthedisputeswiththeanarchistsinthe1stInternationalWorkingmen’sAssocia-tion,anddisputesinthe2ndSocialistInternational,tothesubsequentsplitsintheMarxistworkers’movementwiththeBolshevik-ledThird,CommunistInternationalandTrotskyistFourthInternational,asometimesheroicbut,inretrospect,overwhelminglytragicstruggletopreserveorrecoversomethingoftheinitialMarxianpointofdepartureformodernproletariansocialismtookplace. Inthelatterhalfofthe20thCentury,developmentsre-gressedsofarbehindtheoriginalMarxianself-conscious-nessthatMarxismitselfbecameanaffirmativeideologyofindustrialsociety,andthethresholdofpost-capitalistsocietybecameobscured,findingexpressiononlyobtusely,invariousrecrudescentutopianideologies,and,finally,inthemostrecentperiod,withthehegemonyof“anarchist”ideologiesandRomanticrejectionsofmodernity. But,beyondthiscrisisandpassageintooblivionofaspecificallyMarxianapproach,the“Left”itself,whichemergedpriortoHegelandMarx’sattemptstophiloso-phizeitshistoricalsignificance,hasvirtuallydisappeared.Thepresentinabilitytodistinguishconservative-reaction-aryfromprogressive-emancipatoryresponsestotheprob-lemsofsocietyconditionedbycapital,isinseparablefromthedeclineanddisappearanceofthesocialmovementofproletariansocialismforwhichMarxhadsoughttopro-videamoreadequateandprovocativeself-consciousness

atthetimeofitsemergenceinthe19thCentury. Paradoxically,asLukács,followingLuxemburgandLenin,alreadypointedout,almostacenturyago,whiletheapparentpossibilityofovercomingcapitalapproachesincertainrespects,inanothersenseitseemstoretreatinfinitelybeyondthehorizonofpossibility.CanwefollowLuxemburg’searlyrecognitionoftheopportunismthatalwaysthreatensus,notassomekindofselling-outorfallingfromgrace,butratherthemanifestationoftheveryrealfearthatattendsthedawningawarenessofwhatgraverisksareentailedintryingtofundamentallymovetheworldbeyondcapital? What’sworse—and,inthepresent,priortoanydangerof“opportunism”—withtheextremecoarseningifnotut-terdisintegrationoftheabilitytoapprehendandtrans-formcapitalthroughworking-classpolitics,hascomethecoarseningofourabilitytoevenrecognizeandapprehend,letaloneadequatelyunderstandoursocialreality.Wedonotsuffersimplyfromopportunismbutfromarathermorebasicdisorientation.Todaywearefacedwiththeproblemnotofchangingtheworldbutmorefundamen-tallyofunderstandingit. Ontheotherhand,approachMarxiansocialism,arewedealingwitha“utopia?”—And,ifso,whatofthis?Whatisthesignificanceofour“utopian”senseofhumanpotentialbeyondcapitalandproletarianlabor?Isitameredream? Marxbeganwithutopiansocialismandendedwiththemostinfluentialifspectacularlyfailingmodernpoliticalideology,“scientificsocialism.”Atthesametime,Marxgaveusanacuteandincisivecriticalframeworkforgrasp-ingthereasonswhythelast200yearshavebeen,byfar,themosttumultuouslytransformativebutalsodestructiveepochofhumancivilization,whythisperiodhaspromisedsomuchandyetdisappointedsobitterly.Thelast200yearshaveseenmore,andmoreprofoundchanges,thanpriormillenniahave.Marxattemptedtograspthereasonsforthis.Othershavefailedtoseethedifferenceandhavetriedtore-assimilatemodernhistorybackintoitsantecedents(forinstance,inpostmodernistillusionsofanendlessmedievalism:seeBrunoLatour’s1993bookWe have never been modern). WhatwoulditmeantotreattheentireMarxianprojectas,firstandforemost,arecognitionofthehistoryofmodernitytout courtasoneofthepathology of transition,fromtheclasssocietythatemergedwiththeagriculturalrevolution10,000yearsagoandthecivilizationsbasedonanessentiallypeasantwayoflife,throughtheemergenceofthecommodityformofsocialmediation,tothepresentglobalcivilizationdominatedbycapital,towardsaformofhumanitythatmightliebeyondthis? WithMarxwearefacedwithaself-consciousnessofanobscureandmysterioushistoricaltask,whichcanonlybefurtherclarifiedtheoreticallythroughtransformativepractice—thepracticeofproletariansocialism.Butthistaskhasbeenabandonedinfavorofwhatareessentiallycapital-reconstitutingstruggles,attemptingtocopewiththevicissitudesofthedynamicsofmodernhistory.But

capital in historyThe need for a Marxian philosophy of history of the Left

ChrisCutrone

thehistoryofBaathism).Incomparisonwithsuchevasionofresponsibility,theBushadministration’sinvasionandoccupationofIraqwasaneminentlyresponsibleact.TheywerewillingtostakethemselvesinawaytheDemocratsandtheEuropeansandotherswerenot—andthe“Left”could not.The“success”oftheBushpolicyamountstoitsabilitytocastallalternativesintomoreorlessimpotentposturing.AttributingmotivesforthewartoAmericanprofiteeringistomistakeeffectforcause.ComplainingaboutthefactthatAmericancompanieshaveprofitedfromthewaristoimpotentlyprotestagainsttheworldasitis,forsomeonewasgoingtoprofitfromit—woulditbebetterifFrench,JapaneseorSaudifirmsdidso? ThattheU.S.governmentunderBushbrokedeco-rumandmadethegestureofinvadingIraq“unilaterally”withoutU.N.SecurityCouncilapprovalsaysnothingtothefactthatIraqwaslikelytobeinvadedandoccupied(by

“armedinspectionteams”supportedbytensofthousandsof“international”troops,etc.)inanycase.DiditreallymatterwhethertheU.S.hadtheU.N.figleafcoveringtheuglinessofitsmilitaryinstrument?Itwasonlyamatterofwhenandhowitwasgoingtobeputtouse,inmanagingtheinternationalproblemtheIraqistatehadbecome.Nooneamongtheinternationalpowers-that-be,includingthemost“rogue”elementsoftheglobalorder(Russia,China,Iran,etal.)hadanyfirminterestinrestoringtoSaddam’sBaathiststhestatus quo frombefore1990and,needlesstosay,notonlytheU.S.andBritain,butalso

SaudiArabiaandIran,andmostespeciallytheIraqiKurdsandShia,werenotabouttoletthathappen.Saddamwasonthewayout.Itwasonlyamatterofhow. Alltherhetoricaboutthe“overreach”and“hubris”ofU.S.policyinIraqsaysnothingtothefactthatacross-roadstherewasbeingreached—thiswasalreadytrueun-derClinton.Allthebombastaboutthe“illegal”—oreven

“criminal”—characteroftheU.S.invasionandoccupationofIraqneglectsthesimplefactthattheU.S.occupationwasauthorizedbytheU.N.WhenDemocratsimpugnthe“crusading”motivesoftheBushadministrationwithsophistryaboutthesupposedfollyoftryingtospread

“democracy”inIraqandthegreaterMiddleEast,isthisa“progressive”argument,oraconservativeone? NotonlytheDemocrats’butthe“Left’s”oppositiontotheIraqwarhasinfactbeenfromtheRight.ThisisrevealedmostperverselybythehistoryoftheIraqpolicyrecommendationsofJoeBiden,whohasbeentoutedbytheObamacampaignasbringing“foreignpolicycreden-tials”totheirticketascandidateforVicePresident.Bidenonceadvocatedabreak-upofIraqintoseparateShia,SunniandKurdishstates,duringtheheightoftheSunniinsurgency,whichwouldhavepunishedtheSunnibyleavingthemwithoutaccesstoIraq’soilwealth(whichisconcentratedintheKurdishandShiiteareasofKirkukandBasra).Wouldpursuitofsuchanethno-sectariandivisionofIraqhavebeena“progressive”outcomeforfurther-ingthe“democraticself-determination”ofthepeoplesofIraq?—Incomparisonwiththe20%troop“surge”thathasinfact,asevenObamahasputit,“succeededbeyondourwildestdreams.”Ormightweseeinsuchapparently

“extreme”policyalternativesasBiden’sadeeperunderly-ingfact,thatfromthestandpointofnotonlyU.S.“imperial”interestsbutthoseoftheglobalorder,itdoesn’tmakemuchdifferenceifIraqremainsasingleorisbrokenupintomultiplestates,whetheritisruledbysecularortheo-craticregimes,orwhetheritsgovernmentis“democratic”ordictatorial,whetheritscivilsocietyis“liberal”ornot.But,presumably,thismattersagreatdealtotheIraqis! NoneoftheposedalternativesregardingIraq—notbefore,duringorsincetheinvasionandoccupation—canbeascribedtobeinginherentlyinserviceoforopposedtotheon-goingrealitiesofU.S.power(“imperialism”),ortheinterestsofglobalcapitalism,becauseallofthemarecompatiblewiththese.Rather,thepolicyalternativesareallmattersofopportunisticorientationtoanunderlyingrealitythatisnotbeingsubstantiallychallengedorevenrecognizedpoliticallybyanyoftheactorsinvolved,greatorsmall,onthe“Right”or“Left,”fromal-Qaedatotheneoconservatives,or“libertarians”likeRonPaul,fromBushtothePresidentoftheIranianIslamicRepublicAhmadinejad,andRepublicansandDemocratsfromMc-CaintoObama,or“independents”andtheGreenParty’scandidatesCynthiaMcKinneyandRalphNader,tothefar-

“Left”of“anarchists”andotherantinomianslikewritersfor CounterpunchandtheChomskyans,etal.atZmagazine,orthe“anti-war”protestcoalitionsledby“Marxist”groups

suchastheInternationalSocialistOrganization(UnitedforPeaceandJusticecoalition,CampusAnti-warNetwork),WorkersWorldParty(ANSWERcoalition),ortheRevolu-tionaryCommunistParty(WorldCan’tWaitcoalition). Allofthesupposed“anti-imperialists”—fromIraqpoli-cydissidentRepublicanslikeSenatorChuckHagel,tothemostintransigent“Marxists”liketheSpartacistLeague—havefailedtobetrulyanti-“imperialist”intheirapproachtoIraq,norcouldtheybe,fornonecouldhavepossiblychallengedthefundamentalconditionsofU.S.poweringlobalcapital.Thereisnopoliticsofanti-imperialism,fornooneaskspoliticallywhetherandwhatitmeanstosaythattheU.S.couldbemoreorless“imperialist,”whethertheworldordercandowithouttheU.S.actingasglobalcop—asking,who,forinstance,wouldplaythisneverthe-lessnecessaryroleintheabsenceoftheU.S.?Forthereisnoone.Andnopurported“Left”shouldwant“openings”fortheirownsakeintheglobalorder—asifany“cracks”inthe“system”won’tbetheholesintowhichtheworld’smostabjectwillbeimmediatelyswallowed,withoutinanywaysparingthenextbatchofvictimsinthetrain-wreckofhistory. Thefundamentalinabilityofanyoneonthe“Left”totakeameaningfullyalternativepositiononIraq,beyondhoping(vainly)forthe“defeat”ofor“resistance”toU.S.policy,andthusimmediatelyjoiningtheopportunismofthepoliticsoftheDemocrats,dissidentRepublicans,andEuropeanandotherstatesmen,shouldserveasawarningaboutthedirepoliticalstateoftheworldanditspossibili-tiestoday.Accusationsmightflyaboutwhomaymoreorlesstacitly“support”“U.S.imperialism,”butthereissuchathingasprotestingtoomuch,especiallywhenitmustbeadmittedthatnothing can be donerightnowtoalterthegivenglobalpoliticalandsocialrealitiesinaprogressive-emancipatorymanner.If,asAdolphReedputit,theU.S.remainsa“scourgeontheEarth,”isthealternativeonlytoimpotentlydenouncethisandnottrytoproperlyunder-standit—andunderstandwhatitwouldmeantopreparetobegintomeaningfullychallengeandovercomethis? Asappallingasitmightbetorecognize,McCaininhisRepublicanNationalConventionspeechwasactuallymoretruthfulandstraightforwardthanObamawhenhepointedoutthathehasstoodconsistentlybehindwhathasprovedtobeasuccessfulpolicyinIraq.Obamanowmustdissembleontheissue. Ontheotherhand,theessenceofObama’scandidacycanbeseeninthefigureofSamanthaPower,whowassackedfromhisprimarycampaignaftersaying,correctly,thatHillaryClintonwasa“monster”whowould“sayany-thing”togetelected.Powerisaliberalpromoterof“hu-manrights”militaryinterventionism,andbeganworkingasasenioradvisorforObamaimmediatelyafterhewaselectedtotheU.S.Senate.PowerisarepresentativeofObama’sversionofthehistoricalprecedentofJFK’steamof“thebestandthebrightest”suchasRobertMcNamara.Infact,Obama’scandidacyhasbeeninitsoriginsmuchmoreabout“foreign”than“domestic”policy,andmore

thanwillbeapparentnowthatIraqhasbeenneutralizedasthemainissueintheelection.Obama,nolessthanMc-Cain,iscampaigningfortheofficenotonlyofthe“topcop”oftheU.S.,butoftheworld.Obama’scampaignisovereffectivepolicyforthisrole,nottheroleitself. The“Left”isnowupinarmsinthefaceofObama’scandidacybecausehiscampaignexplicitlyaimstorefur-bishtheU.S.government’scapacitytoplaythisrole,andperhapseveninexpandedways,asU.S.powerwouldbeequippedtoadvancetheliberalcauseof“humanrights”internationallymoreidealisticallyandlesscynicallythanunderBushorClinton. ButthisraisestheissueofhowtounderstandtheU.S.’sroleintheworld.OnlyatitsperildoestheLefttreattheexplicitWilsoniandoctrinethathasessentiallyunderwrittenU.S.policyandpoweraftertheFirstWorldWarashypocriticalorcynical,fortheprojectoftheU.S.asthecentral,without-peerhegemonicpowerofglobalcapitalisoneinwhichallstatesinternationallyparticipate(throughtheU.N.,theinternationaltreatyorganizationofU.S.power),onlytoagreaterorlesserextent.Maintainingthe“peaceful”conditionsofcapitalhasandwillcontinuetoproveabloodybusinessatglobalscale.AsmuchasonemightwishotherwiseorsimplyregrettheonusofU.S.power,realitymustbefaced. ThehyperbolearoundIraqinmainstreampoliticsisbestillustratedbythatfavoredword,“quagmire.”Butbehindthishasbeenhysteria,notreason.Feelinginone’sstepthepullofsomegumonthepavementisnotthethreatofsinkingintoquicksand!TheIraqi“insurgents”knewbetterthantheirapologistsandcynicalanti-Bushwell-wishersamongtheDemocratsandEuropeanandotherpowers—andtheiropencheerleadersonthe“Left”

—thattheywerenotsointransigent,notsowillingtodietoalastmanintheir“opposition”totheU.S.anditspolicies,butonlywishedtodriveaharderbargainatthenegotiat-ingtablewiththeU.S.anditsalliesinIraq—andnowtheyarethemselvesbecomingalliesoftheIraqigovernmentandtheU.S. Currently,itmightstillremainunclearwhetherthecombinedactionsandapparentattenuationoftheIraqiinsurgents/militiasandthestruggleamongtherulingandoppositionalpartiesoftheIraqigovernmentand,behindthem,theirforeignbackersinSaudiArabiaandIran,andtheapparentdisarrayoftheregimeoftheIranianIslamicRepublicinitsnuclearstandoffwiththeU.S.andEuropeanpowers,amounttoatemporarysituationborneofasharedwishtoridetheObamatrain(ormerelythepotentialforchangeinherentintheelectioncycle)intoabetterbargainingpositionregardingU.S.policyandsonottospoiltheU.S.electionandbringthesupposedlymorebellicoseJohnMcCaintopowerthroughthefearoftheAmericanpublic,orwhetherthey’vegivenupthebloodygameofjockeyingforinfluenceinIraqbecausethey’vealreadyspentwhatchipstheyhadinthelast5years. Inanycase,asfarastheelectionisconcerned,Obama

hasplayedastrategyinhiscampaignfromwhichanypur-ported“Left”mustlearnpolitically:thatitisnotagoodideatobankaheadoftimeonthedefeatofone’soppo-nents.Obama’scampaignisinmoretroublethanitmighthavebeenbecauseithaslostitssignalissuewithwhichtoprosecutetheRepublicanswiththeBushadministra-tion,a“losing”warinIraq.Obamacanbeelecteddespitethis,andfudgetheissueofthewarand“opposition”toitaspolicy. Butthe“Left”remainsinasimilarbutinfactmuchworsepredicament.The“Left”neveraskedtheburningquestion:WhatiftheBushpolicy“succeeds?”ThenwhatwillbethebasisforoppositiontoU.S.“imperialism?” IraqisnothinglikeVietnam,despitethewishesofthe

“Left”tohavehistoryrepeatitself.IfIraqdoesnot,asitappearsitwillnot,fallapartordragoninendlessslaugh-ter,butcontinuestostabilize,anddoesnotgiveupsov-ereigntyoveritsoilresources,etc.,butsimplyallowstheU.S.someminimalmilitarypresencethroughitsembassythere,andcontinuestoworkwiththeU.S.againstgroupslikeal-Qaeda,Iran’sRevolutionaryGuards,Hezbollah,theKurdishPKKguerillasinTurkey,andwillinglysideswiththeU.S.,asitwillinevitably,inanypotentialfuturewarsagainstIranorSyria,etc.,willthismeanthattheU.S.in-vasionandoccupationdiminishedIraqi“sovereignty”andsowasaphenomenonofU.S.“imperialism?”WhatwillbetheaccountofIraqimotivesinthearrangementachievedbyU.S.intervention,asmerestoogesfortheU.S.? Andwon’tthismeantakingamuchcoarserandnar-rower-mindedviewoftheactualconcretepoliticsofIraqandtheMiddleEastthanthoseevincedbyObama,McCainand(even)Bush,soeffectivelydisqualifyingthe“Left”asbeinginanywaycompetenttocomment,letalonecritiqueorofferpoliticalalternatives? Whatwillremainthebasisforthe“Left’s”oppositiontoU.S.policyinaworldMcCainorObamawouldmakeafterBush—afterBlackwater,etal.quittheIraqiscene,astheyalreadyaredoing,andnotthroughdefeatbutsuccess,andnotwithoutsomeselectivehigh-profile(ifbecomelessinteresting)investigationsandprosecutionsof“warcrimes”byAmericans,nowthattheU.S.canaf-fordthem? HowwillU.S.powerintheworldbeunderstood,andwhatcritiqueandvisionofthefuturewillbeposedinthefaceofitsundiminishedcapacities?|P

History, continued from page 3

"History" continues on page 4

"Iraq" continues on page 4

Iraq, continued from page 3

Finance, continued from page 1

sector).Polanyi,forinstance,complainedthatcapitalismcommodifiedthreethingsthatsupposedlycannotbecom-modities,labor,landandmoneyitself.Insuchaone-sidedoppositiontocapital,Polanyineglectedtorealizethatwhatmakesmodernsocietywhatitis,whatdistinguishesmoderncapitalismfromearlierpre-modernformsofcapital,isthatitpreciselyentailssubjectingthesesuppos-edlynot“commodifiable”thingstothecommodityform.Moderncapitalispreciselyabouttheradicalrevolution-izingofhowwerelatetoformsofsocialintercourse,labor,andnature. Sonooneshouldbefooledintothinkingthatsuppos-edlybetterformsofpoliticallymanaging(e.g.,undertheDemocrats)thesocialinvestmentin,andthuspreservingthe“value”andpromotingtheimprovementofmate-rialproduction,infrastructure,orformsofknowledgerepresentsanykindofsure“progress.”—Nooneshouldmistakeforevenamomentthatsucheffortswillnotbeawindfallandliningthepocketsofthecapitalists(on“MainStreet”)throughupwardincome-redistributionschemesanylessthan“bailingout”WallStreetwillbe. ThepresentlybemoanedderegulationoffinancialinstitutionsthatoccurredunderBillClintoninthe1990swasnotmeant(merely)toenrichtherichfurther,buttoopenthewayfornewformsofeconomicandsocialrela-tions,bothlocallyandglobally.Such“neo-liberal”reformsweremeanttoovercome,inMiltonFriedman’sphrase,the

“tyrannyofthestatusquo”—asentimentanyemancipatoryLeftoughtnottoregardwithexcessivecynicism.Fortheneo-liberalsfoundahearingnotonlyamongthewealthy,butalsoamongmanyleftoutofthepriorKeynesian/Ford-istarrangements—see,forinstance,the2006NobelPeacePrizewinnerMuhammadYunus’ssocialactivistworkin“microfinance”inBangladesh. AMarxianapproachtotheproblemofcapital,asLukácswarnedwithhisconceptof“reification,”recog-nizesthat“labor”anditsformsof“production”arenoless“reified”and“ideological”intheirpracticesundercapital,noless“unreal”andsubjecttode-realization,withdestructivesocialconsequences,thanaretheformsof

“exchange,”monetizationandfinance. AnauthenticallyMarxianLeftshouldtakenosideinthepresentdebatesoverthemeritsandpitfallsofthe“bailout”ofthefinancialsystem.Onecanandshouldcritiquethis,ofcourse,butnonethelessremainawarethatthisisnosimplematterofopposingit.Thissideofrevolutionaryemancipationbeyondcapital,aMarxianpoliticswoulddemandtobetterfinancecapitalnolessthantosupportlabor.Financecapitalisnolesslegiti-mateifalsonolesssymptomaticofcapitalthananyotherphenomenonofmodernlife.Soitdeservesnottobevili-fiedordenouncedbutunderstoodasawayhumanityhastriedauthenticallytocopewiththecreativedestructionofcapitalinmodernsociallife.|P

thisre-assimilationofMarxismbackintoideologychar-acteristicoftherevoltoftheThirdEstatemeansthelossofthetruehorizonofpossibilitythatmotivatedMarxandgavehisprojectmeaningandurgency. CanwefollowMarxandthebesthistoricallyrevo-lutionaryMarxistswhofollowedhiminrecognizingtheformsofdiscontentinthepathologicalsocietyweinhabitasbeingthemselvessymptomaticofandboundupwiththeveryproblemagainstwhichtheyrage?Canweavoidtheprematurepost-capitalismandbad,reactionaryutopianismthatattendsthepresentdeathoftheLeftintheoryinpractice,andpreserveandfulfillthetasksgiventousbyhistory?Canwerecognizethebreadthanddepthoftheproblemweseektoovercomewithoutretreatingintowishfulthinkingandideologicalgracingoftheac-complishedfact,andapologizingforimpulsesthatonlyseemdirectedagainstit,attheexpenseofwhatmightliebeyondthetrapsofthesufferingofthepresent? Weurgentlyneedanacuteawarenessofourhistori-calepochaswellasofourfleetingmomentnow,withinit.—WemustaskwhatitisaboutthepresentmomentthatmightmakethepossibilityofrecoveringaMarxiansocialandpoliticalconsciousnessviable,andhowwecanadvanceitbywayofrecoveringit. Forthepathologyofourmodernsocietymediatedbycapital,oftheproletarianformofsociallifeanditsself-objectifications,thenewformsofhumanityitmakespossible,whicharecompletelyunprecedentedinhistory,growsonlyworsethelongerdelayedistakingthepossibleandnecessarystepstothenextlevelsofthestruggleforfreedom. Thepathologygrowsworse,notmerelyintermsofthevariousformsofthedestructionofhumanity,whicharedaunting,butalso,perhapsmoreimportantly—anddisturbingly—inthemanifestworseningsocialconditionsandcapacitiesforpracticalpoliticsontheLeft,andourworseningtheoreticalawarenessofthem.IftherehasbeenacrisisandevacuationofMarxianthought,ithasbeenbe-causeitsmostfundamentalcontextandpointofdeparture,itsawarenessofitsgreaterhistoricalmoment,thepossibil-ityofanepochaltransition,hasbeenforgotten,whilewehavenotceasedtosharethismoment,butonlylostsightofitsnecessitiesandpossibilities.Anyfutureemancipa-torypoliticsmustregainsuchawarenessofthetransitionalnatureofcapitalistmodernityandofthereasonswhywepaysuchasteeppriceforfailingtorecognizethis.|P

stalematesoclearlystillatwork.Itwasdifficulttoreconcilewhatwe’daccomplished—littlemoreorlessthanabeau-tifulandthought-provokingafternooninthepark—withtheuglyechoesof‘68emanatingfromtheTwinCities.Ifourreenactment,unpermittedandinherentlyanti-authoritar-ian,wasamodestexerciseindiscoveringwhatwecouldgetawaywithinthepublicsphere,newsfromSt.Paulcameasasternreminderofwhatwecouldn’tgetawaywith.AshadycornerofGrantParkonalate-summerevening,they’dgiveusthat,buttoagitateoutsideofanactualpoliticalconven-tion,withallofthosetelevisioncamerasonhand,wouldproveasunfeasiblein2008asitwas40yearsago.Protest-ersinSt.Paulwerebeingsummarilytear-gassedandjailedenmasse,held(unconstitutionally)forthedurationoftheconventionweektoprecludefurtherdisruption.Itwassoberingtospeculatethatlawenforcementmighthavelearnedmoreaboutstiflingdissent,overthelast40years,thandemonstratorshadlearnedaboutcultivatingit. Wewereaskedseveraltimes,inthecourseofplanningtheevent,whetheritmightleadtosimilarhistoricalreenact-mentsinthefuture.Itwasanunderstandablequestiontobeaskedbyjournalists,butitmissesthepoint.Thelastthingwewanted,thoughwehadacuriouswayofshowingit,wastoloseourselvesinyesterday’snear-revolutionarymo-ments,tofetishizeorserializethemfortheirownsake.Weweremoreinterestedincomprehendingtheirshortcomings;thefactthatthe‘68conventionwasfollowedshortlybytheelectionofRichardNixonandamarkedincreaseinpoliticalrepressionservedasaprominentfootnotetoouridyllinthepark.Theclearviewofhistorywhichwewerestrivingforwouldnotilluminate,ofitsownaccord,anypathsforward.Itmight,wehoped,fostermeaningfuldialogue.|P

The cROWd aSSemBledinashadycornerofGrantParkinthewaningafternoonhoursofAugust28mighthavebeenmistakenforextrasinapoorly-fundedperiodfilm.Withclotheslooselyevoking60’s-eraprotest,theyreclinedinthegrass,rollingcigarettes,eatingpeanut-butter-and-jellysandwiches,listeningtospeechesandgazingatthesky.Itmighthaveseemedastretchtobilltheeventasahistoricalreenactmentofthenotorious1968DemocraticNationalConventionprotests—thatlongandbloodyweekinChicagowhichhasbeendiscussedandpickedoveratlengthinthis40thanniversaryyear.TheemblemsofChicago’68—wild-eyedpoliceofficerswithnightsticks

—werenowheretobeseen.GrantParkonthatafternoonwasmoreconcernedwiththeactionaroundthecampfirethanthesavageryonthebattlefield. Itmightseempurelysemanticthatweinsistedonconsideringtheeventahistorical reenactmentratherthanacommemorationorabitoftheater,butforusthiswasanimportantdistinction.Asagroupofyoung,largelyinexperiencedactivistsitwastheonlyorganizingframe-workwecouldfindwhichemphasizedactiveparticipation.Otherformsseemedlinguisticallyandideologicallyflaccid;ofcoursewecouldobservetheanniversary,aspeoplehadbeendoingallsummer,butthisimpliedaninsufficient(andappalling)detachmentfromthesubject.Wedidn’twanttoviewourhistory—our radicalhistory—asiffromariverbank,wewantedtojumpinandsplasharoundinit. Thereenactmentofthe1968ChicagoDNCprotestswouldbeacuriousproject,difficulttoplan,theshapeofitabnormalandconstantlyshifting.Ourpurposeseemedperfectlyobviousattimes,entirelydigestible—a historical reenactment of the ’68 DNC protests, that’s all—butatothertimesitseemedtobulgesurrealisticallyinathousanddirec-tions.Wouldweaimforsomedegreeofhistoricalaccuracy,orwouldanythingfly?Wedebated,forinstance,theethicsofnominatingalivepigforthepresidency:whatshouldwefeedit,andwherewoulditstay?Whichwouldwefeedthemassesofreenactors,potatoorpastasalad?Andintheeventoftroublewiththepolice,what,amongastunningarrayofpossibletactics,mightproveourwisestcourseofaction?Weplottedandplannedoverthesummertothepointofexhaustion;theminutiaemultipliedendlessly.Andyet,whenpressedastowhywewereattemptingsuchathing,wehadnoreadyanswer.Itwassoundbite-resistant,experimental,itcalledfordeepbreathsandmeanderingexplanations. Clearlythishistoryhadnotyetbeencodified.Itcontin-uedtoelicitavarietyofinterpretations.Arecentadditiontothecollectionofbookson’68,FrankKusch’sBattleground Chicago,attemptedacop's-eyeviewoftheweek’sevent;academicsandhistorianscontinuedtotacklethesubjectfromdisparateangles,tryingtocometogripswiththisjar-ringmomentinmodernAmericanhistorywhenpowerandresistancegrappledsopubliclyandwithsomuchviolenceandfanfare.Oursubjectmatterstillwassquirming,makingitimpossibletopredictwhatshapeareenactmentmight

take.Weestimatedanattendanceofanywherefrom100to10,000people—whocouldsayhowmanyChicagoanskneworcaredenoughaboutthe‘68conventiontodevoteadayintheparktoitsexploration?—andweappliedratherblindlyforapermitfromtheParkDistrict,treadinglightlythroughtheirdowntownofficeasifinanenemylair;wecontemplatedarangeofpossiblepoliceresponses,fromutterindifferencetofull-scaleriot.Wesolicitedtheadviceofeveryonefrom‘60s-eraactivist-professorslikeAbePeckandBernadineDohrntofreaknikslikeEdSanders,thoughfewoftheseaginglionshadmuchtoofferbeyondbemusedencouragement. Whatfewofuspredicted,inthemidstofourfretting,wasthecoolandcontemplativeafternoonwhichultimatelyunfolded.Asmalldetailofbikepolice,havingpreemptivelybarricadedtheiconicLoganstatuefromapossiblestorm-ing,relaxedonthefarperipheryaslocalauthors,filmmak-ers,activistsandhistorianschewedoverthemeaningofthe‘68convention’slegacy,andperformersexhumedtheghostsoftheDNC’sradicalcelebrityclass,fromPhilOchsandtheMC5toBobbySealeandAllenGinsberg.Ifoundmyselfdeliveringasurprisinglymild-temperedspeechwhichcalledforthemetaphoricalsharingofblankets.Oc-casionalpotfumeswaftedacrossthecrowd,nomereprop,andbytwilight,afterseveralhoursofspeech-makingandfolksinging,theritualofmassmeditationseemedalmostcapableofreleasingusfromtheweightofthishistory.Thisreleasewassomethingofanillusion,ofcourse.Thefollowingweek,protestersattheRepublicanNationalConventioninSt.Paulwerebeingtear-gassedandarrestedbythehundreds,theirhomesandgatheringplacesraidedbyteamsfromtheDepartmentofHomelandSecurity.Thehistoricechoeswereinevitableandmaddening,theold

LiamWarfield

Reenacting '68

3 The Platypus Review

Iraq, continued from page 2

4Issue #7/ October 2008

[ThefollowingisatalkthatwasgivenattheMarxist-Hu-manistCommitteepublicforumonThe Crisis in Marx-ist Thought,hostedbythePlatypusAffiliatedSocietyinChicagoonFriday,July25,2008.]I WanT TO SPeak aBOuT themeaningofhistoryforanypurportedlyMarxianLeft. WeinPlatypusfocusonthehistoryoftheLeft becausewethinkthatthenarrativeonetellsaboutthishistoryisinfactone’stheoryofthepresent.Implicitlyorexplicitly,inone’sconceptionofthehistoryoftheLeft,isanaccountofhowthepresentcametobe.ByfocusingonthehistoryoftheLeft,or,byadoptingaLeft-centricviewofhistory,wehypothesizethatthemostimportantdeterminationsofthepresentaretheresultofwhattheLefthasdoneorfailedtodohistorically. Forthepurposesofthistalk,Iwillfocusonthebroad-estpossibleframingforsuchquestionsandproblemsofcapitalinhistory,thebroadestpossiblecontextwithinwhichIthinkoneneedstounderstandtheproblemsfacedbytheLeft,specificallybyapurportedlyMarxianLeft. Iwillnot,forexample,befocusingsomuchonissuesforPlatypusinthehistoryofthevariousphasesandstagesofcapitalitself,forinstanceourcontentionthatthe1960srepresentednotanykindofadvance,butaprofoundretrogressionontheLeft.Iwillnotelucidateouraccountofhowthepresentsuffersfromatleast3generationsofdegenerationandregressionontheLeft:thefirst,inthe1930s,beingtragic;thesecondinthe1960sbeingfarcical;andthemostrecent,inthe1990s,beingsterilizing. But,sufficeittosay,Iwillpointoutthat,forPlatypus,therecognitionofregressionandtheattempttounder-standitssignificanceandcausesisperhapsourmostimportantpointofdeparture.Thetopicofthistalkisthemostfundamentalassumptioninformingourunderstand-ingofregression. Forpurposesofbrevity,Iwillnotbecitingexplicitly,butIwishtoindicatemyindebtednessforthefollowingtreatmentofapotentialMarxianphilosophyofhistory,beyondMarxandEngelsthemselves,andRosaLuxem-burg,LeninandTrotsky,toGeorgLukács,KarlKorsch,WalterBenjamin,TheodorAdorno,and,lastbutnotleast,theMarxscholarMoishePostone.And,moreover,Iwillbeindialogue,throughthesewriters,withHegel,whodistin-guishedphilosophicalhistoryasthestoryofthedevelop-mentoffreedom.—ForHegel,historyisonlymeaningfulthedegreetowhichitisthestoryoffreedom. Capitaliscompletelyunprecedentedinthehistoryof

humanity,hence,anystruggleforemancipationbeyondcapitalisalsocompletelyunprecedented.Whilethereisaconnectionbetweentheunprecedentednatureoftheemergenceofcapitalinhistoryandthestruggletogetbeyondit,thisconnectioncanalsobehighlymisleading,leadingtoafalsesymmetrybetweenthetransitionintoandwithindifferentperiodsofthetransformationsofmod-erncapital,andapotentialtransitionbeyondcapital.TherevoltoftheThirdEstate,whichinitiatedastillon-goingandnever-to-be-exhaustedmodernhistoryofbourgeois-democraticrevolutions,isboththegroundfor,and,fromaMarxianperspective,thenowpotentiallyhistoricallyobsolescentsocialformofpoliticsfromwhichproletariansocialistpoliticsseekstodepart,togetbeyond. Hegel,asaphilosopherofthetimeofthelastofthegreatbourgeois-democraticrevolutionsmarkingtheemergenceofmoderncapital,theGreatFrenchRevolu-tionof1789,wasforthisreasonatheoristoftherevoltoftheThirdEstate.Marx,whocamelater,afterthebegin-ningoftheIndustrialRevolutionofthe19thCentury,facedproblemsHegeldidnot. Ithasoftenbeenstated,butnotfullycomprehendedbyMarxiststhatMarxrecognizedthehistoricalmissionoftheclass-consciousproletariat,toovercomecapitalismandtothusdoawaywithclasssociety.Traditionally,thismeant,howeverparadoxically,eithertheendofthepre-historyorthebeginningofthetruehistoryofhumanity.—Inasense,thisdualityofthepossibilityofanendandatruebeginning,wasaresponsetoaRightHegeliannotionofanendtohistory,whatisassumedbyapologistsforcapitalasabestofallpossibleworlds. Famously,intheCommunist Manifesto,MarxandEngelsstatedthatallhistoryhithertohasbeenthehistoryofclassstruggles;Engelsaddedacleverfootnotelaterthatspecified“allwrittenhistory.”WemightextrapolatefromthisthatwhatEngelsmeantwasthehistoryofciviliza-tion;historyasclassstruggledidnotpertain,forinstance,tohumanhistoryorsociallifepriortotheformationofclasses,thetimeofthesupposed“primitivecommunism.”Later,in1942(in“ReflectionsonClassTheory”),Adorno,followingBenjamin(inthe“ThesesonthePhilosophyofHistory,”1940),wrotethatsuchaconceptionbyMarxandEngelsofallofhistoryasthehistoryofclassstruggleswasinfactacritiqueofallofhistory,acritiqueofhistoryitself. Soinwhatwaydoesthecritiqueofhistorymatterinthecritiqueofcapital?Theproblemwiththecom-monplaceviewofcapitalismasprimarilyaproblemofexploitationisthatitisinthisdimensionthatcapitalfails

todistinguishitselffromotherformsofcivilization.Whatisnewincapitalissocialdomination,whichmustbedis-tinguishedbothlogicallyandhistorically,structurallyandempirically,fromexploitation,towhichitisnotreducible.Socialdominationmeansthedominationofsocietybycapital.Thisiswhatisnewaboutcapitalinthehistoryofcivilization;priorformsofcivilizationknewovertdomina-tionofsomesocialgroupsoverothers,butdidnotknowasMarxrecognizedincapitalasocialdynamictowhichallsocialgroups—allaspectsofsocietyasawhole—aresubject. Sowemustfirstdrawademarcationapproximately10,000yearsago,withtheoriginsofcivilizationandclasssociety,whenthegreatagriculturalrevolutionoftheNeo-lithicAgetookplace,andhumanbeingswentfrombeingnomadichunter-gathererstobecomingsettledagricul-turalists.Thepredominantmodeoflifeforhumanitywentfromthehunter-gatherertothepeasant,andwasthisformostofsubsequenthistory. Severalhundredyearsago,however,asimilarlyprofoundtransformationbegan,inwhichthepredominantmodeoflifehasgonefromagriculturalpeasanttourbanworker:wage-earner,manufacturer,andindustrialproducer. Moreproximally,withtheIndustrialRevolutioninthelate-18thtoearly-19thCenturies,certainaspectsofthis

“bourgeois”epochofcivilizationandsocietymanifestedthemselvesandthrewthishistoryoftheemergenceofmodernityintoanewlight.Ratherthanan“endofhistory”asbourgeoisthinkersuptothattimehadthought,modernsociallifeenteredintoaseverecrisisthatfundamentallyproblematizedthetransitionfrompeasant-toworker-basedsociety. WithMarxinthe19thCenturycametherealizationthatbourgeoissociety,alongwithallitscategoriesofsubjectivityincludingitsvalorizationoflabor,mightitselfbetransitional,thattheend-goalofhumanitymightnotbefoundintheproductiveindividualofbourgeoistheoryandpractice,butthatthissocietymightpointbeyonditself,towardsapotentialqualitativetransformationatleastasprofoundasthatwhichseparatedthepeasantwayoflifefromtheurban“proletarian”one,indeedatransitionmoreontheorderofprofundityoftheNeolithicRevolutioninagriculturethatendedhunter-gatherersociety10,000yearsago,moreprofoundthanthatwhichseparatedmod-ernfromtraditionalsociety. Atthesametimethatthismodern,bourgeoissocietyratchetedintohighgearbythelate-18thCentury,itenteredintocrisis,andanew,unprecedentedhistorical

phenomenonwasmanifestedinpoliticallife,the“Left.”—Whileearlierformsofpoliticscertainlydisputedvalues,thiswasnotintermsofhistorical“progress,”whichbecamethehallmarkoftheLeft. TheIndustrialRevolutionoftheearly19thCentury,theintroductionofmachineproduction,wasaccompaniedbytheoptimisticandexhilaratingsocialistutopiassug-gestedbythesenewdevelopments,pointingtofantasticalpossibilitiesexpressedintheimaginationsofFourierandSaint-Simon,amongothers. Marxregardedthesocietyof“bourgeoisright”and

“privateproperty”asindeedalreadyrestingonthesocialconstitutionandmediationoflabor,fromwhichprivatepropertywasderived,andaskedthequestionofwhetherthetrajectoryofthissociety,fromtherevoltoftheThirdEstateandthemanufacturingerainthe18thCenturytotheIndustrialRevolutionofthe19thCentury,indicatedthepossibilityofafurtherdevelopment. Inthemidstofthedramaticsocialtransformationsofthe19thCenturyinwhichasMarxputitintheManifestothat“allthatwassolidmeltedintoair,”asearlyas1843,Marxprognosedandfacedthefuturevirtualproletarian-izationofsociety,andaskedwhetherandhowhumanityinproletarianformmightliberateitselffromthiscondition,whetherandhow,andwithwhatnecessitytheprole-tariatwould“transcend”and“abolishitself.”Asearlyasthe1844Manuscripts,Marxrecognizedthatsocialism(ofProudhonetal.)wasitselfsymptomaticofcapital:proletarianlaborwasconstitutiveofcapital,andthusitspoliticswassymptomaticofhowthesocietyconditionedbycapitalmightrevealitselfastransitional,aspointingbeyonditself.—ThiswasMarx’smostfundamentalpointofdeparture,thatproletarianizationwasasubstantialsocialproblemandnotmerelyrelativetothebourgeoisie,andthattheproletarianizationofsocietywasnottheovercom-ingofcapitalbutitsfullestrealization,andthatthis—theproletarianizedsocietyofcapital—pointedbeyonditself. Thus,withMarx,aphilosophyofthehistoryoftheLeftwasborn.ForMarxwasnotasocialistorcommunistsomuchasathinkerwhotaskedhimselfwithunderstandingthemeaningoftheemergenceofproletariansocialisminhistory.Marxwasnotsimplythebestormostconsistentorradicalsocialist,butratherthemosthistorically,andhencecritically,self-aware.By“scientific”socialism,Marxunderstoodhimselftobeelaboratingaformofknowledgeawareofitsownconditionsofpossibility. ForaHegelianandMarxianclarificationofthespeci-

ficityofthemodernproblemofsocialfreedom,however,itbecomesclearthattheLeftmustdefineitselfnotsociologically,whetherintermsofsocioeconomicclassoraprincipleofcollectivismoverindividualism,etc.,butratherasamatterofconsciousness,specificallyhistoricalconsciousness. For,startingwithMarx,itisconsciousnessofhistoryandhistoricalpotentialandpossibilities,howeverappar-entlyutopianorobscure,thatdistinguishestheLeftfromtheRight,notthestruggleagainstoppression—whichthemodernRightalsoclaims.TheRightdoesnotrepresentthepastbutrathertheforeclosingofpossibilitiesinthepresent. Forthisreason,itisimportantforustorecognizethepotentialandfactofregressionthatthepossibilitiesfortheLeftintheoryandpracticehavesufferedasaresultoftheabandonmentofhistoricalconsciousnessinfavoroftheimmediaciesofstrugglesagainstoppression. Marx’scritiqueofsymptomaticsocialism,fromProud-hon,Lassalle,Bakunin,etal.,tohisownfollowersinthenewGermanSocial-DemocraticPartyandtheirprogramatGotha(aswellasinEngels’ssubsequentcritiqueoftheErfurtProgramme),wasaimedatmaintainingtheMarx-ianvisioncorrespondingtothehorizonofpossibilityofpost-capitalistandpost-proletariansociety. Unfortunately,beginninginMarx’sownlifetime,theformofpoliticshesoughttoinspirebegantofallwellbelowthethresholdofthiscriticallyimportantconscious-nessofhistory.Andthevastmajorityofthisregressionhastakenplacepreciselyinthenameof“Marxism.”Through-outthehistoryofMarxism,fromthedisputeswiththeanarchistsinthe1stInternationalWorkingmen’sAssocia-tion,anddisputesinthe2ndSocialistInternational,tothesubsequentsplitsintheMarxistworkers’movementwiththeBolshevik-ledThird,CommunistInternationalandTrotskyistFourthInternational,asometimesheroicbut,inretrospect,overwhelminglytragicstruggletopreserveorrecoversomethingoftheinitialMarxianpointofdepartureformodernproletariansocialismtookplace. Inthelatterhalfofthe20thCentury,developmentsre-gressedsofarbehindtheoriginalMarxianself-conscious-nessthatMarxismitselfbecameanaffirmativeideologyofindustrialsociety,andthethresholdofpost-capitalistsocietybecameobscured,findingexpressiononlyobtusely,invariousrecrudescentutopianideologies,and,finally,inthemostrecentperiod,withthehegemonyof“anarchist”ideologiesandRomanticrejectionsofmodernity. But,beyondthiscrisisandpassageintooblivionofaspecificallyMarxianapproach,the“Left”itself,whichemergedpriortoHegelandMarx’sattemptstophiloso-phizeitshistoricalsignificance,hasvirtuallydisappeared.Thepresentinabilitytodistinguishconservative-reaction-aryfromprogressive-emancipatoryresponsestotheprob-lemsofsocietyconditionedbycapital,isinseparablefromthedeclineanddisappearanceofthesocialmovementofproletariansocialismforwhichMarxhadsoughttopro-videamoreadequateandprovocativeself-consciousness

atthetimeofitsemergenceinthe19thCentury. Paradoxically,asLukács,followingLuxemburgandLenin,alreadypointedout,almostacenturyago,whiletheapparentpossibilityofovercomingcapitalapproachesincertainrespects,inanothersenseitseemstoretreatinfinitelybeyondthehorizonofpossibility.CanwefollowLuxemburg’searlyrecognitionoftheopportunismthatalwaysthreatensus,notassomekindofselling-outorfallingfromgrace,butratherthemanifestationoftheveryrealfearthatattendsthedawningawarenessofwhatgraverisksareentailedintryingtofundamentallymovetheworldbeyondcapital? What’sworse—and,inthepresent,priortoanydangerof“opportunism”—withtheextremecoarseningifnotut-terdisintegrationoftheabilitytoapprehendandtrans-formcapitalthroughworking-classpolitics,hascomethecoarseningofourabilitytoevenrecognizeandapprehend,letaloneadequatelyunderstandoursocialreality.Wedonotsuffersimplyfromopportunismbutfromarathermorebasicdisorientation.Todaywearefacedwiththeproblemnotofchangingtheworldbutmorefundamen-tallyofunderstandingit. Ontheotherhand,approachMarxiansocialism,arewedealingwitha“utopia?”—And,ifso,whatofthis?Whatisthesignificanceofour“utopian”senseofhumanpotentialbeyondcapitalandproletarianlabor?Isitameredream? Marxbeganwithutopiansocialismandendedwiththemostinfluentialifspectacularlyfailingmodernpoliticalideology,“scientificsocialism.”Atthesametime,Marxgaveusanacuteandincisivecriticalframeworkforgrasp-ingthereasonswhythelast200yearshavebeen,byfar,themosttumultuouslytransformativebutalsodestructiveepochofhumancivilization,whythisperiodhaspromisedsomuchandyetdisappointedsobitterly.Thelast200yearshaveseenmore,andmoreprofoundchanges,thanpriormillenniahave.Marxattemptedtograspthereasonsforthis.Othershavefailedtoseethedifferenceandhavetriedtore-assimilatemodernhistorybackintoitsantecedents(forinstance,inpostmodernistillusionsofanendlessmedievalism:seeBrunoLatour’s1993bookWe have never been modern). WhatwoulditmeantotreattheentireMarxianprojectas,firstandforemost,arecognitionofthehistoryofmodernitytout courtasoneofthepathology of transition,fromtheclasssocietythatemergedwiththeagriculturalrevolution10,000yearsagoandthecivilizationsbasedonanessentiallypeasantwayoflife,throughtheemergenceofthecommodityformofsocialmediation,tothepresentglobalcivilizationdominatedbycapital,towardsaformofhumanitythatmightliebeyondthis? WithMarxwearefacedwithaself-consciousnessofanobscureandmysterioushistoricaltask,whichcanonlybefurtherclarifiedtheoreticallythroughtransformativepractice—thepracticeofproletariansocialism.Butthistaskhasbeenabandonedinfavorofwhatareessentiallycapital-reconstitutingstruggles,attemptingtocopewiththevicissitudesofthedynamicsofmodernhistory.But

capital in historyThe need for a Marxian philosophy of history of the Left

ChrisCutrone

thehistoryofBaathism).Incomparisonwithsuchevasionofresponsibility,theBushadministration’sinvasionandoccupationofIraqwasaneminentlyresponsibleact.TheywerewillingtostakethemselvesinawaytheDemocratsandtheEuropeansandotherswerenot—andthe“Left”could not.The“success”oftheBushpolicyamountstoitsabilitytocastallalternativesintomoreorlessimpotentposturing.AttributingmotivesforthewartoAmericanprofiteeringistomistakeeffectforcause.ComplainingaboutthefactthatAmericancompanieshaveprofitedfromthewaristoimpotentlyprotestagainsttheworldasitis,forsomeonewasgoingtoprofitfromit—woulditbebetterifFrench,JapaneseorSaudifirmsdidso? ThattheU.S.governmentunderBushbrokedeco-rumandmadethegestureofinvadingIraq“unilaterally”withoutU.N.SecurityCouncilapprovalsaysnothingtothefactthatIraqwaslikelytobeinvadedandoccupied(by

“armedinspectionteams”supportedbytensofthousandsof“international”troops,etc.)inanycase.DiditreallymatterwhethertheU.S.hadtheU.N.figleafcoveringtheuglinessofitsmilitaryinstrument?Itwasonlyamatterofwhenandhowitwasgoingtobeputtouse,inmanagingtheinternationalproblemtheIraqistatehadbecome.Nooneamongtheinternationalpowers-that-be,includingthemost“rogue”elementsoftheglobalorder(Russia,China,Iran,etal.)hadanyfirminterestinrestoringtoSaddam’sBaathiststhestatus quo frombefore1990and,needlesstosay,notonlytheU.S.andBritain,butalso

SaudiArabiaandIran,andmostespeciallytheIraqiKurdsandShia,werenotabouttoletthathappen.Saddamwasonthewayout.Itwasonlyamatterofhow. Alltherhetoricaboutthe“overreach”and“hubris”ofU.S.policyinIraqsaysnothingtothefactthatacross-roadstherewasbeingreached—thiswasalreadytrueun-derClinton.Allthebombastaboutthe“illegal”—oreven

“criminal”—characteroftheU.S.invasionandoccupationofIraqneglectsthesimplefactthattheU.S.occupationwasauthorizedbytheU.N.WhenDemocratsimpugnthe“crusading”motivesoftheBushadministrationwithsophistryaboutthesupposedfollyoftryingtospread

“democracy”inIraqandthegreaterMiddleEast,isthisa“progressive”argument,oraconservativeone? NotonlytheDemocrats’butthe“Left’s”oppositiontotheIraqwarhasinfactbeenfromtheRight.ThisisrevealedmostperverselybythehistoryoftheIraqpolicyrecommendationsofJoeBiden,whohasbeentoutedbytheObamacampaignasbringing“foreignpolicycreden-tials”totheirticketascandidateforVicePresident.Bidenonceadvocatedabreak-upofIraqintoseparateShia,SunniandKurdishstates,duringtheheightoftheSunniinsurgency,whichwouldhavepunishedtheSunnibyleavingthemwithoutaccesstoIraq’soilwealth(whichisconcentratedintheKurdishandShiiteareasofKirkukandBasra).Wouldpursuitofsuchanethno-sectariandivisionofIraqhavebeena“progressive”outcomeforfurther-ingthe“democraticself-determination”ofthepeoplesofIraq?—Incomparisonwiththe20%troop“surge”thathasinfact,asevenObamahasputit,“succeededbeyondourwildestdreams.”Ormightweseeinsuchapparently

“extreme”policyalternativesasBiden’sadeeperunderly-ingfact,thatfromthestandpointofnotonlyU.S.“imperial”interestsbutthoseoftheglobalorder,itdoesn’tmakemuchdifferenceifIraqremainsasingleorisbrokenupintomultiplestates,whetheritisruledbysecularortheo-craticregimes,orwhetheritsgovernmentis“democratic”ordictatorial,whetheritscivilsocietyis“liberal”ornot.But,presumably,thismattersagreatdealtotheIraqis! NoneoftheposedalternativesregardingIraq—notbefore,duringorsincetheinvasionandoccupation—canbeascribedtobeinginherentlyinserviceoforopposedtotheon-goingrealitiesofU.S.power(“imperialism”),ortheinterestsofglobalcapitalism,becauseallofthemarecompatiblewiththese.Rather,thepolicyalternativesareallmattersofopportunisticorientationtoanunderlyingrealitythatisnotbeingsubstantiallychallengedorevenrecognizedpoliticallybyanyoftheactorsinvolved,greatorsmall,onthe“Right”or“Left,”fromal-Qaedatotheneoconservatives,or“libertarians”likeRonPaul,fromBushtothePresidentoftheIranianIslamicRepublicAhmadinejad,andRepublicansandDemocratsfromMc-CaintoObama,or“independents”andtheGreenParty’scandidatesCynthiaMcKinneyandRalphNader,tothefar-

“Left”of“anarchists”andotherantinomianslikewritersfor CounterpunchandtheChomskyans,etal.atZmagazine,orthe“anti-war”protestcoalitionsledby“Marxist”groups

suchastheInternationalSocialistOrganization(UnitedforPeaceandJusticecoalition,CampusAnti-warNetwork),WorkersWorldParty(ANSWERcoalition),ortheRevolu-tionaryCommunistParty(WorldCan’tWaitcoalition). Allofthesupposed“anti-imperialists”—fromIraqpoli-cydissidentRepublicanslikeSenatorChuckHagel,tothemostintransigent“Marxists”liketheSpartacistLeague—havefailedtobetrulyanti-“imperialist”intheirapproachtoIraq,norcouldtheybe,fornonecouldhavepossiblychallengedthefundamentalconditionsofU.S.poweringlobalcapital.Thereisnopoliticsofanti-imperialism,fornooneaskspoliticallywhetherandwhatitmeanstosaythattheU.S.couldbemoreorless“imperialist,”whethertheworldordercandowithouttheU.S.actingasglobalcop—asking,who,forinstance,wouldplaythisneverthe-lessnecessaryroleintheabsenceoftheU.S.?Forthereisnoone.Andnopurported“Left”shouldwant“openings”fortheirownsakeintheglobalorder—asifany“cracks”inthe“system”won’tbetheholesintowhichtheworld’smostabjectwillbeimmediatelyswallowed,withoutinanywaysparingthenextbatchofvictimsinthetrain-wreckofhistory. Thefundamentalinabilityofanyoneonthe“Left”totakeameaningfullyalternativepositiononIraq,beyondhoping(vainly)forthe“defeat”ofor“resistance”toU.S.policy,andthusimmediatelyjoiningtheopportunismofthepoliticsoftheDemocrats,dissidentRepublicans,andEuropeanandotherstatesmen,shouldserveasawarningaboutthedirepoliticalstateoftheworldanditspossibili-tiestoday.Accusationsmightflyaboutwhomaymoreorlesstacitly“support”“U.S.imperialism,”butthereissuchathingasprotestingtoomuch,especiallywhenitmustbeadmittedthatnothing can be donerightnowtoalterthegivenglobalpoliticalandsocialrealitiesinaprogressive-emancipatorymanner.If,asAdolphReedputit,theU.S.remainsa“scourgeontheEarth,”isthealternativeonlytoimpotentlydenouncethisandnottrytoproperlyunder-standit—andunderstandwhatitwouldmeantopreparetobegintomeaningfullychallengeandovercomethis? Asappallingasitmightbetorecognize,McCaininhisRepublicanNationalConventionspeechwasactuallymoretruthfulandstraightforwardthanObamawhenhepointedoutthathehasstoodconsistentlybehindwhathasprovedtobeasuccessfulpolicyinIraq.Obamanowmustdissembleontheissue. Ontheotherhand,theessenceofObama’scandidacycanbeseeninthefigureofSamanthaPower,whowassackedfromhisprimarycampaignaftersaying,correctly,thatHillaryClintonwasa“monster”whowould“sayany-thing”togetelected.Powerisaliberalpromoterof“hu-manrights”militaryinterventionism,andbeganworkingasasenioradvisorforObamaimmediatelyafterhewaselectedtotheU.S.Senate.PowerisarepresentativeofObama’sversionofthehistoricalprecedentofJFK’steamof“thebestandthebrightest”suchasRobertMcNamara.Infact,Obama’scandidacyhasbeeninitsoriginsmuchmoreabout“foreign”than“domestic”policy,andmore

thanwillbeapparentnowthatIraqhasbeenneutralizedasthemainissueintheelection.Obama,nolessthanMc-Cain,iscampaigningfortheofficenotonlyofthe“topcop”oftheU.S.,butoftheworld.Obama’scampaignisovereffectivepolicyforthisrole,nottheroleitself. The“Left”isnowupinarmsinthefaceofObama’scandidacybecausehiscampaignexplicitlyaimstorefur-bishtheU.S.government’scapacitytoplaythisrole,andperhapseveninexpandedways,asU.S.powerwouldbeequippedtoadvancetheliberalcauseof“humanrights”internationallymoreidealisticallyandlesscynicallythanunderBushorClinton. ButthisraisestheissueofhowtounderstandtheU.S.’sroleintheworld.OnlyatitsperildoestheLefttreattheexplicitWilsoniandoctrinethathasessentiallyunderwrittenU.S.policyandpoweraftertheFirstWorldWarashypocriticalorcynical,fortheprojectoftheU.S.asthecentral,without-peerhegemonicpowerofglobalcapitalisoneinwhichallstatesinternationallyparticipate(throughtheU.N.,theinternationaltreatyorganizationofU.S.power),onlytoagreaterorlesserextent.Maintainingthe“peaceful”conditionsofcapitalhasandwillcontinuetoproveabloodybusinessatglobalscale.AsmuchasonemightwishotherwiseorsimplyregrettheonusofU.S.power,realitymustbefaced. ThehyperbolearoundIraqinmainstreampoliticsisbestillustratedbythatfavoredword,“quagmire.”Butbehindthishasbeenhysteria,notreason.Feelinginone’sstepthepullofsomegumonthepavementisnotthethreatofsinkingintoquicksand!TheIraqi“insurgents”knewbetterthantheirapologistsandcynicalanti-Bushwell-wishersamongtheDemocratsandEuropeanandotherpowers—andtheiropencheerleadersonthe“Left”

—thattheywerenotsointransigent,notsowillingtodietoalastmanintheir“opposition”totheU.S.anditspolicies,butonlywishedtodriveaharderbargainatthenegotiat-ingtablewiththeU.S.anditsalliesinIraq—andnowtheyarethemselvesbecomingalliesoftheIraqigovernmentandtheU.S. Currently,itmightstillremainunclearwhetherthecombinedactionsandapparentattenuationoftheIraqiinsurgents/militiasandthestruggleamongtherulingandoppositionalpartiesoftheIraqigovernmentand,behindthem,theirforeignbackersinSaudiArabiaandIran,andtheapparentdisarrayoftheregimeoftheIranianIslamicRepublicinitsnuclearstandoffwiththeU.S.andEuropeanpowers,amounttoatemporarysituationborneofasharedwishtoridetheObamatrain(ormerelythepotentialforchangeinherentintheelectioncycle)intoabetterbargainingpositionregardingU.S.policyandsonottospoiltheU.S.electionandbringthesupposedlymorebellicoseJohnMcCaintopowerthroughthefearoftheAmericanpublic,orwhetherthey’vegivenupthebloodygameofjockeyingforinfluenceinIraqbecausethey’vealreadyspentwhatchipstheyhadinthelast5years. Inanycase,asfarastheelectionisconcerned,Obama

hasplayedastrategyinhiscampaignfromwhichanypur-ported“Left”mustlearnpolitically:thatitisnotagoodideatobankaheadoftimeonthedefeatofone’soppo-nents.Obama’scampaignisinmoretroublethanitmighthavebeenbecauseithaslostitssignalissuewithwhichtoprosecutetheRepublicanswiththeBushadministra-tion,a“losing”warinIraq.Obamacanbeelecteddespitethis,andfudgetheissueofthewarand“opposition”toitaspolicy. Butthe“Left”remainsinasimilarbutinfactmuchworsepredicament.The“Left”neveraskedtheburningquestion:WhatiftheBushpolicy“succeeds?”ThenwhatwillbethebasisforoppositiontoU.S.“imperialism?” IraqisnothinglikeVietnam,despitethewishesofthe

“Left”tohavehistoryrepeatitself.IfIraqdoesnot,asitappearsitwillnot,fallapartordragoninendlessslaugh-ter,butcontinuestostabilize,anddoesnotgiveupsov-ereigntyoveritsoilresources,etc.,butsimplyallowstheU.S.someminimalmilitarypresencethroughitsembassythere,andcontinuestoworkwiththeU.S.againstgroupslikeal-Qaeda,Iran’sRevolutionaryGuards,Hezbollah,theKurdishPKKguerillasinTurkey,andwillinglysideswiththeU.S.,asitwillinevitably,inanypotentialfuturewarsagainstIranorSyria,etc.,willthismeanthattheU.S.in-vasionandoccupationdiminishedIraqi“sovereignty”andsowasaphenomenonofU.S.“imperialism?”WhatwillbetheaccountofIraqimotivesinthearrangementachievedbyU.S.intervention,asmerestoogesfortheU.S.? Andwon’tthismeantakingamuchcoarserandnar-rower-mindedviewoftheactualconcretepoliticsofIraqandtheMiddleEastthanthoseevincedbyObama,McCainand(even)Bush,soeffectivelydisqualifyingthe“Left”asbeinginanywaycompetenttocomment,letalonecritiqueorofferpoliticalalternatives? Whatwillremainthebasisforthe“Left’s”oppositiontoU.S.policyinaworldMcCainorObamawouldmakeafterBush—afterBlackwater,etal.quittheIraqiscene,astheyalreadyaredoing,andnotthroughdefeatbutsuccess,andnotwithoutsomeselectivehigh-profile(ifbecomelessinteresting)investigationsandprosecutionsof“warcrimes”byAmericans,nowthattheU.S.canaf-fordthem? HowwillU.S.powerintheworldbeunderstood,andwhatcritiqueandvisionofthefuturewillbeposedinthefaceofitsundiminishedcapacities?|P

History, continued from page 3

"History" continues on page 4

"Iraq" continues on page 4

Iraq, continued from page 3

Finance, continued from page 1

sector).Polanyi,forinstance,complainedthatcapitalismcommodifiedthreethingsthatsupposedlycannotbecom-modities,labor,landandmoneyitself.Insuchaone-sidedoppositiontocapital,Polanyineglectedtorealizethatwhatmakesmodernsocietywhatitis,whatdistinguishesmoderncapitalismfromearlierpre-modernformsofcapital,isthatitpreciselyentailssubjectingthesesuppos-edlynot“commodifiable”thingstothecommodityform.Moderncapitalispreciselyabouttheradicalrevolution-izingofhowwerelatetoformsofsocialintercourse,labor,andnature. Sonooneshouldbefooledintothinkingthatsuppos-edlybetterformsofpoliticallymanaging(e.g.,undertheDemocrats)thesocialinvestmentin,andthuspreservingthe“value”andpromotingtheimprovementofmate-rialproduction,infrastructure,orformsofknowledgerepresentsanykindofsure“progress.”—Nooneshouldmistakeforevenamomentthatsucheffortswillnotbeawindfallandliningthepocketsofthecapitalists(on“MainStreet”)throughupwardincome-redistributionschemesanylessthan“bailingout”WallStreetwillbe. ThepresentlybemoanedderegulationoffinancialinstitutionsthatoccurredunderBillClintoninthe1990swasnotmeant(merely)toenrichtherichfurther,buttoopenthewayfornewformsofeconomicandsocialrela-tions,bothlocallyandglobally.Such“neo-liberal”reformsweremeanttoovercome,inMiltonFriedman’sphrase,the

“tyrannyofthestatusquo”—asentimentanyemancipatoryLeftoughtnottoregardwithexcessivecynicism.Fortheneo-liberalsfoundahearingnotonlyamongthewealthy,butalsoamongmanyleftoutofthepriorKeynesian/Ford-istarrangements—see,forinstance,the2006NobelPeacePrizewinnerMuhammadYunus’ssocialactivistworkin“microfinance”inBangladesh. AMarxianapproachtotheproblemofcapital,asLukácswarnedwithhisconceptof“reification,”recog-nizesthat“labor”anditsformsof“production”arenoless“reified”and“ideological”intheirpracticesundercapital,noless“unreal”andsubjecttode-realization,withdestructivesocialconsequences,thanaretheformsof

“exchange,”monetizationandfinance. AnauthenticallyMarxianLeftshouldtakenosideinthepresentdebatesoverthemeritsandpitfallsofthe“bailout”ofthefinancialsystem.Onecanandshouldcritiquethis,ofcourse,butnonethelessremainawarethatthisisnosimplematterofopposingit.Thissideofrevolutionaryemancipationbeyondcapital,aMarxianpoliticswoulddemandtobetterfinancecapitalnolessthantosupportlabor.Financecapitalisnolesslegiti-mateifalsonolesssymptomaticofcapitalthananyotherphenomenonofmodernlife.Soitdeservesnottobevili-fiedordenouncedbutunderstoodasawayhumanityhastriedauthenticallytocopewiththecreativedestructionofcapitalinmodernsociallife.|P

thisre-assimilationofMarxismbackintoideologychar-acteristicoftherevoltoftheThirdEstatemeansthelossofthetruehorizonofpossibilitythatmotivatedMarxandgavehisprojectmeaningandurgency. CanwefollowMarxandthebesthistoricallyrevo-lutionaryMarxistswhofollowedhiminrecognizingtheformsofdiscontentinthepathologicalsocietyweinhabitasbeingthemselvessymptomaticofandboundupwiththeveryproblemagainstwhichtheyrage?Canweavoidtheprematurepost-capitalismandbad,reactionaryutopianismthatattendsthepresentdeathoftheLeftintheoryinpractice,andpreserveandfulfillthetasksgiventousbyhistory?Canwerecognizethebreadthanddepthoftheproblemweseektoovercomewithoutretreatingintowishfulthinkingandideologicalgracingoftheac-complishedfact,andapologizingforimpulsesthatonlyseemdirectedagainstit,attheexpenseofwhatmightliebeyondthetrapsofthesufferingofthepresent? Weurgentlyneedanacuteawarenessofourhistori-calepochaswellasofourfleetingmomentnow,withinit.—WemustaskwhatitisaboutthepresentmomentthatmightmakethepossibilityofrecoveringaMarxiansocialandpoliticalconsciousnessviable,andhowwecanadvanceitbywayofrecoveringit. Forthepathologyofourmodernsocietymediatedbycapital,oftheproletarianformofsociallifeanditsself-objectifications,thenewformsofhumanityitmakespossible,whicharecompletelyunprecedentedinhistory,growsonlyworsethelongerdelayedistakingthepossibleandnecessarystepstothenextlevelsofthestruggleforfreedom. Thepathologygrowsworse,notmerelyintermsofthevariousformsofthedestructionofhumanity,whicharedaunting,butalso,perhapsmoreimportantly—anddisturbingly—inthemanifestworseningsocialconditionsandcapacitiesforpracticalpoliticsontheLeft,andourworseningtheoreticalawarenessofthem.IftherehasbeenacrisisandevacuationofMarxianthought,ithasbeenbe-causeitsmostfundamentalcontextandpointofdeparture,itsawarenessofitsgreaterhistoricalmoment,thepossibil-ityofanepochaltransition,hasbeenforgotten,whilewehavenotceasedtosharethismoment,butonlylostsightofitsnecessitiesandpossibilities.Anyfutureemancipa-torypoliticsmustregainsuchawarenessofthetransitionalnatureofcapitalistmodernityandofthereasonswhywepaysuchasteeppriceforfailingtorecognizethis.|P

stalematesoclearlystillatwork.Itwasdifficulttoreconcilewhatwe’daccomplished—littlemoreorlessthanabeau-tifulandthought-provokingafternooninthepark—withtheuglyechoesof‘68emanatingfromtheTwinCities.Ifourreenactment,unpermittedandinherentlyanti-authoritar-ian,wasamodestexerciseindiscoveringwhatwecouldgetawaywithinthepublicsphere,newsfromSt.Paulcameasasternreminderofwhatwecouldn’tgetawaywith.AshadycornerofGrantParkonalate-summerevening,they’dgiveusthat,buttoagitateoutsideofanactualpoliticalconven-tion,withallofthosetelevisioncamerasonhand,wouldproveasunfeasiblein2008asitwas40yearsago.Protest-ersinSt.Paulwerebeingsummarilytear-gassedandjailedenmasse,held(unconstitutionally)forthedurationoftheconventionweektoprecludefurtherdisruption.Itwassoberingtospeculatethatlawenforcementmighthavelearnedmoreaboutstiflingdissent,overthelast40years,thandemonstratorshadlearnedaboutcultivatingit. Wewereaskedseveraltimes,inthecourseofplanningtheevent,whetheritmightleadtosimilarhistoricalreenact-mentsinthefuture.Itwasanunderstandablequestiontobeaskedbyjournalists,butitmissesthepoint.Thelastthingwewanted,thoughwehadacuriouswayofshowingit,wastoloseourselvesinyesterday’snear-revolutionarymo-ments,tofetishizeorserializethemfortheirownsake.Weweremoreinterestedincomprehendingtheirshortcomings;thefactthatthe‘68conventionwasfollowedshortlybytheelectionofRichardNixonandamarkedincreaseinpoliticalrepressionservedasaprominentfootnotetoouridyllinthepark.Theclearviewofhistorywhichwewerestrivingforwouldnotilluminate,ofitsownaccord,anypathsforward.Itmight,wehoped,fostermeaningfuldialogue.|P

The cROWd aSSemBledinashadycornerofGrantParkinthewaningafternoonhoursofAugust28mighthavebeenmistakenforextrasinapoorly-fundedperiodfilm.Withclotheslooselyevoking60’s-eraprotest,theyreclinedinthegrass,rollingcigarettes,eatingpeanut-butter-and-jellysandwiches,listeningtospeechesandgazingatthesky.Itmighthaveseemedastretchtobilltheeventasahistoricalreenactmentofthenotorious1968DemocraticNationalConventionprotests—thatlongandbloodyweekinChicagowhichhasbeendiscussedandpickedoveratlengthinthis40thanniversaryyear.TheemblemsofChicago’68—wild-eyedpoliceofficerswithnightsticks

—werenowheretobeseen.GrantParkonthatafternoonwasmoreconcernedwiththeactionaroundthecampfirethanthesavageryonthebattlefield. Itmightseempurelysemanticthatweinsistedonconsideringtheeventahistorical reenactmentratherthanacommemorationorabitoftheater,butforusthiswasanimportantdistinction.Asagroupofyoung,largelyinexperiencedactivistsitwastheonlyorganizingframe-workwecouldfindwhichemphasizedactiveparticipation.Otherformsseemedlinguisticallyandideologicallyflaccid;ofcoursewecouldobservetheanniversary,aspeoplehadbeendoingallsummer,butthisimpliedaninsufficient(andappalling)detachmentfromthesubject.Wedidn’twanttoviewourhistory—our radicalhistory—asiffromariverbank,wewantedtojumpinandsplasharoundinit. Thereenactmentofthe1968ChicagoDNCprotestswouldbeacuriousproject,difficulttoplan,theshapeofitabnormalandconstantlyshifting.Ourpurposeseemedperfectlyobviousattimes,entirelydigestible—a historical reenactment of the ’68 DNC protests, that’s all—butatothertimesitseemedtobulgesurrealisticallyinathousanddirec-tions.Wouldweaimforsomedegreeofhistoricalaccuracy,orwouldanythingfly?Wedebated,forinstance,theethicsofnominatingalivepigforthepresidency:whatshouldwefeedit,andwherewoulditstay?Whichwouldwefeedthemassesofreenactors,potatoorpastasalad?Andintheeventoftroublewiththepolice,what,amongastunningarrayofpossibletactics,mightproveourwisestcourseofaction?Weplottedandplannedoverthesummertothepointofexhaustion;theminutiaemultipliedendlessly.Andyet,whenpressedastowhywewereattemptingsuchathing,wehadnoreadyanswer.Itwassoundbite-resistant,experimental,itcalledfordeepbreathsandmeanderingexplanations. Clearlythishistoryhadnotyetbeencodified.Itcontin-uedtoelicitavarietyofinterpretations.Arecentadditiontothecollectionofbookson’68,FrankKusch’sBattleground Chicago,attemptedacop's-eyeviewoftheweek’sevent;academicsandhistorianscontinuedtotacklethesubjectfromdisparateangles,tryingtocometogripswiththisjar-ringmomentinmodernAmericanhistorywhenpowerandresistancegrappledsopubliclyandwithsomuchviolenceandfanfare.Oursubjectmatterstillwassquirming,makingitimpossibletopredictwhatshapeareenactmentmight

take.Weestimatedanattendanceofanywherefrom100to10,000people—whocouldsayhowmanyChicagoanskneworcaredenoughaboutthe‘68conventiontodevoteadayintheparktoitsexploration?—andweappliedratherblindlyforapermitfromtheParkDistrict,treadinglightlythroughtheirdowntownofficeasifinanenemylair;wecontemplatedarangeofpossiblepoliceresponses,fromutterindifferencetofull-scaleriot.Wesolicitedtheadviceofeveryonefrom‘60s-eraactivist-professorslikeAbePeckandBernadineDohrntofreaknikslikeEdSanders,thoughfewoftheseaginglionshadmuchtoofferbeyondbemusedencouragement. Whatfewofuspredicted,inthemidstofourfretting,wasthecoolandcontemplativeafternoonwhichultimatelyunfolded.Asmalldetailofbikepolice,havingpreemptivelybarricadedtheiconicLoganstatuefromapossiblestorm-ing,relaxedonthefarperipheryaslocalauthors,filmmak-ers,activistsandhistorianschewedoverthemeaningofthe‘68convention’slegacy,andperformersexhumedtheghostsoftheDNC’sradicalcelebrityclass,fromPhilOchsandtheMC5toBobbySealeandAllenGinsberg.Ifoundmyselfdeliveringasurprisinglymild-temperedspeechwhichcalledforthemetaphoricalsharingofblankets.Oc-casionalpotfumeswaftedacrossthecrowd,nomereprop,andbytwilight,afterseveralhoursofspeech-makingandfolksinging,theritualofmassmeditationseemedalmostcapableofreleasingusfromtheweightofthishistory.Thisreleasewassomethingofanillusion,ofcourse.Thefollowingweek,protestersattheRepublicanNationalConventioninSt.Paulwerebeingtear-gassedandarrestedbythehundreds,theirhomesandgatheringplacesraidedbyteamsfromtheDepartmentofHomelandSecurity.Thehistoricechoeswereinevitableandmaddening,theold

LiamWarfield

Reenacting '68