Return to the Political
"Refusal of politics, power from below, making revolution without taking power- rather than being stages of a journey, partial truths which should not be renounced, these risk becoming elements of a fossilized subculture, a repetitive rhetoric that prevents self-reflection or an exacting definition of priorities."
Lucio Magri The Tailor of Ulm NLR 51
Maybe this pressing desire for "an exacting definition of priorities" is a product of me (and Lucio) getting old fast but I grow weary of "Social Forums" and "movement of movements" and especially all this focus on sociopaths or evil.I am itching for a "program extending social ownership to all sectors of the economy, ending the distribution of profits to shareholders, and replacing the system of selling labor for wages with collective decision-making about the distribution of an organizations income." Worrying about whether George Bush has any empathy etc is exactly such an element of a "fossilized subculture", in my humble opinion. We need to focus on systems and structures, that is, questions surrounding a vibrant radical analysis for our time. Leave psychoanalysis of the Bush's to liberals. I'll pose some of those questions in the next post.
NY Times is now promoting socialism in it's Sunday article (propaganda piece). Finding "remarkable change " and an "important milestone for stability in Iraq" we meet Mr. Maliki "who is increasingly seen as a true national leader". Your shirts will be whiter and your teeth brighter! They could sell flip flops to eskimos! But the best part is this tidbit: "One young man said that even though his house was right across from a distribution center, he was not allowed to buy it there at STATE PRICES, but instead was forced to wait for a militia-affiliated distributor who sold it at a higher price."
WTF, what happened to the free market and the Amerian way of life? Our soldiers are dying for a system of "State prices"? I live next to a distribution center and I have to wait for a corporate-affiliated distributor!(who is probably a militia member!) who jacks up the price so he can buy a new Hummer. Where are my "state prices"?
"Because this is a convulsion brought by 'Anglo-Saxon' finance driven capitalism, it will have a character of it's own. Japan did not have hollowed out industries, a negative savings rate,or an infestation of untested,unpriceable structured finance."
Robin Blackburn on why the subprime crisis could be deeper than most care to admit. All these calls for regulation remind me that capitalism thrives on instability and the illusion of "reform". As the Harpeth Institute for Social Policy puts it ,"We will win battles but lose the war as long as we believe that reform of this economic system is possible. Fighting for reform is absolutely necessary but it must lead to the socialization of wealth and production for human needs." How then do we make "reform" the beginning stage of a broader agenda? What language do we use with workers and liberals?
posted by troutsky @ 9:38 AM
10 comments
10 Comments:
Trout,
It seems to me that there is a direct contradiction in this post. Starting with the quote that denounces the "refusal of politics, power from below, and making revolution without taking power," as repetitive rhetoric, you then go on to insulate reform from that criticism...
You use a quote at the end of your post to say that "reform is absolutely necessary." However, isn't it also true that "rather than being stages of a journey, [reforms] are partial truths which should [...] be renounced, [because they] risk becoming elements of a fossilized [politics], a repetitive rhetoric that prevents self-reflection or an exacting definition of priorities." If I'm desperate and dependent how, when and where will I reflect on my reality and find that exacting definition of priorities if each time I get to the point of explosion thrown a scrap of meat? Just enough to keep me strung along.
I agree with you about social forums and a lot of the rhetoric, but I think it is unfair to lump all of these ideas together. The Zapatistas are indeed making revolution without taking power. Their efforts embody self-reflection and an exacting definition of priorities. By making revolution without taking power from the Mexican government, they are empowering themselves to self-reflect, question, create and define their priorities.
More on reform later...
*that was supposed to say: "each time I get to the point of explosion [I am] thrown a scrap of meat?
"And don't you feel the same mistrust of those that engage in politics and those who, whilst not engaging in politics themselves, have others do so on their behalf? In that case, you have grasped the fact that:
a. Traditionally, politicians are regarded as the clowns of the ideological spectacle. This allows one to mistrust them whilst persisting in voting for them. Nobody ever quite escapes them for no one ever quite escapes the spectacular organizations of the old world.
b. Politics is always raison d'etat. To do away with it, one must do away with the spectacular-commodity system and its protective organ... the State.
c. There is no such thing as revolutionary parliamentarianism, just as there is not, and never has been any such thing as a revolutionary State. The only difference between parliamentary regimes and dictatorial ones lies in the magnitude of the Lie and the truthfulness of the terror.
d. Like every ideology, and every compartmentalized activity, politics recuperates radical demands only to whittle them down and turn them into their opposites. For instance, the determination to wreak some change in life becomes, once placed in the hands of the parties and unions, a simple wage demand, a demand for more leisure and other cosmetic changes to bleak subsistence which merely aggravate the disease by making it momentarily a little more comfortable.
e. The great political ideologies (nationalism, socialism, communism) have seen their charms fade in proportion as the social behavior imposed by the imperialism of commodity has multiplied "pocket ideologies." In turn, the morsels of ideology (notions about pollution, art, comfort, education, abortion) are politicized in crude amalgamations leaning towards the right or the left. All of this is only a ploy by which the individual can be diverted from the only concern he really has at heart i.e. changing his daily existence in the sense of enriching it and infecting it with passionate adventures.
f. Most of the time, everybody who sets out to fight on his own behalf winds up fighting against himself. Political action is one of the chief causes of this inversions of intentions. Only the struggle for the self-management of all in every area of our lives provides any real answer to the real wishes of each individual. that is why that struggle is neither political nor an apolitical one, but an all-embracing social one.
So you see, you are already fighting, consciously or otherwise, for a society where decision making powers are universal, where divergence between individuals and groups are thrashed out in such a way that they do not result in mutual destruction but instead complement one another to the advantage of all. There is a need for the element of play that is walled up and swallowed up by politics, to be released into an interplay of relationships between individuals and affinity groups, through the balance and harmonization of points of agreement and of difference."
--Raoul Vaneigem
I agree! But we need to distinguish between reforms from above and reforms from below. Initially, a revolution is necessary to carry out any genuine reforms.
Fo you have a web page/e mail address????/
Earl Gilman
Che Bob, let's take an example like "the health care system".If a low-payed worker is presented with a political plan to create a single payer system and he joins in the political process,ie organizing, agitating, even striking, (I consider all of this politics in the broader sense) will he become empowered and demand more or will being thrown a "scrap" simply pacify the worker and cause him to relax his demands?
I believe it depends on the effectiveness of the organization he belongs to and the degree to which it's guiding philosophy is understood and accepted by the such a"rank and file" member.
So my question to Zapatistas is : Is there a broad understanding of the changes you wish to see in individuals, in society, and throughout the globe? If you can articulate a vision to each farmer forced off his land, to each worker in a sweat shop, to the unemployed and marginalized and alienated then a politics to express that vision can win the day, and do it democratically (maybe a parliment, maybe councils, maybe a congress)despite the spectacular nature of modern "praxis". I disagree that it is inescapable or that politics are unrecoverable from their current state. If the "imperialism of the commodity" has hollowed out the politics of ideology, is that not then exactly the point of attack rather than abandoning politics altogether? With the State (government?) smashed into fragments (or dissolved? vanished?)by what new process do the antagonistic elements of society express their interests?
The "self-management of all" is fine until interests come into conflict (what he calls "thrashing out") What is described then is in fact politics (exacting definition!)so why use " a playful, all embracing social struggle" ?
Im just suggesting we disengage authentic politics from the spectacle of politics. In the same way we wish to resucitate (recuperate?)democracy from the spectacular democracy.
The reform question requires some "exacting definitions" and the Wobs need to work on their platform.
Troutsky
What do you seriously know about work? Last I checked you are a Trout guide and the Trout do all the hard work.
No Trout should have to die to fill
your mercenary needs. A Trout is a noble animal and should not have to die for the avarice of a lower life form, Communists.
I guess all the refugees from Hugo's mad house all tell the same exact lies to me. Last I checked engineers, doctors and small store owners work for a living. How is it every time you fundamentalist Marxist dimwits build a workers paradise the actual workers form a Conga line to depart.
Let me know when you lunatics for a new Abraham Lincoln Brigade and defend Hugo's right to meglomania with your worthless lives.
SAVE THE TROUT STARVE THE EXPLOITER
OF OUR NATURAL RESOURCES. EVEN TROUT HAVE MORE BRAINS THAN COMMUNISTS.
Beak, I will admit to being outwitted by trout on more than a couple of occasions.And we release them.This "conga line", do you see it when you close your eyes or does it appear in daylight?
Troutsky
The Conga line can be viewed at any
immigration office and is quite real.Obviously, all the Venezuelans in my office just happen to tell identical lies.
Funny, I see plenty of people from Colombia and they never say a bad word about the government. They have a lot of bad things to say about the folks at FARC and commies.
I am glad your exploitation of Trout is limited to catch and release. Sadly, this is similar to our insane policy with Cubans who are fleeing Marxist malfeasance and get released only if they make it to dry land.
Commies are herd animals and need more structured environments. They
are more apt to be happy in insane asylums, prisons or combinations of the two concepts such as North Korea.
ALL HAIL CHE SPONGE BOB. CHE SPONGE
BOB IS SMARTER THAN SPONGE BOB SQUARE PANTS. WHO NEEDS GOD WHEN WE
CAN ALL FOLLOW CHE SPONGE BOB.
Note to Renegade Eye
If you are going to be a pox on humanity at least have the decency
to be macho campy like Che Bob. There is nothing worse than a communist who cries victim 24/7
That's right your infringing on the Beaks Psycho-stinian territory.
Trout,
I think one of the most fundamental ways you and I disagree is that parliamentarianism can ever be "recuperated." I disagree, because I do not think it is possible for a parliamentary system to ever be revolutionary. There are zero historical examples to which anyone can ever point. There is a reason for this: their structure is inherently hierarchical.
Attempts to achieve a revolutionary society through such a system is therefore inherently blocked. Achieving revolution must therefore come through the complete abolition of the commodity-spectacle system and its protectorate: the State. I think you maintain some hope that a state can be revolutionary, when I believe it cannot. A system can be revolutionary. We can organize ourselves along radical, revolutionary lines, but not into a unifying State.
Just have a look at the following definition of State: "A state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area. These may be nation states, sub-national states or multinational states. A state usually includes the set of institutions that claim the authority to make the rules that govern the exercise of coercive violence for the people of the society in that territory, though its status as a state often depends in part on being recognized by a number of other states as having internal and external sovereignty over it. In sociology, the state is normally identified with these institutions: in Max Weber's influential definition, it is that organization that "(successfully) claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory," which may include the armed forces, civil service or state bureaucracy, courts, and police."
And, partial attempts to eradicate the commodity-spectacle system and its State inevitably result in the reproduction of the very system. So, what do we do when competing demands arise? Well, that depends on the structure which is in place. I believe the structure I would advocate would be a radical departure from a State. The more equally distributed power is to the most local level, and the more horizontal the democratic structure, the less likely the domination of one group over another. Please look at the Zapatista's political structure...it goes hand-in-hand with the equal distribution of power to the most individual level.
That said, I've recently discussed the process by which people begin to appreciate radical social and cultural theories with our dear friend Sam. He talked about his own progression to that place through protest, education, CAJA, etc., etc. This assumes "the effectiveness of the organization he belongs to and the degree to which it's guiding philosophy is understood and accepted by the such a"rank and file" member." To me, that is a huge assumption!
Most people prefer the least risky, least sacrificial progression. As my Sandanista friend once told we Cajistas, "you aren't serious, when you're serious you'll pick up a gun." This can be taken metaphorically, although he likely meant it as such.
I guess what is most shocking about your position is the very real and current example of Obamania and/or Pelosi who have thoroughly derailed any potential for change. You could even argue that a movement for a third-party system reform would help people along in the progression, but look at Uruguay.
On the other hand, the Zapatistas and the Piqueteros, MTD (unemployed workers movement), the worker-recuperated factory movement, etc.--which are all very "political"--have avoided the political system and led to tangible, revolutionary change in the lives of its participants. And they have taken, and continue to take, genuine risks in order to achieve the "power-to" shape their own lives. These movements are keenly aware of the need to reflect, articulate and then practice their theories. However, rather than articulate to every farmer, peasant, worker, etc. what to think, they are asking questions, and demonstrating instead a need to think/reflect/act (walk/questioning).
Ideology does not need to be hollowed out by the imperialism of the commodity. Ideology is hollow by definition. I prefer a different definition of ideology. Ideology is falsehood. Ideology is a departure or hollowing out of radical theory. Ideology is a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of society.
Therefore, I agree with Vaneigem that ideology is falsehood. The Zapatistas, and the other movements I mentioned are distinguished from spectacular politics by their refusal to prescribe a set of ideas for others. They invite participation in the questioning/praxis approach for social construction (politics). They aren't articulating anything for anyone else, but instead for themselves. When outside their own sphere they listen. They ask what they can do for those they are visiting. Central to their politics is the horizontal/equal distribution of power and an end to the dominion of human over human and human over environment.
It was the parallel nature of the IWW that attracted me to them in the first place. We need to take an IWW delegation to Chiapas!
Post a Comment
<< Home